Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thorpe 2

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

Thorpe[edit]

final (55/0/0) ending 13:52 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thorpe (talk · contribs) – Thorpe is a very responsible and kind person who has been at Wikipedia for almost a year. For those with editcountitis, he has around 4500 edits, well spread across namespaces [1]. He is a very active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, always participating in the longer, more labourious tasks such as correcting small factual errors and finding suitable external links to make articles that little bit better. He contributes well to starting articles which is always good, and has uploaded many useful images to the project. He often finds and tags images that are eligible for deletion, as shown by his 500 or so deleted edits, so the deletion tool would certainly aid his efforts [2]. I think that he would use the tools carefully and responsibly, and is highly unlikely to abuse them, so I see no reason not to give this user his well-deserved mop. FireFox 13:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you FireFox. --Thorpe 14:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. FireFox 14:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Redwolf24 (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Sounds good. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Seems fine; has been interacting well with the community. But a note that, as the 3RR page says, it does not apply to clear vandalism when you aren't an admin. jnothman talk 15:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bear that in mind. Thanks jnothman. --Thorpe 15:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Jaranda wat's sup 15:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Seems to have listened to all suggestions from his first RfA. Nightstallion ✉ 16:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. King of All the Franks 16:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, bring forth the mop forthwith. --Alf melmac 17:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Thunderbrand 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Every thing looks to be in order here :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support immediately! BD2412 T 19:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Great editor, deserves the mop.--Shanel 19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Blackcap (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Great user. Olorin28 20:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. All My Support Is Belong To You. «LordViD» 21:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Of course! Sango123 (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Robert 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Hahnchen 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support - As seen on TV. Cheers -- Szvest 00:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  20. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Andre (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support edits look good.--MONGO 11:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: --Bhadani 12:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --Terence Ong Talk 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. El_C 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Ragib 01:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support good editor, good admin candidate --rogerd 05:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. --Miljoshi | talk 09:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, he is very careful with his contributions about video game articles. -- ReyBrujo 12:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Good editor and should make a good admin. --GraemeL (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. John Doe 16:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. — Trilobite 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Dirty wet mop support. A good judge of articles that need to be deleted and obviously shows a desire for janitorial tasks. --Deathphoenix 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Peter McConaughey 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Mild Support I only have a few minor concerns as per the views expressed in his first nomination. However they seem to be quite trivial regarding the time since his last nomination and this candidates positive contributions so far. --Chazz88 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support absolutely. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Plenty of experience; does lots of good work. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. utcursch | talk 04:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, no objections from here. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Everyking 07:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I Am Ri¢h! 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, as he seems to be a great editor. Carioca 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support; seen this user around plenty. Brighterorange 21:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yeah!. Seen this editor around. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Phaedriel 09:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. w00t support!. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. -- DS1953 talk 04:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Extreme Smark Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Dear me, you weren't an admin already? Let's rectify this as soon as possible. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. *drew 06:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Harrumph! -- MicahMN | μ 09:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - I've rarely crossed paths with this editor but I certainly trust the nominators judgement. --Celestianpower háblame 14:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - I, too, haven't really crossed paths with Thorpe, but it looks like he's a good editor...he won't abuse the admin tools, IMHO. --ViolinGirl♪ 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

#Support. Working in the computer and video game section of WP for months, I noticed that Thorpe is quite a responsible and dedicated editor there. I have confidence he will put his admin powers to positive and productive use if his is given an adminship. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 16:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC) ╫ Vote came in after RfA was closed. FireFox 17:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • First nomination
  • I was involved in the dispute at TV.com as well, and the nature of the situation made it unclear whether it was truly vandalism or a dispute about whether material was POV and encyclopedic - and so it was my interpretation (and I believe I stated in an edit summary) that the 3RR applied to my actions. It wasn't really "clear vandalism." Not that this is really here nor there. (ESkog)(Talk) 09:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along with all the games, keeps an eye on the likes of Kalidasa as well. --Miljoshi | talk 09:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Vandalism is a daily problem here. Although I can revert pages using the "History" tab I think having a quick and easy to use tool would be great to me since I can quickly revert vandalism. I notice that sometimes a certain IP or user comes to the same article to vandalise it. Take, TV.com not too long ago - I could only revert it twice because of the 3 revert rule so I had to go get assistance. If I had been an administrator I could of blocked that user from making edits for a short amount of time.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, I have created a number of new articles. I mainly create ones about computer and video games. I am most pleased with WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2006 since that has since grown to an in-depth article. I know I didn't put much information in it at first but you'll see I have regularly contributed to it and cleared the vandalism off it. Other contributions I am pleased with are my image uploads. Companies are now recognised when people go to view those articles because I have put their logos in. I also upload other images such as game covers, DVD covers and sometimes posters. Associating these with the appropiate article makes them much more recognisable.
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 have come across quite a few conflicts. People who deliberately are trying to wind you up are the people which try and make Wikipedia a bad place. I don't let them get to me. When I first joined Wikipedia I was rather annoyed when people were vandalising. Now I often go to their talk page and tell them not to vandalise. Sometimes they react back in a friendly manner and say they were only testing. Sure, new people are welcome here so I can cope with that. Sometimes you do get bad reactions but I don't let this ruin my Wikipedia experience.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thorpe_2&oldid=1089265773"