Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thorpe

Thorpe
removed with (1/8/1) on 13 July 2005; original end 19:25 17 July 2005 (UTC) I have been with Wikipedia since the beginning of this year and have never gone away from the project. I make minor edits but do occasionally make new articles; (EA Canada) is one of my latest articles here at Wikipedia. I also help out at the Simple English Wikipedia but not as much as this one. I come on to the site nearly everyday so I will be very active on some days. • Thorpe • 19:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support
 * 1) Support. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 05:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Not really enough evidence of good interaction with others. The replies given on his talk page are so brief and brusque as to be on the thin edge of politeness, and one of them was only answered today despite being posted in April. One example says just "never mind" as a clear dismissal and others don't indicate a tendency to engage in a friendly manner. There's an alarming lack of use (and lack of proper use) of the edit summary, too and some odd choices over what constitutes major (e.g. inserting an image) and minor (e.g. removing a link), both of which could be controversial actions. Whilst I don't think golden prose maketh an admin, the selected pages on his user page are all stubs or slightly-more-than-stubs and I'd like to see some sort of deeper contribution. Finally, there is a very small amount of work in the Wikipedia: and talk: spaces and thus, I think, insufficient interaction in the more spiky parts of the 'pedia at the moment (esp. when coupled with the sparse, brusque talk page). This all sounds like I hate him despite not having 'met' him. I don't mean it like that at all; being the first 'oppose', I figured I should just be thorough. In short: come back in a while, having patched the gaps I mentioned, and with a higher, more balanced edit count, and I'll be supportive. -Splash 22:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten to sign the one from April - that is why. • Thorpe • 09:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Like Splash I see a sparse use of edit summaries, and Thorpe's interactions with other users seem a bit on the gruff side (example).  He also fails to display a particular commitment to janitorial tasks, which I feel is very important for an admin. --Canderson7 22:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for now. Concur with Splash's comments.  Still seems a bit too "green". -- M P er el ( talk 01:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I agree that this user has yet to reach the level of experience that adminship demands, as per the comments above. Regarding edit summaries: while at times justification of an action is given, more often than not, the user fails to summarize what edits have actually been made, and although there can be seen an improvement in marking edits as minor, or major, some instances are still questionable. Perhaps it would be good to peruse: Minor_edit, Edit_summary, and Edit_summary_legend may be useful as well. The answers to the candidate questions suggest that the user, while may have good intentions, only has a vague knowlegde of Wikipedia procedures. Potentially suitable for sysopship, but not at the current time. Seeaxid 04:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I agree with much of what has been said.  -- JamesTeterenko 04:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Three months short of my support threshold for potential admins.  Denelson83  09:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose because of the talk page and lack of edit summaries. (I don't have a "time since joining" restriction; those are way too rigid.) --Idont Havaname 00:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, admins need much better user interaction capacities. --Sn0wflake 02:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral "I saw on the Usertalk for Thorpe you saw his username vandalize several pages. He responded with "my username was hacked". He nominated himself for adminstratorship and I voted in support but I was wondering if you could clear up whether he was responsible or this was a case of mistaken identity. thanks. freestylefrappe 21:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)"
 * 1) I queried User:DanielCollins:
 * I wrote that message because I saw some clear vandalism from a known user, Thorpe. I dug just a little to find a number of pages had been vanadalised in a very short window of time, so I sent the message. I presumed it wasn't the real Thorpe (I wondered if Thorpe remained logged on while some other person did some mischievous edits), as Thorpe's history indicated reliable contributions. But there's no way for me to know, and I haven't investigated since. Cheers, Daniel Collins 15:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC).

Until this is explained I'm neutral. freestylefrappe 20:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1023 article edits, 1679 in all. freestylefrappe 21:53, July 10, 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. Vandalism will always be a problem and we must not let it destroy this free project. I frequently revert pages and then check through the vandal's IP address (user contributions) to see if he/she has made any further changes which could be more vandalism. I would help there a lot I think.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am indeed pleased with many articles thanks to help of other users and myself. I have created new articles for Wikipedia and have spent hours for each one. I also help out in article that I know a lot of and once my edit is complete I feel I have definitely done a good job for the people using Wikipedia.
 * 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 believe someone kept reverting back to a vandalised page so I made a revert but the person went and reverted it to the vandalised page - so, I just left it to avoid any arguments and to not get myself temporarily banned (three revert rule). Users are friendly here and they always respond to my comments so I do think Wikipedia is like my home on the internet.