Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Underneath-it-All

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Underneath-it-All

Final (5/18/3) ended Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Underneath-it-All (talk • contribs) — Excellent user who has been with us for more than a year. She is certainly deserves to become an administrator and while she has not elevated any articles to featured status, she has improved several to the "good" ranking. She has conducted many edits since her arrival. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Underneath-it-All 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Has a whole bunch of good edits, has a good knowlege of policy, and is civil. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, of course—excellent user. Should edit more in the WP namespace though. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Has a bunch of good edits and a good editor--LooseTheHotButtonS 05:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Good user. Also see here. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, not enough edits to Wikipedia namespace. Naconkantari 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Naconkantari. Will support in a few months if user becomes more active in projectspace. Also, I'm not convinced the user needs adminship. All of the things in question 1 can be done without a mop. --Rory096 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Naconkantari. I hate to come down with a case of editcountitis, as this editor did some excellent work I've seen at Impossible Princess. Nonetheless, there is little displayed time in the Wikipedia namespace, which is a part of an admins duties. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose Lack of edits to Wikipedia namespace is a concern to me despite being here for more than a year. However, the quality of her edits are impressive. If user becomes more active in projectspace, I will definitely support her in about 3 months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Naconkantari. ForestH2
6. Fails my criteria. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:26 UTC (2006-06-08)
7. I think the nominee would be well served by a different nominator next time, should the nominee choose to try again later, for just as certain nominators are a sign of an excellent worry free candidate, others are a sign that a closer look is warranted. Oppose ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, lacks of edits to Wikipedia namespace. --Terence Ong 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - no need for the tools really seen -- Tawker 01:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose: Going through the user's contributions, I see him or her beavering away at pop music articles, but no interaction at all with vandal fighting, page moves, AfD, CSD, TfD, etc. In other words, I see someone editing and fitting in well as an editor, but not someone interested in/engaged in the messy side. You don't need a mop if you're not cleaning up the messes. Geogre 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per above. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak oppose per Siva. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose.Changing from neutral to oppose, because of constant tampering and reversions by the nominator to my edit and question below, and failure of candidate or nominator to address my concern. Giano | talk 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose.Does not have any user templates signifing ability to communicate in any non-native lanague. :-(Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Underneath-it-All.com.au 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Geogre and the answers to questions, particularly #1 which gives no indication of the candidate's need for or understanding of the admin tools. Gwernol 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, weak answers to the standard questions. A1 is about things that don't need adminship anyway, and A3 suggests lack of experience in an area vital to admins (how to comport oneself in conflict or under attack). And, Underneath-it-All, you don't reply at all to the important last part of Q3, "how will you deal with it in the future?" (I suppose you don't mean to suggest that "refusing to respond" is a helpful admin action, but it sounds a bit like it.) If you were originally in too great a hurry to respond adequately to these questions, perhaps you'd like to add to your answers now? I for one will be prepared to reconsider my objection if you do. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC).
17. Opposes. Please spend some more time answering the questions, and perhaps I will support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Those answers to the questions don't do it for me. --digital_me^(t/c) 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Until the RfA has been properly accepted and the questions answered. Candidate, please complete the RfA as soon as possible. Thanks, Gwernol 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed to oppose, Gwernol 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please give the user time. I nominated her only fifteen minutes ago, so I'm not sure when she will come online next. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Then this shouldn't have been on the main RfA page. --Rory096 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

She had come to respond to the questions seconds later. So I apologize for posting this a few minutes early. Sorry for the mistake! —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral for now. Has any one checked this user is not yet another of Hollow Wilerding's numerous socks? Giano | talk 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Not enough WP namespace edits; perhaps a lack of knowledge about process and policy. Question one seems to indicate a slight lack of knowledge of what admins do. DarthVader 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral I am voting this way since the nom put the nominee in a really tough spot, and didn't allow her the chance to really respond to the questiopns. Yanksox 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Fails to meet my required 150 WP and 300 combined talk & user talk namespace edits. Kalani ^[talk] 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Underneath-it-All's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Count with Tool2:

Username Underneath-it-All
Total edits 3536
Distinct pages edited 1232
Average edits/page 2.870
First edit 21:20, October 20, 2005
 
(main) 2336
Talk 202
User 284
User talk 68
Image 539
Image talk 1
Template 18
Category 16
Wikipedia 70
Wikipedia talk 2

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I can see myself helping out new users and reverting vandalism (both of which I already do). I can also see myself solving copyright problems, as I have noticed that many images are not tagged properly. -- Underneath-it-All 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I am proud of my edits to Impossible Princess and Ray of Light (IP is a Good Article). Through expanding these articles I feel that I have become a better editor, as my writing writing style has improved greatly. -- Underneath-it-All 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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: So far I have not had any conflicts over editing. I did have an anonymous user launch attacks against me on my talk page, but I refused to respond to them and to escalate the problem any further. -- Underneath-it-All 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.