Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The undertow

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

Ended (50/1/0); Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the_undertow (talk · contribs) - This user is me! I'm nominating myself as prima facie proof of well, nothing. I have been a conscientious editor for nearly a year now, and have done everything from creating/improving articles, to vandal fighting, to sourcing, to participating in AfDs. I have kept a relatively low profile, but have felt an increasing need for the tools as I have been active in my awareness of vandalism and reversions. I take pride in the fact that I am honest and transparent. I do speak what's on my mind. I am assertive, but not aggressive, and I see that as a plus; some feel that blatant honestly is a positive quality that knows no consequences. I feel that my honesty is mixed with forethought and tact. I have a very healthy sense of humor, and with that, I would love to get my first (and perhaps only) RfA underway. the_undertow ^talk 10:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to work with the Speedies, as well as AIV. I will continue with AfD, and recent changes, as I have done. I would also like to help new users with edit conflicts, 3RR rules, and POV issues that tend to discourage new users from continuing. I realize that the latter does not require the mop, however, I feel that an admin, who works as a liason to encourage new users to contribute, is important by virtue of the fact that new users look towards admins as a guide. I am happy to be such a guide.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Instead of the traditional answer, I would like to divulge what I feel are my favorite contributions. Guinea pig, and now FA, is something that I have completely enjoyed. I painstakenly (is that a word?), took videos of my own pigs, and extracted the sound files. I edited said files and converted them to .ogg format. Upon addition, the article was nominated and passes as FA status. I am most proud of the time, effort and outcome of that project. Sure, I've done numerous vandal reversions with the help of VandalProof. However, I am somewhat of a random editor. I have found articles at AfD, such as Capitol Years that needed sourcing and rewriting to save. While doing RC patrol I found Constantine Maroulis and Michael Carroll (lottery winner) which needed sources, and major edits. I took homework, with some help, and changed it into a good article and created Chet Zar and Julia Gnuse. I have done numerous improvements (in my opinion) to many articles and make an effort to steer clear from that in which I may have a direct interest, as I have found that disinterest in an article is the best way that I can make sure I improve Wikipedia without becoming emotionally involved. However, I am emotionally involved with Wikipedia as a whole, but that's just how I roll.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've taken all major edits to articles to the talk pages. I've warned Spanish speaking vandals in Spanish. I had a great mentor who was terse, yet understanding - which is probably the reason that I can say that I have had no single edit conflict that has caused me any stress. I get disappointed when reverted, but if consensus agrees with said reversion, I move on, I move forward, and I continue my work as I would do in real life. If 100% of my edits went unchallenged, I would be far more disappointed as I do not see myself as the last word, nor perfect. There is always someone who can teach me something.

• See the_undertow's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for the_undertow: The_undertow (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/the_undertow before commenting.

Support

1. Strong Support excellent candidate. I would fully trust this user with the tools. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I'm supporting this user based on prima facie evidence that this is the latest in a line of excellent self noms! support also based on previous interaction, contrib. history and that fact that I see the user all over the place helping out. Pedro |  Chat  11:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. <negative> Most mainspace edits is to homework? You got to be kiddin' I was going to support... and edits to John Howard??? Nope, I'm opposing you... :) You ought to be banned for your dreadfully good contributions...</negative> --Dark Falls ^talk 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - You had me at prima facie... In looking through your contributions, I see pretty much what you describe above. Good luck! Hiberniantears 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support No problems here. A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Off the wall question: Homework, what drew you to that article in particular?--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe homework was a candidate to be transwikied. I challenged editors on the talk page to clean up the stub, and one responded. I am random, but not incomplete. I will spend hours on something that I know nothing about. To me, this is fun. the_undertow ^talk 20:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support – No problems here either. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I view self-noms as prima facie evidence that the user has a clue. Well...not always but it's true in this case. His edit history shows he has well rounded experience and I don't see any reason not to trust him with the tools, what more is there? Trusilver 15:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I am impressed with the answers to the questions. I was puzzled by DarkFalls bizzare comments in apparent opposition (unless these are a joke), but I looked at the edits to Homework, which were only 35 and couldn't find a problem at John Howard. It seems that this editor is willing to take on mundane articles and make them much better. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC) PS: I might soften the image/message at the user page if you are going to be an admin. Nothing really wrong, but it does not seem welcoming in keeping with your apparent good nature.[reply]

   I'll seriously take that into consideration. My user page is meant to be in good humor/faith as well, but I wouldn't want anyone to take it the wrong way. Thanks for the insight! the_undertow ^talk 20:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I rather like it, vandals be afraid :)--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm pretty certain Dark Falls made the comments as a joke - hence the emoticon smiley. I would urge him to just clarify it a bit though! Pedro |  Chat  19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   See the hidden comment as well guys? [1] (And I didn't mean that the undertow was a joke...) --Dark Falls ^talk 00:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support Genuine cliche moment for me; excellent candidate. Xoloz 16:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Good solid editor with a handle on policy. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I view this self-nomination as prima facie evidence that this user wants to accept new tasks. Acalamari 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. I've seen you around, and I thought you were an admin. J-stan ^Talk 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support No problems; an experienced user in AFD and elsewhere. Shalom ^Hello 21:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support All over everywhere - and love the hand on your userpage. Very original ck lostsword•T•C 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Yeah, I concur! Mindman1 00:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vote struck as by indef blocked SPA/Vandal — Mindman1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . LessHeard vanU 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support - Significant article contribs, experience in Wikipedia space and interaction with other users. I think he's gathered enough experience now. Looks good. Should be a good admin. I don't mind the picture on your userpage. ;-) Lradrama 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Seen you around also, contribution history looks good. Mop gently. - KrakatoaKatie 22:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - The very beginning sentence in his nom did it for me. Also impressive contribs. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Definitely. Solid work. —Anas ^talk? 23:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Giggy _U^CP 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Eh, why not? I have no issues here, and seems to be a good idea. Jmlk17 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Already seen them about, has all the good qualities I look for in an admin. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 00:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Good editor, who I would trust with the mop. -Lemonflash^talk 00:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support I definitely like your style! And the willingness to go above and beyond such as for the audio Guinea pig collection bodes very well!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Appreciate this user's input at AFDs and elsewhere. Recurring dreams 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Nice usage of edit summaries, and I sure this user won't abuse the mop. --Hirohisat ^Talk 04:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support; seemingly committed editor.- Gilliam 05:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support; Good editor, plenty of vandal work and could use the tools. Appreciate his boldness in the self-nom. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Supporting this candidate. Looks ready to be an admin. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - the_undertow, you are a well-rounded, level-headed editor. I think you'll be a great admin. Here's for a shiny new mop. Nihiltres^(t.l) 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Absolutely. Seems like an experienced user, will certainly make good use of the tools in the tasks mentioned in Q1. And, this user actually fulfills the Guinea pig audio requirements for admin candidates! Húsönd 20:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Per AFD interactions Corpx 22:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Heaps of plusses, and nothing particularly bad. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - seems like a good candidate. Opposes are not supported by any apparent evidence. Walton^One 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - as per Kurt Weber..Power hungry people don't run for RfA. they run for bureaucratship..hehe..--Cometstyles 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Above endorsements enough for me. ~ Infrangible 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Liked especially his answer to Q.3: if you get the tools, I'll definitely be coming to your door regarding Spanish-speaking vandals. ;-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Haha. The overwhelming amount of Spanish-speaking vandals is very worrisome! :)~ the_undertow ^talk 20:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For future reference, "link" in Spanish is enlace. Walton^One 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

39. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support undertow's contributions, which I have mostly encountered through AFD, have been have been completely civil and honest. VanTucky ^(talk) 08:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Rhubarb support Thoughtful contributions at AfD, good communication with other editors, no evident problems elsewhere. Caknuck 18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. Glad to see a fellow Gnome and an impressive editor up for an Rfa. We need more like you. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - I trust him. - Philippe | Talk 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - He's how I think an admin should be. Lara♥Love 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support experienced user.Peacent 02:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. WjBscribe 04:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Trustworthy. Welcome to WP:50. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. What's to hate? I thought this guy was an admin already. Sr13 08:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose out of a concern for, based on what I can see of contributions, perhaps a greater quickness to vote to delete articles rather than improve them. Best anyway, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to provide some diffs supporting this assertion? Walton^One 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I re-examined this editor's habits and see that he is a bit more neutral than I initially supposed, so, I am reverting my earlier vote if that is okay to do. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Assume good faith - just because this is a self-nom doesn't mean the_undertow is a control-freak. Is there any other reason to oppose this nomination? Nihiltres^(t.l) 02:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Kurt trolls all self-nom RFAs. Nothing you say can dissuade him. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Kurt when will you learn. --Chris ^g 06:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the first line of the nom, I was expecting something hilarious from Kurt. Not to be :( Giggy _U^CP 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles has reconsidered and struck that oppose, I'd like to also strike Kurt's comment - it would be a shame if the_undertow's RfA were to miss unanimity because of an RfA troller. Is there anyone who would prefer it not be struck? (yes, if Kurt actually comes back and says so, I won't support it being struck) Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt is entitled to his opinion and you have no right to strike it. If he wants to oppose people on this basis then that's up to him. He's not a 'troll' because he disagrees with you. Should I strike your opinion because I disagree with it? Nick mallory 04:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't strike the comment - we've already had this discussion at WT:RFA. Nick mallory is right; it isn't trollish or disruptive to express a legitimate point of view on RfAs, even if it is miles outside the community norm. Walton^One 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair judgement. Sorry, I hadn't seen that discussion on WT:RFA. I think it's a bit trollish to fly through all the RfAs solely to uninformedly oppose self-noms, but I suppose it wouldn't be entirely fair to strike it that way, either. Thanks for your input :). Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what kurt is doing, IMO, is bordering trolling; I doubt he even considers the candidate if it is a self-nom. He does it unfailingly in self-noms. How can it be considered at all legitimate? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.