Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thetruthbelow

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Thetruthbelow

[edit]

(Final 0/15/2) ended 14:13, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

Thetruthbelow (talk · contribs) – Since joining on April 26 of this year, I already have over 1145 edits as of this nomination. As of right now, I am part of six Wikipedia Projects:The Welcoming Comittee, Concordia, The Counter-Vandalism Unit, The Kindness Campaign, The Judaism Wikiproject, and theThe Military History Wikiproject. I try to be involved with new users, and as of now I have welcomed 135 new users, of which you can see the complete list here. I am also involved in the Afd process, as I have nominated many non-notable articles for deletion. Overall, my main reason for wishing to become a administrator is for the ability to close up afd's, warn and block vandals, the ability to protect pages from vandals, and to generally improve wikipedia the best I can. Thank you all for your votes in this matter, whether they are supporting or opposing me. Thetruthbelow (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thetruthbelow (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose. User has only been here a month, and isn't very experienced yet. Will support in a few months. --Rory096 07:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose per Rory096. Werdna (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose for now. You've done a lot in your time here, but you're still pretty new for a lot of people to be comfortable giving adminship to. Also, while you have contributed some good major edits, most of your edits are in the user/user talk areas, with only a few hundred in articles. Keep this up and I'd support in a few months. -Goldom (t) (Review) 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, alot of my edits are there, but remember that 135 of the User talk edits are welcomes to new users. Thetruthbelow (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A very promising new editor but unfortunately too new, particularly for a self-nom. I didn't see too many project space edits besides RfA's and AfD's and as an admin it would be nice if you had more familiarity with the other non-voting aspects. Finally, it's a pet peeve of mine when AfD nominators add a vote below their nomination, as AfD's are not (supposed to be) votes or polls, and your nomination should suffice in conveying that you want it deleted and why. — GT 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose most users require that you be here for about at least 6 months in order to experience more of Wikipedia and its policies. --Robdurbar 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, needs more experience and edits. Try again in several months time and I will support you. --Terence Ong 09:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. A great new user, but too new to become an admin yet. Zaxem 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose – a good start, but needs more experience – Gurch 09:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Gentle Oppose, but try again in a few months and I'd happily support you. You show a lot of promise. RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - A bit new; I'm certainly willing to reconsider after a bit more experience --Mhking 10:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Good work for a new user, but stay on for longer before going in for another RfA. Hohohob 10:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, is it necessary to pile on? The last bunch of votes are identical and accomplished nothing other than running up the oppose count. At this point it's clear the RfA won't pass, so please use this space to either offer some constructive advice or kindly let this run its course. — GT 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Unfortunately, you fail my criteria on all counts. You've done well up to this point, so please don't let this discourage you. Up your project-based edits, and not only around AFD or RFA. Don't be afraid to get involved with copyvios and what not, as as an admin you'd be expected to know what to do. Good luck if you try again. NSLE (T+C) at 11:20 UTC (2006-06-06)
  13. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Needs more experience since he's only been here a little more than a month. ForestH2
  15. Oppose, needs more experience. Naconkantari 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Moral support at least but you need more experiences. So it's Neutral from me. --Tone 09:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. You are on the right track, but you haven't got many wikipedia namespace edits indicating a possible lack of knowledge of wikipedia's policies and processes. DarthVader 12:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

See Thetruthbelow's edit count using Interiot's tool 

Username Thetruthbelow 
Total edits 1145 
User groups user  
Image uploads 14 (13 cur, 1 old) (browse) 
Distinct pages edited 354 
Edits/page (avg) 3.23 
Avg edits/day 27.74 
Deleted edits 22  
First edit 2006/04/26 01:45:43 
Edits by namespace Namespace Edits 
(Main) 493 
Talk 107 
User 64 
User talk 294 
Wikipedia 59 
Wikipedia talk 6 
Image 59 
Image talk 1 
Template 2 
Category 8 
Category talk 1 
Portal 44 
Portal talk 7

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: As stated above in my self-nomination my main reason for wishing to become a administrator is for the ability to close up afd's, warn and block vandals, the ability to protect pages from vandals, and to generally improve wikipedia the best I can. I feel that I understand wikipedia very well, and wish to help it grow, and I feel I can help wikipedia more as an administator
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: For the most part, I am pleased with most of my articles, but I am particulary proud of my Papal supremacy article, as it was very well written and edited by myself and many other talented editors. I was also proud that no conflict arose from the article, as is common with articles dealing with religion.
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: I really have not been in any conflicts with anyone except for one concerning a user that I warned because of a particular nasty vandalism on a user page. He attacked myself and other users, and ended up being blocked for three days because of this. Other than that, I have not been in any other major conflicts, except for the occasional disagreement with a vandal.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thetruthbelow&oldid=1142572667"