Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tholly

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tholly

[change source]
Tholly (talk · contribs)

Ended: 10 Oct

Result: Passed (21-1) -- Creol(talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen of Simple, i present to you Tholly. Tholly has been editing for only a little over 3 months, but already has 2,644 edits. Tholly has a bot, Thollybot and is also generally well-versed in policy, actively participating in Simple Talk. And with that, Tholly. Sebb Talk 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you very much Sebb, I accept. - tholly --Talk-- 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Nom Support Sebb Talk 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Active, experienced, kind, helpful — all the great admin qualities. Good luck! Majorly talk 15:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Despite a tiny nomination, I know Tholly and trust Tholly. I support. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Even though he has only been here the bare minimum time, he has contributed heartfully, and helped people with whom he has little or no acquaintance. In this respect, and on the grounds of his sizeable edit history, I think he should be allowed to hold up this title for the rest of us --·.·´¯`·->Kiamnomch<-·´¯`·.·-- 18:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Good editor and helpful user. Always very nice with me, and has a good edit history with 2500+ edits. This is why I'm putting my trust in you and supporting . Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Giggy (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Synergy 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support – I knew this was coming pretty soon. I was going to nominate you, but since this is pretty active, I'll sit back and watch. Tholly meets my RfA criteria fairly well, though, I only found one minor issue here. It actually was a legitimate question and shouldn't have been tagged as WP:QD#G1 even if it was somewhat badly phrased. Though, I couldn't find any other issue from a review, and you have been an active and constructive contributer, not to mention a civil one. I'm happy to support. Good luck with your RfA! We could use more active administrators since some have become semi-active. – RyanCross (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very sorry about that QD. The reason I tagged it was because I didn't notice that the page was talk, not main. I think this due to the slightly bad phrasing, and no signing. However, I don't think this has happened before, and I'll remember to check more carefully now. Thanks for the support - tholly --Talk-- 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - only 3 VIP reports wouldn't suggest much use for the blocking tool, but 130 or so QD's (compared to my 7 when I was up for adminship) definitely suggests a need for the delete tab. This situation was dealt with well, and apart from some wrong reversion of vandalism a few times here and at ENWP, rollback is necessary and used well. Around 55 - 60% edits in mainspace, with some in category space and template space, shows varied editing. Be careful about the articles you create though, some (eg. CBBC, BBC Radio 5 Live) are a tad complex. --Gwib -(talk)- 05:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a bit of simplifying on Radio 5, and I only created CBBC yesterday, and was intending to continue editing it today! Thanks - tholly --Talk-- 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per above. Chenzw  Talk  07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - He is one of those editors you assume is already an admin. I have no problems in supporting him. Kennedy (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Give him the mop already. :) -Djsasso (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per all above. Good luck! FSM Noodly? 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Simple for me. Another net positive for Wikipedia. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--Dalibor Bosits (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes, please. M7 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per Majorly above. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Hello, Tholly! Support Ecoleetage (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - although I don't personally know you yet, I've looked at your history of contribs and you seem a good editor and you have the respect of the community and editors I am more familiar with. fr33kman t - c 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Definitely will make good use of the tools. Good luck with the tools and try not to destroy this Wikipedia ;). Cheers, Razorflame 23:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support ShockingHawk 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Oppose for now - While I agree you are a wonderful editor and will definitely make an admin someday I think you need more time here. I don't think you've been here long enough.--  † ChristianMan16  15:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to a case where you think tholly did not act like an admin should? (Just curious) --Eptalon (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No...but I have been inactive alot recently...So it my being inactive doesn't mean it didn't happen. I not taking anything away from tholly like I said "Wonderful editor" and I'll reiterate 3 months is too short of time to become an admin.--  † ChristianMan16  15:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I became an admin after only three months of editing, as did many others. --Isis♠(talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that you feel you don't trust me yet, but is it really only the length of time I've been here? I haven't acted like I was dying to become and admin and self-nommed, and your "being inactive" isn't a very good excuse for not finding evidence against me. I have over 2700 edits in three months, more than many RfAs, including Kennedy's - you're supporting his RfA and he's been here about 2½ months longer than me, but in his first 1½ months he only had 6 edits, of which only one was mainspace making him only about a month older in reality. Since then, he hasn't edited quite as much as me and has a lower mainspace, cat and template %. I'm not criticising Kennedy here, and think he'll be a great admin (so don't change your vote :-) ) but am simply trying to work out why you've opposed.
    Also, I've just noticed that you supported American Eagle's RfA when he was 2 days under three months (I think this is right, but toolserver's down at the moment). Thanks - tholly --Talk-- 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tholly, don't worry about it. ChristianMan16 also opposed me for inexperience. It won't affect the outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great.....I'm being criticized. Why does it seem that every time I vote on these thing I get hammered with "why you vote like that?"?--  † ChristianMan16  16:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you always oppose for not being here long enough, like with me as well. alexandra (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I started my RfA when I was here for exactly three months, but you didn't seem to participate. Is there a reason why you didn't oppose me, but yet you oppose others? (Or did you just not see the RfA?) -- – RyanCross (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron made a brief visit on Alison's user talk for a request on 13 September. Your RFA didn't start until 14 September. He came back on 20 September, about 10 hours before your RFA would have closed, and made just a few edits, to hsi sandbox, an anonymous IP editor, and to a wrestling article. So he was gone for most of the time. alexandra (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CM16 (remember me? lol), do not oppose for this reason. I was not even on for 3 months before my unanimous 25-0 RfA. You supported me, too. This is a lousy reason, Tholly deserves adminship for his hard work and commitment. Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also knew you a little personally and trusted you, Eagle. So your case was different to me.--  † ChristianMan16  17:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, please let's not get too worked up here. ChristianMan16 is consistent in that in cases of editors with three months experience, he will vote against all bar his wiki-friends and he's entitled to that viewpoint. It's not going to make or break this RFA so I suggest this discussion ends here. I would suggest that CM16 initiates discussion to recommend that users are here for six months rather than the current recommendation of three to prevent these continual opposes (with the support of AE notwithstanding)... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
The reason i wrote a "tiny" nom is that there is nothing much to be said: he's a good user who's done work to deserve this. Sebb Talk 20:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. The nomination was alright. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tholly&oldid=8872752"