Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThomasK/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] ThomasK

final (7/15/1) ending 16:35 30 July 2005 (UTC)

May I nominate myself: First offical edit at 09:35, July 15, 2004, this was a few thousand edits ago. I participate in vfd , revert a lot of vandalism, and did not fight an edit war, but solve it. Of course I use edit summaries. I prefer correctness and NPOV in the articles. --ThomasK 16:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Final word by the candidate: Alright, the nomination failed. But that some people accused me of insulting or attacked somebody is wrong.I did not do that.

Also it is funny, how the self-designated yo-yo smoody, changed always his/her/it opinion. Oppose,Support,Oppose, Support, Oppose and so on.

His. [[smoddy]] 12:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support # As the nominator. ThomasK

1. Deryck C. 08:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC). Wikipedia is, as specified on "What wikipedia is not", an encyclopedia, and not a battlefield. Therefore the lacking number in wikipedia and user namespace edits should not affect his nomination for admin status.
2. Support Indeed, long history and good edits.--StefanA 10:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Support This user has experience, certainly he will be doing a good job.--ATM 02:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

   I have reconsidered. My only criterion for adminship is that I believe the user to be acting in good faith. I feel that Thomas is editing in good faith. My concern about self-voting stands. [[smoddy]] 09:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

4. Geni 12:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Good user, he will make the job. --Thekey 19:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Support He does good work, very good edits. --AFS 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Well,he now archived his talk page. Also he has many useful edits. E.g reverts vandalism and contributes in many votes. --MGLCM 08:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. He has a nice number of total edits, has been here a decently long time, and seems to be a good vandalism-fighter on articles that really need it, but I'd like to see more edits in the Wikipedia and User talk namespaces (he only has 42 edits in WP: and 26 in User talk: ). Vandals who come by here do need to be warned about their vandalism on their user talk pages, and the Wikipedia: namespace has a lot of important admin pages, such as WP:VfD, WP:VIP, etc. --Idont Havaname 18:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose for lack of experience. Despite his claims, his edit history shows no recent participation in VFD and only incidental vandalism reverts. Good user, but no reason to adminify. Radiant_>|< 19:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
3. ThomasK, you have not enough experience on janitorial tasks such as VFD, TFD, CFD, etc. Also you need to post more messages on various talk and discussion pages so we can get a better feel of how you interact with other users. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose, as insufficient participation in admin-like tasks of WP, much as earlier voters have pointed out. Spend some time on RC patrol and interact with some users a bit (RC patrol will soon bring that...). Also, 1200 edits in a year is rather few; the last 1000 of those go back over 7 months. Those edits are good, of course, but needs more interaction with the community at large for a while. -Splash 16:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

   I can't support someone who doesn't understand Wiki procedure enough to know that you don't support yourself. I don't see enough admin-related stuff, or enough edits to override this. [[smoddy]] 09:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

   Well, let me say that actually it is my democratic right to self-vote. Secondly, I understand the Wiki procedure. Could you please specify in your opinion the "admin-related stuff" ? --ThomasK 09:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

   I'm not even going to get into that first debate. As to the second, I mean stuff such as reverting vandalism (I count around eight such edits in the last 500), and work on VfD (3 in the last 500). Sorry, but this exchange has convinced me further as well. [[smoddy]] 09:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

   If you count more carefully,then you see there are much more of such edits. However, I accept your decision.--ThomasK 09:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose, still needs experience and more interaction with other editors. Self-vote and rationale for it makes me slightly cautious, as well. --Sn0wflake 15:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose - doesn't use talk pages very much, and blanks his own. CDThieme 18:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

   As I said, the issues there were solved and will be solved within a few days.If requested I leave the message on my talk page.--ThomasK 19:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

7. Strong Oppose That fact that you voted for yourself is proof that you aren't ready for this job. Come back when you learn humility and make a few hundred more edits. Ryan 06:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

   It is my democratic right to vote for myself and I have humility. What about you? Just one week here,you don´t know how to format your statement and you are rude. Be polite. --ThomasK 08:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

   I may have only been here one week, but at least I took the time to read WP:NOT. It clearly states that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. Therefore, your "democratic right to vote" doesn't do you much good. And while we are on the topic of formatting, please remember to place a space after commas. You forgot one after "here," Have a nice day! Ryan 02:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Sorry, but self-voting on your own adminship nomination does make it look like you haven't understood how the things work on Wikipedia, and your response to Ryan doesn't help either. Some more experience is needed and I may well support in the future. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

   Is there any notice that forbid someone to self-vote? No. It is a democratic right. I know how the things on Wikipedia works. Could you specify the experience in your opinion? --ThomasK 14:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

   I changed my vote to support as a measure of good faith. I am now reconsidering that, as you, ThomasK, seem extraordinarily insistent on this "democratic right". Wikipedia is not a democracy. This isn't a general election. RfA is about gaining consensus support. It is taken as read that you have your own support to become an administrator. There are some rules on Wikipedia that are not written down. Rules-lawyering will not encourage supporters of you. You should know now that your vote certainly would not be counted by a bureaucrat, and all it is doing is discouraging other voters. [[smoddy]] 14:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

   Alright, I withdraw this democratic right. Shit happens. Did someone told me before, that this isn´t allowed? No. This is odd. With all due respect, you are funny. Initially you opposed,then supported, now once again opposed. What´s your final decision? --ThomasK 14:55, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

   I didn't actually change my vote before, and your withdrawal of that vote is appreciated, and strenghtens my support vote. It takes a stronger person to admit when they are wrong. I hope the other users will reconsider their votes in this light. [[smoddy]] 15:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

   It is assumed that candidates for adminship understand that the Wikipedia - and by extension, RfA - works on a consensus basis, and votes are used merely to give a general idea of how much of the community supports the candidate and his behavior. Bureaucrats will generally take into more account the comments made regarding the editor than the amount of votes cast in support or opposition. Of course, if there is a smashing difference, it does not matter, but on tight decisions such as this, your nomination would basically reach "no consensus", even if you have more support than oppose votes. Again, you do not yet have enough experience to be an admin. Come back in a few months with a trustworthy nominator backing you up and I am sure you will be given the holy bucket/mop/shotgun. --Sn0wflake 15:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

9. Weak Oppose Mostly based on response to Ryan (Err the user Acedic_Acid)... he wasn't exactly in the right but retaliating against a user with an insult would not send a very good message. I really don't have a problem with anything else but I think a month and practicing a bit of user interaction would help. --RN 16:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

   I insulted nobody.--ThomasK 08:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

   Don't make a big deal out of this... that's the problem. Just come back in a few weeks when you're calmer and you'll get my vote. --RN 09:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

   I'am calm.--ThomasK 09:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I'd like to read the user page without wading through the history. Without that, there are too few positive interactions and collaberations to review. Willing to support in the future when, I hope, there has been progress in those areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathunder (talk • contribs).
11. Aside from voting in VfD, no notable contributions to WP-space areas or projects. Harro5 11:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

    Your statement is wrong. Look for example on the featured article Albert Einstein and much more articles.--ThomasK 11:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

    A WP-space refers to a Wikipedia space area. Quite frankly, when it comes to choosing admins, it doesn't matter if you have a featured article. You don't seem to be involved in any stuff that you would contribute to any better if you were an admin. No interest in rollbacks, no record of RC patrol or new page tagging, therefore no need for adminship. Also, it doesn't look good if you attack so many opposing votes on your own nomination - admins must maintain a certain amount of civility. Harro5 10:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

    It is odd that some of you feel I attacked or insulted somebody. That's wrong. I did not. If I want do that, there will be a different manner.--ThomasK 08:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

12. Yes, I do feel like a yo-yo. However, ThomasK's more recent discussions do not fill me with any confidence whatsoever. I have three rules for supporting an adminship nomination: 1) is the user good faith (here, yes); 2) will the user abuse the tools (here, I don't think so); 3) would this user give a good impression of senior Wikipedia users to newcomers (here, mainly on account of these proceedings, I say no). Therefore, much as I hate to say it, I think I am opposing again. [[smoddy]] 10:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. ThomasK seems to be a trifle belligerent, and didn't understand what WP-space was. I wouldn't be doing this if he'd had run-ins with other users and could show his handling it in a calm, reasonable manner. However, his primary run-ins seem to be on this page, and they've left me with a negative impression. --Scimitar ^parley 23:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

    I'm not belligerent and I'm calm. I attacked nobody.

14. Oppose. I feel ThomasK is a little too quick to flag pages for deletion, in some cases mere minutes after they stubbed -- he really should give people a chance. Ewlyahoocom 10:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

    Because of one mistake, you make mistakes too. --ThomasK 11:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

    I would suggest, ThomasK, that any future RfA is not conducted in an atmosphere where you are attacking every oppose vote. It does not lend confidence in your temperament. You need to seriously adjust your attitude in future if you are to succeed. [[smoddy]] 12:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

    I don't know, why you and maybe some other feel it like that. I don't attack every opposed vote. Again, If I want to attack,insult and I mean really insult someone, I will do it. Rather y'all attacked me with this rude oppose statements. Could y'all not without attacks and accusation of my e.g (only one example) humility ,make a oppose statement? Obviously not. I would like with that response come to an end in this discussion. Maybe even with my work on Wikipedia. RickK is right with his remarks. --ThomasK 13:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

15. Oppose. While ThomasK has done some nice work cleaning up articles on wikipedia, I do not think he needs adminship at the moment (for the same reasons stated by Radiant). I am also concerned with how he deals with criticism. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm torn. With a long history (and plentiful edits) and relatively little controversy, he seems in some ways like a "adminship should be no big deal" candidate. I certainly don't buy that a prospective admin needs to be well versed in the arcana of CFD and TFD (yes, it would be ideal, but it's a lot to ask of someone that they be involved in a lot of the deletion pages). But at the same time, his talk page has been very scarcely edited, and his desire to blank almost immediately after every entry makes me nervous. I guess I'd have to see a better rationale for promotion from the candidate, and some kind of promise about different talk page behavior in the future. I want to be confident that, if a new user leaves Thomas a question, they will be able to back the next week and find an answer, not a blank page. Jwrosenzweig 05:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

   Well, yes I blank my talk page. However, the issues there were solved and will be solve within a few days.If requested I leave the message on my talk page. --ThomasK 06:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• ThomasK has approximately 1279 edits, according to WP:KT. See here for full report. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• As an unrelated suggestion, I would like to ask the candidate to please remember that whenever he posts a reply, he should keep the # parameter consistent. --Sn0wflake 13:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• On the Albert Einstein article, I'd like to point out that ThomasK did not have a large role in writing it; he merely nominated it for feature status. --Scimitar ^parley 23:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Actually this is not true --ThomasK 08:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

I would help close up the VFDs and especially I would make good use of the revert button as well as the speedy deletes.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

Well, actually I´m pleased with any of them. However, I achieved with my contribution and nomination the article Albert Einstein to be featured.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Nobody has ever caused me stress, if in case I will solve it calmly.</nowiki>