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

TenPoundHammer

[edit]

Final (27/19/10); Ended Mon, 28 May 2007 15:12:32 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) - Personally, I've seen him be pretty active, cleaning up, helping with AFD, and just put a lot of work in. Yes I know I'm brief with this, but that's just my style. Whstchy 01:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: Mostly cleanup of existing pages -- whenever I see a problem, I try to fix it if at all possible. If I think that part of an article could be more clearly phrased, I try to use good judgment in cleaning that up as well. If a page needs a complete rewrite, I'll do my best to rewrite it as well (see Diamond Rio as an example of a page I've re-written from scratch). I also plan to continue making new articles about notable subjects. Furthermore, I plan to help in the blocking of clearly disruptive users, as well as clean up AfD discussions. I also plan to speedy delete any page that truly doesn't belong on Wikipedia -- nonsense, spam, broken redirects, etc. Basically, I'll do what I can to help. I'm quick to clean up vandalism whenever I spot it, and I plan to keep fighting vandalism.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: One of my best, as mentioned above, is the major overhaul I gave to Diamond Rio. The page already asserted the group's notability by proving that they landed many singles and had several major-label albums, but beyond that the page was lacking. I found several online sources, and added significant information on the formation of the group, to make a major improvement to the article.
Cincinnati Mills is another article to which I gave a major overhaul. The page was originally a stub stating only the mall's anchor stores -- but I dug up several reliable sources online and expanded the page to fully detail the unusual history of the mall in question.
Indian Mall and Dutchess Mall are two examples of shopping mall pages that I added significant content to after each page had been nominated for AfD. The nominator had claimed non-notability in the case of each mall; however, by adding a major amount of content to each page, I was able to verify the malls' notabilities through many reliable sources.
As far as articles I've created myself, I would say that Northwest Plaza is one of my best. Unfortunately, despite the mall's rather high level of notability (largest mall in the St. Louis area), it's somewhat of an orphan, so I'm the only one who's ever edited it. Nonetheless, I was able to write a highly detailed history on the mall itself through means of many reliable sources. Wonderland Village is another mall related article that I wrote myself, which also cites many reliable sources and asserts notability.
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: Yes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Waters as an example. User:Handyandy33 proceeded to badger me (and others), and tried as hard as he could to twist my words against me, all because I was suggessting a deletion of "his" page. I admit that maybe I could have been nicer to him, and this was a momentary lapse of judgment on my part -- from now on I will definitely be much more civil when handling conflicts.
Whenever such a situation occurs in the future, I will do my best to keep my cool as a mod -- although it may be nice to have the "power" to block people, abuse of power is a quick way to lose said power. I plan to keep civil and never resort to blocking just to gain advantage. If I ever block anyone, it's only because they truly deserve it -- namely, if a user is being clearly disruptive to Wikipedia.
Another example -- On some music pages (such as Sugarland), one user kept removing the Hot 100 and Pop 100 chart positions for the songs, citing only the fact that he "didn't think country artists needed pop peaks listed". Said user always assumed bad faith in my edits, but at least recently I've been able to calm him down; lately, he seems to be assuming good faith in me now.

Optional question from User:JodyB

4. On May 19 you removed AfD tags from several elementary school articles. I think you tagged them initially. On some of them your edit summary says nom withdrawn. Could you explain what was happening and why you changed your mind? JodyB talk 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I didn't tag those articles for deletion -- User:TREYWiki did. That user clearly stated within the discussion that he withdrew his nomination, so I went ahead and closed the discussion, and then removed the AfD tags from all the articles in question. One of the articles that he nominated -- Anne McClymont Primary School -- evidently got speedied after I removed the tag, but the rest are still standing. Basically, I was basically doing some housecleaning -- there's really no need to keep an AfD discussion open if the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I understand now but just felt the question needed to be asked. JodyB talk 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Tuxide

5. In response to your answer on 1., you mentioned that you wish to continue vandal fighting and cleaning up articles. Do you or have you ever used any non-admin tools such as WP:VF, WP:AWB, WP:VP2, WP:POPUP, etc.?
A: No, and WP:VP2 wouldn't work for me anyway since I have a Mac. I was considering signing up for AWB though, and even if my RfA's turned down I'll probably do that. It just never really crossed my mind before.
6. How will the admin tools help you accomplish what you wish to contribute in 1.?
A: As far as deleting pages, I'll make sure to delete any page that has an obvious consensus for deletion first, to help clear up the occasional deletion backlog. If I think a page needs to be speedied (because it's blank or spam or something), I'll make sure to tag it first, as a cautionary measure. Even right now, I tend to patrol the pages for speedy deletion and the AfD's -- and as an admin, I would continue to do so, and delete any pages which clearly need to go. I think that as an admin I have good enough judgment to decide what goes and what stays, and I would never go around recklessly deleting pages. If someone asks me why I deleted their page, then I'll make certain to clearly outline the reason(s) for deletion. Of course, I'll still participate in other deletion discussions, and close up discussions that need closing up.
As far as blocking users, I'll make sure to be careful with that one -- I know that abuse of power could cause me to lose my adminship. I'll make sure that disruptive users get fair warnings first. If someone requests me to block a user, I will make sure to check out the user's history first, and any malicious edits he or she may have done, before deciding whether or not said user needs to be blocked.
I will also intend to use the rollback to more easily revert vandalism on a page. I'll also make certain never to violate the 3-revert rule; if someone keeps adding something that needs to be removed, I will make sure to politely let the user know that he or she is contributing unwanted material. The same goes with any user who protests a deletion -- I don't want another repeat of my incident with User:Handyandy33, so I'll be certain to keep civil when explaining my actions.
I don't know if I'll use all the admin tools; I would imagine that there're many mods who only use some of their tools. For instance, I don't know JavaScript or CSS at all, so I wouldn't monkey with those.
7. Have you ever had an admin account on any MediaWiki install? Just yes or no is fine here.
A: No. I've never even been on MediaWiki at all, actually.
You have too, you're using it now. Sorry if I asked a confusing question here, I really wanted to know how familiar you were with using the wiki system that Wikipedia runs on. Tuxide 04:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Well, obviously I answered your question -- I'm obviously not familiar with MediaWiki! Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just didn't know the name of the wiki system, which is irrelevant in my opinion to whether you should become an admin. Thanks for your answers; I was more interested in if you knew what the tools did, but you seemed to give your answer in 6. Tuxide 04:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Edwin Herdman

8. I have given my support already, but I would like you to explain what system you have in mind to prevent yourself from being trigger happy, to prevent accidental closures such as happened at the Shrek 4 AfD from May 22nd.
I don't know really -- I guess I'll just be more careful! Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I worded that badly. I'm calling into question whether it's necessary to close AfDs before discussion has clearly ended. That said, I'm satisfied with the answer. Thanks! --Edwin Herdman 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Kzrulzuall

9. If you encountered an article which is a clear violation of BLP, but is notable, what would you do? Would you delete the article?
By that, I assume you mean that the article would be unsourced/biased/badly written/whatever, even though it's about a person who clearly is notable. (I'd like to make sure I'm on the right track; I'd hate to answer the wrong question!) Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 10:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was referring to if the article contain potentially libelous, defamatory or unsourced information. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article contained libelious info, I would make sure to remove it -- and if possible, replace it with encyclopedic content. If it contained unsourced info, I would make sure to hunt down some sources. If I still have concerns about the article -- in other words, if very little content remains after removal of libelious/defamatory info, or if I can't find anything encyclopedic to add, or if I can't find any sources -- then I'd put it up for CSD or at least AFD first. I'm only one man, so I can't improve all articles single- or even double-handedly, but I hope that by contributing with my own two hands, there's one fewer person who wishes he had an extra pair of hands. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 11:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)
10. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Hoo boy, that's a mess right there. I'll take some time to read the arguments and then reply with with my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked it over some. I've never heard of such Wikipedia attack sites before you told me, so I'm probably going to need some more time yet. As of right now, I don't see why the issue is so hotly contested, though... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that's my opinion for now -- I just don't see why it's so hotly contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my essay for more info on this conflict. It looks like, once again, the big kerfluffle over "attack sites" has actually drawn more attention to them (an unintended consequence for sure), as at least one person not previously aware of such sites is now possibly curious enough to go check them out. *Dan T.* 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support As nom --Whstchy 02:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Have had a number of positive dealings with this user on AfD and have been impressed by his dedication to actually fixing broken articles and not just crying for them to be rescued. No reason to oppose, happy to support based on my interaction with the user there. Arkyan • (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Positive contributions, and his contributions to AfD discussions show a solid knowledge of policies and guidelines, and his willingness to help fix articles up; I trust him with the tools. Krimpet (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - for high mainspace contribution (which matters the most ) and great AfD contributions as well ..----Cometstyles 04:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Supermassive Support based on my experiences with this user in recent Articles for Deletion discussions, where has always shown though behind his actions. I respect Husond’s comments, but I believe the exact opposite is true.G1ggy! 04:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a comment - your low Wikipedia space edit count could be a concern here, for other editors. From what I’ve seen, you are fine in this area, but others are more picky on time spent there then on actions performed.G1ggy! 04:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I've seen him around on AFD, and I can corroborate his attitude that he's willing to help in whatever way possible. YechielMan 05:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Sure thing! Jmlk17 07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing my support after further examination. Neutral vote now. Jmlk17 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support – He's already shown his willingness to use the mop he has; why not upgrade it? Adminship is no big deal. Edit summary usage isn't a deal-breaker for me, though I would like it to be improved, and perhaps he could also work on improving the quality vs. quantity ratio of your contributions to AfD. I'm confident he can do it. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per good mainspace contribs, would really like to see more in user talk but this user seems trustworthy enough, so OK, I'll support. GDonato (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I looked at the AfD cited in Q3, and I think the remarks quoted by the opposers below were taken out of context; in the circumstances, I think the candidate was justified in making those remarks. Walton Need some help? 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support- good work on WP:AFD Thunderwing 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Easy support. Someone who cares most about making a good encyclopedia is generally a good candidate for adminship. Just throwing that out. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, ain't no big deal. Abeg92contribs 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Moral support. Some of your contributions to AFD have missed the mark, but I was quite impressed other cases (surely, you know which ones they are, whether anyone else here has bothered to study them or not) where you took the time and effort to improve the article, fully embracing the possibility that both would be nullified by an unfortunate vote-count deletion, or become a perennial favorite topic in the hell of deletion review. If this RFA fails (and it probably will), just remember that your strength (at least on AFD ) lies in taking such risks, in action, rather than argument. Don't explain how much better an article could be, just make it so. I'd like to see more of that from you in the future. Good luck. — CharlotteWebb 02:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Some might be cooler when under attack but all things considered this guy is dedicated and will do fine. JodyB talk 02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Changing from "neutral" to "support" after further consideration. Comments such as "I'm working on boosting my edit summary count as we speak" make me feel ambivalent, but 10lbHammer is obviously listening to criticism and working to improve things. Of course, doing things the right way on Wikipedia is something you should say that you will always do, not work towards! Go after it full hog. I would definitely say that this looks like a good admin choice. --Edwin Herdman 05:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom. --Caldorwards4 07:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I've worked with him on a number of country music related articles. In a few instances we had some misunderstandings that could have led to an edit war, but he did a good job of warding that off by leaving a nice explanation on the talk page. I've also been impressed with the speed at which he recognizes and reverts vandalism on any number of pages, and he is tirelessly working to create more (good) articles. Karanacs 14:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Ability to accept to stand corrected is a great and increasingly rare quality in human beings and admins alike. And as for edit summary usage, let me just say that anyone who (abusive comment removed). And that's about all I'm going to say about that. —AldeBaer 16:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good history here and will be a good choice. Corpx 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support I'm impressed by your edit count, but I agree with Husond. --Random Say it here! 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strongest Support Possible - Hammer's been extremely helpful to me during AfD debates, and 3000-something edits in one month is awesome (not to resort to editcountitis, however). Very impressed, and I know he'll be great with the tools. Adminship is no big deal, and I'm sure he won't go Robdurbar on us. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. There are some legitimate concerns listed below, but it seems like TPH is dedicated to ammending these matters. ◄Zahakiel► 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I've mostly encountered TPH in AFD which he approaches more as a discussion or a collaborative investigation than is often typical. TPH will look into the neglected AFDs that have got few comments and generally do the boring work that isn't very popular. For both these reasons in particular and for generally seeming like a safe pair of hands, it's a real shame that it looks unlikely that this RFA will pass and I hope he'll try again in the not too distant future. CIreland 11:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strongest Support Possible You are a very good, experienced user. Good luck! -Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support: I believe TenPoundHammer will take the constructive criticism in the oppose section below to heart, and from now on will be careful to follow WP:CIVIL at all times. TenPoundHammer, as a personal observation, I'd like to point out to you that your username is suggestive of conflict or of an approach to conflict, and may give ever so slightly the wrong impression of you. People may come to the conclusion that you've chosen to stereotype yourself as someone with a sledgehammer personality or approach. Changing it might be something to consider. Let me give you an example: the name User:Budgiekiller was chosen innocently enough, and referred to the fans of a rival team of the Canaries, the nickname of the Norwich City Football Club (soccer team). However, many people interpretted the username to indicate a murderer of cute little parakeets. In response to feedback from people who thought that's what his username meant, he changed it to User:The Rambling Man and passed his next RfA with 100% support (though the support itself was no doubt due to spending 4 months working hard on featured articles, fighting vandalism, etc. - he even broke the 100 support !vote mark). Good luck in everything you do, and if you need an admin coach, let me know. Sincerely, The Transhumanist    19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak support: Although there are issues with personal attacks and "poor handling", nobody is perfect - this user is a rough diamond, however a diamond nonetheless. TPH clearly has the right attitude to Wikipedia and should be an admin, and would hopefully grow from here. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support No argument - support =) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 10:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, sorry. On May 19th I recall noticing your omnipresence on WP:AFD, and I recall thinking that your positions in multiple discussions there were lacking substance. In fact, allowing just a couple of minutes to decide position upon position is a behavior that seems to denote a particularly inadequate levity for someone who intends to attain a higher level of responsibilities within Wikipedia. Also, no vandalfight, and an edit summary usage far below the least acceptable. Húsönd 02:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Could you please kindly link to some of the specific discussions where you think I showed "inadequate levity"? Also, please enlighten me on what you mean by "no vandalfight". I realize that I often forget edit summaries -- I've been trying to work on that. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This one, for instance, where I obviously noticed your decision. Not the most reasonable position swap I've seen around. As for the other cases, the time you took to review the arguments presented in each of those discussions before stating your respective position just doesn't seem to have been enough for those positions to be well-balanced. Vandalfight? Could be useful if, as you say, you intend to block disruptive users.--Húsönd 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? To quote John Maynard Keynes: When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? - Superbfc; 2007.05.27; 00:42 UTC
    Okay, maybe that wasn't my best comment in that AfD. I've since added a comment about planning to fight vandalism -- for some reason I thought I'd already typed that in. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: parts of the above answered a question that was meanwhile modified.--Húsönd 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer. I've made the change in my preferences -- I wasn't aware that option existed. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose on the basis of the example given on Q3. some on your replies were "Delete as a non-notable author who a.) turns out hardly any GHits besides Amazon; and b.) ripped off "Eats, Shoots & Leaves". and "Where the hell did you get that concept from? I'm not "doing this out of a grudge against anyone who disagrees with my prescriptivist grammar line" -- whatever that freaking means. I simply stated an opinion on the page -- and I'm not the only person on Wikipedia who considers singular "they" substandard English. You'd better hold your tongue and avoid the personal attacks, and I mean now." This was only 2 days ago. DGG 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I think you AfD contributions are great but I think Husond's comments are a worry and your edit summary usage is not very good either, I think if you make a few improvements you could pass at a later date. Kindest Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 11:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose for now I've seen this user at AFD and I want to preface my statements by saying that I really admire your willingness to change your opinion when presented with new information. There are way too many users at AFD who state an opinion and never change their mind no matter what evidence or how many sources are presented to rebuff their initial votes. This user is open-minded and that's a tremendous credit. But comments like those highlighted by DGG are a big red light. If over the next couple of months the temper has been reigned in a bit, I'd support. Also, the comments about perhaps taking a little bit longer evaluating an article before voting are comments I agree with. --JayHenry 15:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The point was raised above that the concerns presented here were taken out of context. I want to provide some diffs so people can find the comments in question. diff 1 and diff 2. It looks to me like a complete loss of temper with a frustrated user. As an admin you're going to encounter many similarly frustrated users and frankly I don't think it's ever appropriate to respond with cursing and "you better do this" or "If I were you" sort of comments. --JayHenry 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, even in Q3 above I admit that maybe I could have handled this better. I'm willing to take the rap on this one and I'll definitely be more careful from now on. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks for digging up those diffs, JayHenry. In the interest of fairness: I can kind of see how having one's integrity drawn into question over a fairly tame and non-inflammatory userbox might be irritating. The response was obviously a bit of an overreaction and, as the candidate himself admitted, the issue could have been handled better. As DGG pointed out, this is a fairly recent event. Personally, I would chalk this one up to a momentary lapse in good judgement. We're all human and as long as there's no pattern, I wouldn't let this sway me one way or the other. -- Seed 2.0 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per examples provided by Husond and JayHenry. Without these examples I would've supported as the edit summary usage issue is not a good enough reason to oppose, but I am glad to see that you have made your edit summary usage now forced. However I still am not pleased by the examples provided.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sorry, but I have to oppose. Communication is key for administrators, and edit summaries are very important, especially in the form of deletion comments, when most users only have those few words to see why an article was deleted. 47% for major edits is just not satisfactory. Your comments on AFD are great, but I am troubled by the edit summaries. Also, you say in question three that blocking would be a last resort if you were in a conflict. Blocking should NEVER be used to gain an advantage in a conflict, only in the case of a clearly disruptive user or vandal. If in doubt, always ask another admin. —METS501 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Whoops, I'll rewrite that part. I didn't mean for it to be construed as "I plan to block to gain advantage", becuase I don't plan that at all... when I said "block as a last resort", I meant "only for truly disruptive users who need to be blocked". Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. I'm going to stay oppose though, for now, although I may change to support in a few days if edit summary usage improves (and I see you are already making an effort, which is good). —METS501 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I was very disappointed in the opinion given during this AfD. It better serves the community to take time to explain why a particular position is valid instead of 'So what?' and then adding a snide anecdote. This event occurred only yesterday. Help others with policy, or else users, especially new users, become discouraged. the_undertow talk 23:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I apologized to that user, and informed him of a couple of relevant policies. The user himself, and others within that discussion, don't seem to have taken offense to it; personally, I don't think it was that rude of a comment, but it's not something I should've said. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I looked at that comment and have to agree that it was really not that rude. The editor voting keep seems to be suggesting we throw all criteria for notability to the wind and just keep everything in existence. I do, however, think that TPH could work on communication style a bit. —Gaff ταλκ 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose, you've made many fine contributions, but I think the ways you handle some issues (look at above links) point toward you not being quite ready. Please try again soon, and I'll probable support you then. *Cremepuff222* 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for now. I'm sorry to say that, although TPH has demonstrated a very positive and keen-to-learn attitude to cleaning-up, improving the sourcing of articles, for which I for one gave a barnstar, TPH does certainly appear to need a some more work on his communication skills, especially when under fire. I have found it a ploy by some users who use information on my userpage against me personally in deletion debates, so I know very well what it feels like to have one's words twisted against one. Someone engages you but in "a streetfight", you know you must exercise restraint. The situation referred to by DGG could have been handled a lot better. However, I am convinced that TPH is very motivated to improve, as he keeps on demonstrating. I am sure he will learn some "karate", and will make admin in due course. Ohconfucius 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Ten Pound Hammer is very quick to say something is definitely one thing or the other - and then equally quickly is forced to change his mind when he is shown to be wrong [1]. This causes no harm on an AfD debate, except to his chances here, but I fear that admin powers would see him summarily make changes which proved mistaken, causing a lot of work for other editors and damaging the project as a whole. I'm sure a bit more experience wouldn't do him any harm here. Nick mallory 09:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Ten Pound Hammer just nominated an article on Ivan Molina for speedy deletion - four minutes after its creation and while the original writer was still working on it. Molina was a French Open mixed doubles tennis champion with Martina Navratilova as a quick google would have shown. I worry that with extra admin powers he'd be too quick to nip perfectly legitimate topics in the bud like this and discourage new users from adding good new articles. Nick mallory 08:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Based on other people's input above, as well as on personal experience at AfD, I'd say that TPH still lacks the necessary maturity to be a good admin. The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom (?), but he's not there yet. Stammer 11:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. The AfD issues are troublesome. Admins need to proactive, but also careful with decisions. It's a fine line, and I think TenPoundHammer needs a few more months of showing that he has good judgement with that fine line. Also, I was troubled about the Mac excuse. I've tried out several things to make them work on the Mac, and somewhere below my comment is an editor who states that using Popups is mac compatible. I've just switched over. Orangemarlin 18:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no requirement that an admin candidate have used anti-vandal tools. I use no scripts, no external programs, no UI extensions of any kind (only the default skin). No one was bothered by this during my RFA, nor even asked me about it. I also prepare my longer edits in a notepad, do binary-to-decimal conversions on an abacus, and block vandals with Byzantine armies. ··coelacan 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you used a mac you wouldn't need to revert to an abacus!  :) Anyways, the popup thing was not why I'm opposed, it was something I noticed, mainly because I worship at the temple of Steve Jobs. My biggest reason is that the applicant really needs a few more months of editing calmly (not that he hasn't), and revisit this application. This was my second "vote" and I now know off-handed remarks can be taken wrong. Orangemarlin 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that sarcasm? :-P Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds scarily like how I do things. I had to stop myself from constructing an edit in Notepad last night, in fact (hey, more screen space). I like to know how the formatting works. --Edwin Herdman 03:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I only asked 5. because I wanted to see if he could achieve what he stated in 1. without an admin account, and it didn't bother me that his answer was no. Right after TenPoundHammer posted his "I use a mac" answer, I had this lengthy discussion with Eagle 101 on Freenode concerning how VP2 sucks in general because it's written in Visual Basic. TenPoundHammer's outstanding activity on AFD is well enough to justify his request for an admin account in my opinion. Tuxide 05:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I don't trust this user to make well-informed decisions, and to make them correctly and decisively. Daniel 05:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I've run into TenPoundHammer a few times. He does not assume good faith; actually, he assumes bad faith. I think that is an issue when applying for adminship.--TREYWiki 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per DGG, Husond and Mets, the general incivility and inability to AGF, and I find the answer to question three troubling. Sarah 14:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Per Husond, Mets and especially DGG. I have worked with this user before, and a lot of the edits he makes do not even show a need for the tools. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 18:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In one instance I can remember, he was very confrontational regarding a copyright issue. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one was that? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per above. One 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose as the answers to the above questions seem to display a lack of familiarity with some of the basic parts of WP, including policies central to the complex of an admin's tools and judgement like BLP. You seem like you're on the right track, and I could support in a few months. TewfikTalk 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Waters. This was recent and very poorly handled. Captain panda 22:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Some good reasons why, some good reasons why not. Dfrg.msc 08:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I completely agree with Dfrg.msc. I am a bit concerned with some of your comments as DGG pointed out above as well, but I'm not concerned enough to vote an oppose. Jmlk17 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Reading through your AfD comments, I was pleased that you often give a thorough reasoning, but I disagreed with some of your comments, such as some of the ones you commented as speedy deletions. I didn't find anything that made me want to oppose, but it didn't give me the confidence to support. Leebo T/C 14:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per Leebo. Some of the AfD comments are concerning, but don't hold enough merit for an opposing vote. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. While I respect your humility in Q3, the comments in question do raise concern, particularly the message you posted on his talk page here, and they were made only three days ago, so I honestly can't trust whether you'll stick to your word or not. I'm withholding any stance on this as I've never interacted with you personally and therefore can't make judgments. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I'll clear up your vandal fighting on a Mac problem: I do RC patrol on a Mac and popups work fine for me – I even use Camino as my default browser and have for more than a year. The instructions are easy to follow and you should be up to speed in very little time. Combine popups with the bots in the vandalism-en IRC channel and the only thing you can't do is block vandals. Because popups and IRC work so well, I don't see your need for admin tools right now, and the comments noted above put me in the same position as Dfrg.msc. I think you're heading in the right direction, but I can't quite support right now. KrakatoaKatie 07:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I really would like to support this RfA. TPH does a lot of work around here. However, there seems to be an issue with acting hastily and blowing the cool. Also, I worry about answer to Q6 above: there's really no need to keep an AfD discussion open if the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. I simply do not agree with this, as once the discussion has started, it should continue until consensus or other closure is reached. This was an issue on another AfD ongoing. I do see adminship in TPH's future, but maybe still a bit down the road, once more of the community is behind it. —Gaff ταλκ 20:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree wigh TenPoundHammer's comment on 4. If someone wants to see an article get deleted and the original nominator withdraws his nomination, all he has to do is renominate it for AfD. Tuxide 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Am changing my comment, what I really meant is below. Tuxide 05:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't we talking about the answer to Q4, though? Not Q6? Gaff is right, in most cases. If anyone besides the nominator has !voted delete, the AFD should not be WP:SNOW closed even if the nominator withdraws. The nominator is just another !voter; they're allowed to change their mind, but this doesn't magically overrule the other people who want the article deleted. To treat the nominator's withdrawal as something special is to let the nominator WP:OWN the deletion discussion. Once the community has been invited to participate in a deletion discussion, everyone's views have to be given consideration. Now, if no one besides the nominator !voted delete, then the nominator's change means there's no one who wants to delete the article, and in this case a WP:SNOW keep is acceptable. ··coelacan 02:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldergrove Elementary School was the bundled AFD in question, and no one except the nominator had asked for deletion. So this particular action was correct. The wording of TenPoundHammer's answer to Q4, though, is at best imprecise. ··coelacan 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this is more complicated than I thought I could make it sound. If the nominator decides to withdraw his AFD nomination, and there are others who voted delete but none of them brought up any other reason to delete the article besides what the nominator stated, then I don't see any reason why such an article should be deleted. The discussion could probably continue in case somebody else brings up a better reason. There are some who votestack on AFD who don't monitor the discussions anyways. Tuxide 05:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this as well. Just because the nominator has become convinced doesn't mean that the other people who agreed with the nominator have become convinced. The nominator doesn't WP:OWN the exclusive right to the reasoning they first presented. If others still find it convincing, their concern remains a reason not to WP:SNOW close. "Per nom" doesn't mean "per the nom's feelings and personal whims" but "per the nom's argument". ··coelacan 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think the answer for this one is "it depends". I am still not convinced that this is not something that can be easily answered as either yes or no. Tuxide 04:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As Dfrg stated, there are some good reason to support, and some good reasons to oppose. I am leaning towards support, but am pending the answer to AldeBaer's question. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 10:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Although I'd like to recommend him, I'm not yet convinced that he seriously wants adminship. Tuxide 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I want to be an admin, all right... it's just that this discussion has seriously proven that I'm so not ready to be one (as evidenced by the fact that I don't have a snowball's chance in Hell right now). Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral, you look like a good candidate, but some of the comments made by Husond are quite valid. TimV.B.{critic & speak} 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category