Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThomasK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] ThomasK

Vote here (1/5/0) ending 09:28 [18 September 2005] (UTC)

ThomasK (talk • contribs) – I saw his failed self-nomination. He will be now a better admin, especially a excellent vandalism fighter --Mabm 09:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Well, thanks. I accept the nomination. I´m confident. --ThomasK 09:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC) update: wp:admins, stop the nomination, this here is senseless and waste of time. --ThomasK 19:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC) Support

1. As the nominator. --Mabm 09:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Extremely rude in his previous nomination, an almost arrogant response to the questions, no admin goals (doesn't even know the name of the deletion page and could fight vandals now), and no reason to become an admin. Strong object. Harro5 10:38, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

   About which deletion page are you talking about? I suppose you are mixed something up. --ThomasK 19:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

2. I must regretfully oppose. While I have no doubt that ThomasK is a valuable editor, his relatively few edits in Wikipedia: and User talk: (about 100+ each, see the full Kate's Tool results), along with the sparse interaction with other editors on his user talk page (even with the multiple removed comments [1]), combined with the brief and unconvincing replies on the questions, lead me to oppose his nomination. However, I would suggest that you be more active, and then try again in 2 or 3 months. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 13:01, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

   Look carefully: User talk:ThomasK/Archive --ThomasK 19:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Flcelloguy.

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

   Look carefully: User talk:ThomasK/Archive --ThomasK 19:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Flcelloguy, and I have concerns about the previous nomination as well. It will take a few months of contributions, in my opinion, to show that things have changed. Should not have renominated again so soon. Jonathunder 17:46, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

   Things have not changed on y´all stupid side. --ThomasK 19:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The answers given below do not impress me, nor does the attitude Thomas displayed last time around. Thomas appears to be a perfectly competent editor, unfortunately I do not believe he has shown the necessary ability to communicate constructively which is so important for an administrator. Rje 18:56, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

   Last words are just wrong. --ThomasK 19:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose I was going to abstain from voting on this, but I'm opposing due to ThomasK's responses to votes on this very RfA. Admins need to be able to take criticism in stride. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Please restore the old nomination in some way, either archive it or otherwise, as it is very important for people to see why this user was flatly rejected not long ago. Harro5 10:38, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, found it here. Harro5 10:39, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• It appears ThomasK has left wikipedia. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:48, 11 September 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.)

A. I would really help as vandalism-fighter, and VFD.

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

A. I´m pleased with all of them. [2]

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?

A. All edits conflict solved, calmly.