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

Tiptoety[edit]

Final: (93/8/4); ended 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety (talk · contribs) - We are nominating User:Tiptoety for adminship. He has over 13,000 edits on Wikipedia, having been an active editor since May 2007. He has a lot of experience in maintaining article quality, in areas of categorizing categories, merging, vandal patroller, and neutral point of view. Tiptoety would make a fantastic admin, as we know he will not abuse the tools, but use them to good use. And, he has all the basics an admin should have. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) and iMatthew 2008 23:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A:

• I plan to perform a wide variety of administrative tasks to help and serve the community. As shown in my contributions I have a long history of dealing with users who make edits without the projects best interest in mind, some call them vandals, I call them mis-guided users. I hope to continue to educate and remove their un-helpful contributions from the project in a civil manner, attempt to educate the user, and when necessary block their editing privileges. I will continually monitor WP:AIV, and block when appropriate. My hope though is that educating the user prior to the block will ultimately produce a constructive project building user, who does not need a block.
• For a while now, I have been looking at the small backlog that seems to form at Category:Speedy deletion and have noticed articles that require immediate attention, but sometimes do not receive it. It is my goal to eliminate those articles from wikipedia. My philosophy when it comes to deletion is to look first if the article could be improved, and if it appears that it could be, look for reliable sources to verify the content within the article. If none is found and the article does not violate and WP:BLP or any other policy, leave a message with the author of the content stating that I would be willing to place the deleted content within their userspace for further editing before being released back into article space.
• Something that I have been doing for a while now is monitoring WP:AN/I and WP:AN, and when needed putting in my thoughts or helping new or old users in need of advice, I feel that with the tools I would be better fit to assist the users that come to ANI for help. I have noticed there are often threads that go un-attended for a great while sometimes, ones that can only really be dealt with by someone with the tools. I know that with all of the backlogs and the need for administrators it can take a while for anyone wot preform the task needed to mark the thread as resolved, so having one more pair of eyes to be able to help out could not hurt.
• Another area that could do with an extra pair of administrative eyes is WP:RFPP. I feel that with 58 requests to RFPP, I clearly understand WP:PROTECT and would be an asset to that section of the project.

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

A:When it comes to article space I feel that my best contributions would be the creation of Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue, while this article has received improvement from multiple other users, the bulk has been done by myself. I feel that while this article is somewhat lacking in amount of content, it makes up for in kind of content, all the claims are sourced, and the section that is not is being worked on currently. I feel that this article proves my capabilities to produce and improve articles along with simple aspects such as wiki-markup and such. I feel that non-article space related, some of my better contributions have been to AN/I, and AN.

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:Edit conflicts? No. But users that have caused me stress, yes. I have had my fair share of un-constructive, users who make it their goal to attack me and disrupt me in any way shape or form they can find. But, I handle every situation with the same approach always WP:AGF, be WP:CIVIL, and try talking with the users, when all else fails, bring in a third party, or just report to WP:AIV. Now if i was ever to find myself in an editing dispute, the same process would go as above just noting that i fallow a strict 1RR rule, and after that all conversations take place on the article talk page, not in the edit summary’s. Just like always, if situations escalate, call in a un-involved third party, or bring it to AN/I.

Questions from Avruch

4. What were the concerns raised in your previous two requests that caused them to be unsuccessful, and how have you addressed them? Can you anticipate if any similar or new concerns will be raised in this request, and how you might respond?

A: Well my first RfA was just premature, it was me not knowing quite what an administrator is. My second one had a few issues, one stands out the most to be for the reason it was un-successful, that being an issue with me placing a userbox in my userpace stating that i was a police officer, and stating i was such in a conversation with a user. I am not a police officer, yet a police cadet. I will not justify my reason for mi-representing myself because it was wrong. I will say that i have sense removed all userboxs/statements from my userpace that deal with my Law Enforcement status, and have not spoke to another user involving my status with the police until now. I think another reason brought up in my RfA was me nominating a very notable person *blushes in embarrassment* for deletion. What was i thinking? A little more work and research would have yielded a dumbfounding amount of sources asserting notability. It ultimately opened my eyes that i need to be more careful when it comes to deletion, and sense then check for verification and sources before nominating anything including speedy material for deletion. And i think the final reason my second one went down in flames was that i nominated myself, I think thats not a problem this time around. :p Tiptoety ^talk 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. What is your opinion on CAT:AOR?

A: What is my opinion about it? Or will I add myself to it? I have thought about this question for a good long time now. The idea itself is great, there should always be checks and balances, and when users standing in good faith see that it would be in the best interest of the project for myself or another admin to be re-confirmed then that’s what needs to be done, it was the community that placed the admin in the positions because they trusted them, it should be their choice to remove them if they have lost that trust. Now does this mean I think that because an admin makes a difficult block because they think they are protecting the project and make some users unhappy they should be over run? No, and that’s where the issue comes in with me. I feel that I would add myself to the category because i have not seen any abuse of it yet, but reserve the right to remove myself from it if the idea results in bad faith re-confirmations. BUT like always will allow myself to go through i re-confirmation process at anytime that 3 admins or more think it would be in the best interest of the project. Tiptoety ^talk 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SSBohio

6. I looked at your recent contributions and I'm not immediately seeing the justification for these edits:

6.1 Creations:

6.2 Deletions:

AfD of the author of a notable work

Invalid R1 speedy delete tag

None of these are in areas I've done much to edit, but, from my perspective it seems like there is opposition or a problem with each of these. What was your thought process in taking these actions? Did you anticipate possible difficulty with any of these actions?

A: Aw yes, the redirects, they where in fact created for a anonymous user per WP:AFC (see here for the exact requests. They where made in good faith. As for the AfD, upon nominating it i had first tagged it for speedy deletion A3 because the article had nothing within it except rephrasing of the title. Then the author changed the content within the article to a redirect, one which ended up being a red link. I was unable to find any article that closely resembled the malformed redirect and so i tagged it for speedy deletion. After i had done that the author fixed it sending it to the article that i ended up nominating. The article at the time stated that Atsushi Okubo was the author of a manga and nothing else. It had no sources to verify the claim and after i did some research i was unable to locate any reliable sources myself. It appears that there has been at least one source that has been located, but that has been done by searching for the author using his named spelled in Japanese characters (something i would not have been able to do myself). The source itself does not clearly state that he was the author of the manga, but instead more of a staff member. Hope that helps clear things up. Tiptoety ^talk 03:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional from Spebi

7. Excuse me if I sound insulting, but is there any particular reason why you sometimes don't use correct grammar and spelling when making comments on discussions? I know this question makes it sound as though it is a necessity to use the highest level of correct grammar and spelling at all times (and I'm not trying to imply that this is true, either), but most users prefer, for the sake of readability and to avoid confusion, that effort is put into making posts and comments readable and understandable as possible. Although this is wrong, sometimes other people can stop taking you seriously if one does not at least make an effort to appear comprehensible to others. I can understand if it is a technical difficulty or if you don't speak English very well or a similar problem, but if you're just being lazy... ;) My apologies if I do sound rude or pushy, it really isn't my intention at all. Spebi 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A:No, you do not come across rude, and I completely understand where proper grammar and complete sentences are a good quality to posses as a administrator due to the fact they (admins) are constantly engaged in discussion with other users. As for myself, it could be a lack of English comprehension (though English is my first language), but is not due to the fact that I simply get lazy. I hope that answers your question. Tiptoety ^talk 05:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so, thank you. Spebi 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional fromDGG (talk)

8. In general, articles on county & local rescue services have failed AfD. If I nominated Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue for deletion on the grounds that there were no 3rd party Reliable sources, how would you respond? (I note that ref 4 seems to be unavailable).

A: Ooo, thats a good question. First off, I had no idea that ref#4 no longer was available, and to be honest was the strongest source the article had. The ref was a press release from the Governor stating that the search and rescue team had help/solved multiple homicides through the evidence they located. I was able to locate another reference to go in place of it, its just not quite as good of a one. I feel that the notability could not be argued here as policy states: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive." The size of the unit is the largest in the state, the organization receives federal funding to assist with national communication and emergency response, and along with solving major crimes asserts notability. The only issue is like you stated, having secondary reputable sources to back up such claims of notability. The article has a clear reference to the topic of funding and its uses, but the other two are unarguably not so clear or strong. My statement at its AfD would cite the secondary sources that assist in claiming its notability, along with what actions/facts make it notable. I am also currently working on locating better secondary sources. Tiptoety ^talk 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tiptoety before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]

1. Strong Support Most definitely ready to become an admin. THE KC (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
2. Strong support - from all interaction with Tiptoety I've found him to be extremely helpful and clearly understands policy - will make a fantastic admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Will be a good admin. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Still a little bothered by the police thing from before, but his work has generally been quality so I see no reason to oppose at this time. Avruch ^T 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Experienced user all around. I can see no potential problems whatsoever. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Wait a sec, he isn't an admin? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong support. One of the editors I see around most frequently. I had assumed he was already an admin - as for the concerns cited, the given article is perfectly fine. It's not against policy to write sub-FA articles. Heck, look at most things I write, they're completely uncited. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Very thorough editor; no problems supporting. CBHAIO. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support It was tough to oppose last time, but I'm happy to support this time around. Tiptoety will make a great admin. Good luck! faithless (^speak) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support No problems here. MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Rouge no big deal support. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - An experienced user who can be trusted with the tools. --LAX 11:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. STRONG SUPPORT Great user, have interacted with him here and Travel Guide Wiki, and I don't think that Tiptoety will abuse the tools. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 11:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support I've seen him around, and was impressed with his contributions. Good luck! Spencer^T♦C 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Majorly (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong Support I've had nothing but high quality interaction with this candidate. Pedro :  Chat  13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. You don't need writing skills to make a good admin. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. per response to Q #4 and reviewing the opposes from RfA #2. I see a not insignificant amount of effort directed at self-improvement here. To me, that shows the right kind of attitude. Ronnotel (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Very well accomplished editor. Rtac. 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Awesome editor, very clueful. I've never seen him be anything other than totally friendly, and always makes a lot of sense when participating in discussions. delldot talk 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support meets my standards. We can't all be article builders. The user has knowledge to use the block, protect, and delete buttons. Although article building is helpful, it is not essential to the admin-specific buttons. User's other experiences offset the "lack" of article building. Dlohcierekim 14:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support--Húsönd 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - This user is a great editor whom is well suited for the tools! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - Very good user whom I know will use the tools well. The Chronic 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - Shows good interest in doing admin level work ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - Excellent user. Epbr123 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strong support Great candidate who will undoubtedly make a great admin. нмŵוτнτ 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Brilliant user, some disagreeable opposes. Would, to quote a famous user, be a net positive to Wikipedia. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 20:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of interest, what user would that be? Pedro :  Chat  23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am curious too... :P Tiptoety ^talk 23:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    hmmm... as if you don't know ;P _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEPARK} ^talk 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, my interest is piqued. I've used the phrase but maybe I've unconsciously picked up/plagiarised it from someone else...(omg...plagiarism...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Now we are all guessing,[1]. Tiptoety ^talk 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I might have used it on the odd occasion ......... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

33. Support As per nom and Keilana why not earlier is the question only Tenpoundhammer is amongst the unlucky not to be an admin.Great track with over 13000 edits.Concerns in previous RFA overcome.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Responsible user. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. I was more than happy to grant Tiptoety rollback (in fact, he is the first user I ever gave rollback to), and I am more than happy to support this nomination. Tiptoety will make a good administrator. Acalamari 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - as nominator. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - as co-nominator. iMatthew 2008 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - I can't see any problems with this user. PookeyMaster (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Perfect Edit summary usage, and would make a great admin! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Super Strong Support! I do not believe that Tiptoety is not an admin. I'm glad I read my userpage! Alexfusco⁵ 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - very good editor, will make a good admin.   jj137 (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Absolutely - He's already a huge help; I can't wait to see what he does with the extra buttons. --jonny-mt 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support It's about time! Very helpful user who would do great with the tools. Icestorm815 • Talk 06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Excellent user. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Active, improved over time and has clearly taken points on board - I would have been reluctant to support a few months ago, but am happier now. Tiptoey's adminship will be a net benefit to the project. Bencherlite^Talk 11:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support I trust this user. Sting au Buzz Me... 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Always willing to help fellow Wikipedians with questions as well as a vigilant vandal fighter. Will make a great admin. ponyo (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Having reviewed Tiptoety's contributions, I see no concerning flaws in the candidate's nomination. I get the feeling that he may not be the "perfect candidate" at the present moment, but I am confident that, if he is not, he will eventually develop into an administrator and an asset to the project. On the basis of a reasonable nomination at present, and an assumed future improvement, I am happy to support. AGK (contact) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Would make a good admin NimiTize 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Will be great Admin. SexySeaShark 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support A good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support: Again. I see no red flags. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support No problems here. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support: No problems here! --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support as before. Meets my standards, has been very useful with criminology topics, and is known around. No concerns about abusing the mop. Excellent answers to questions. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support I thought I had done this earlier... · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Per AndonicO, I thought I had, as well. Tiptoety will make an excellent admin. —Travis^talk 01:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - User has a good track record and seems to be doing well. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support- Has contributed greatly to Wikipedia, helping new users (including me), and would make an excellent admin. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support: I see no major issues; is well versed in many of the critical aspects of Wikipedia. seicer | talk | contribs 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support I see nothing worthy of concern, and am glad to see someone so well versed in the community side of Wikipedia. Those are the people we need making admin, as they are the ones who get the most enjoyment out of, and are therefore the most productive in, the job. SexySeaBass 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support: Seems to be knowledgeable of WP policy, cool under fire, and has other Wikipedians asking for advise. Fits my criteria. Good luck!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support, could use more article-building experience, but otherwise I see no evidence this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
65. Support I trust that this user to not misuse the mop, which overrides any other concerns listed. Royalbroil 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Definitely trustworthy. VanTucky 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Active community participant, sensible. Acroterion _(talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support, outstanding contributor to the project. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Strong support - I thought he was already an admin. I've seen him around a lot lately and have seen only good things. Lara❤Love 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Yep! « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Yes. - Philippe | Talk 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I thought he was already an admin! Midorihana^~iidesune? 06:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support, and about time too. Neıl ☎ 10:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support: He's made some great contribs to the project and I think that he would make a great Admin --Mifter (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support: Sure. --Bhadani (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support experienced member BanRay 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Strong Support: I like the way that you responded to #4 and I like your reply to #1. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) —Preceding comment was added at 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Strike one, Strike Two, strike Three , Nah. Homerun. Good user, knows policy, seems civil reading through talk page history. Has addressed previous concerns. Have fun mopping! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support considering that if asked I would have nominated myself, sure. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support I've seen Tiptoety around enough to have confidence in his judgment Gwernol 20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Good experienced user and knows how to use the tools. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. I don't see any major problems here. Best of luck! SQL^{Query me!} 09:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support good wikipedian, participate in RfA a lot, has already been tagging pages for deletion, will make a great admin. Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Excellent user, will do wonders with the tools. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate vote - see #8 above. Xenon⁵⁴ 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

85. Support: Seen Tiptoety around Wikipedia (mostly on the Help Desk, if I remember correctly) and have always been impressed with their helpfulness and respect. Hopefully the third time is the charm! Xenon⁵⁴ 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Delete err... Support Dorftrottel (criticise) 00:12, March 2, 2008
87. Support Seen Tiptoety around on WP:ANI and on various user talk pages always with good answers. Time for him to do some mopping. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support. Per the noms by ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) and IMatthew (talk · contribs), good content contributor, has done some valued work on this project. Cirt (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Reviewing the editor's history, while there have been some hiccups well documented below, and perhaps some poor decisions in the past, the editor's willingness to learn from mistakes and accept constructive criticism reassures me that community trust extended to this editor will not be misused. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Yes... yes indeed. Jmlk17 07:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support If I hadn't just reviewed the Deacon of Pndapetzim RfA this would have been a very simple case. As it is I was just a little perturbed by the times the candidate changed their vote. While it is good that a potential admin should be open to a change of opinion, it is also important that an admin makes a decision after considering all relevant data and not upon a first review. However, does it change my opinion whether Tipteoty can be trusted with the mop? No, it doesn't - so my !vote remains the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. I wasn't actually going to bother piling-on here, but I might as well help push this towards WP:100! EJF (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. I interacted with the editor earlier, and the editor took my suggestion in stride. I knew the editor was on RFA, so I went ahead and took a glance at the contributions. Does good work, I think this would be ok. I'll support. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. Oppose Has only been active for less than a year. In that time has been too active to promote him/herself as arbiter of what qualifies for deletion. Get someone with more experience. —Preceding comment added by Pfrancois (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You must be referring to SurveyEngine (same as the other user below..), please understand that article was deleted for being advertising which is not allowed here at wikipedia. If you have other situations where I miss tagged an article for deletion I would be willing to justify my reasonings. Tiptoety ^talk 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. Quality of writing. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 06:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If I may point out that being an administrator does not have to do with how well one writes; I'm not contesting this oppose, that's just my opinion. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   We communicate in writing, mostly. It’s difficult to get respect for our (administrative) opinions if they are written in a clumsy way. At all levels, Wikipedia must strive for the very best. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 14:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I do hope this doesn't come across rudely, but could I ask you change it to "Quality of communication" - otherwise it could be intrepreted in various ways (i.e. article skills etc.) Thank you. Rudget. 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No problem re. rudely, it's not. On writing, I'm not hung up on the word and I would gladly change it, were it not that Quality of communication sounds much broader and really ominous. I didn't intend to be that suggestive. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for replying anyway. I appreciate that. Rudget. 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Has only been active for less than a year. In that time has been too active to promote him/herself as arbiter of what qualifies for deletion. Get someone with more experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfrancois (talk • contribs) 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Reluctantly. The misrepresentation of your off-Wiki position bothered me slightly (because of the recent EssJay issue), but I've discounted that, since anyone can say/do something foolish and should be able to outlive such things. While I echo others' concerns about quality editing, this, again, isn't a defining issue for an administrator. My major issue comes out of the candidate's comments in this RfA, to wit: "un-constructive users who make it their goal to attack me and disrupt me in any way shape or form they can find." I've had dealings with a number of administrators whose comments I've found to be undiplomatic bordering on incivil. I can't see where we need another, or even the potential for another. That, coupled with the lack of a clear openness to recall, means I must oppose. --SSBohio, 00:48, 26 February 2008

   That comment was not meant to be un-diplomatic, but instead state that I have run into users who's only edits are un-constructive ones. But like I said in other answers as well as that one I do not treat them any differently then any other user, I also remain civil, and try my hardest to direct their un-constructive energy into constructive energy that will ultimately benefit the project. I hope that I am not coming across as badgering you, just trying to clarify :p Tiptoety ^talk 05:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I should have been more clear in my concern. I agree that there are unconstructive editors here. What concerns me is your statement that they "attack me and disrupt me." I worry that if you feel (in my own words) persecuted now, that you'll feel even more villified once you start doing admin work. There are admins with the patience of Job and admins with hardly any patience at all. We need, IMO, more of the former and fewer of the latter. --SSBohio 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose per the quote in the previous oppose. While I appreciate (personally!) the sentiments behind it, it seems un-necessarily vicious and "just another jab" at this prime oppurtunity. No problems except that; try again soon.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - Has grown since the last RFA and half the concerns have been addressed. But the other half (experience in the mainspace) remains to be addressed. Vandal fighting is only a small part of what Wikipedia is about, and Tiptoety has that part down. Now its time to spread your wings and fly into the larger Wikipedia world where we are writing an encyclopedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - I am particularly concerned about one of the article requests you handled: "State Representative Carlos Lopez-Cantera ... " You replied: declined. This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria A7 and/or guidelines on biographies.. Tiptoety talk 00:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)-- (you used the form, not writing it specifically) But all members of state legislatures are considered notable at WP, it's one of the best-accepted special inclusion rules. If you dont know this, how are you yet qualified to work on article requests, let alone be an administrator? I think that you're learning how to work here, but you have not so far learned thoroughly enough. I appreciate your good work on my question above, but the RfA is not the time to instruct you in the basics of notability. DGG (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you DGG, and I see your concern. This was obviously a mistake on my part, though I feel that reviewing other situations dealing with criteria A7 would demonstrate my understanding of the policy and what makes and does not make people notable. I am not asking you to change your !vote, but consider if one mistake clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of policy. If you would like I would be willing to answer further questions in regards to notability :). Tiptoety ^talk 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Strong Oppose User has only been online for 10 months. It seems the main activity has been to increase his edit score with a view to becoming an admin rather than actually contributing. I don't think anyone should be able to be an admin without a proven record of steady contribution, rather than an excessive burst of activity in a bid to get power Ben (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If I may, what amount of time would you like to see a user contribute before running for adminsip, so that i can improve myself?Tiptoety ^talk 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose for now, with regret. I have enjoyed working with Tiptoety, and hope to continue to do so. However, I believe that more quality writing, demonstrating a firm grasp of what Wikipedia is here for, are necessary. I would have held off on my assessment, except that I noticed that the one article I'm most familiar with has been held up as an example of Tiptoety's best work. This article, Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue, to me represents an editor still getting a feel for how to contribute to Wikipedia. It is assessed as "Start" class. It has ((expand)), ((wikify)), and ((Refimprove)) templates on it. Again, I have enjoyed working with Tiptoety, and have no concerns regarding civility, abuse of power, or anything like that; but a strong foundation in the writing of an encyclopedia is a very important factor to me. -Pete (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Further concern: On looking into this nomination further, I find a more significant concern: Tiptoety has done almost no work whatsoever on Categories, Images, Templates, or Portals. See here:[2] These are major areas of Wikipedia, and admin tools affect them as much as anything else. I don't believe work in article space, user space, and Wikipedia space alone provides sufficient familiarity with the project for admin tools. I hope to see Tiptoety become an admin someday, but I feel that day is very far in the future. -Pete (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Frankly, I don't think it necessary. Very few of us have the time or the ability to work on everything here. true, I made sure before my own RfA that I had at least one or two edits in areas I generally did not work in, so nobody could say I had none, but I work where I can best contribute. I'd rather see him devote some time to serious article work, because I cannot see that someone who's best article is marginal is ready yet in the basics.DGG (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose TipToe keeps trying to delete articles without actually reading (or understanding presumably) the subject matter. Wikipedia does not need any more clever fools who delete articles for their own amusement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamanthaFox27 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am assuming that you are referring to SurveyEngine, which is an article that you wrote and was tagged for deletion by myself (and deleted). Please understand that my reason for doing so was on he grounds that it was blatant advertising which is not allowed here on wikipedia. If you have other situations where i was incorrect in my deletion tagging I would be willing to justify my reasoning for tagging those as well. Tiptoety ^talk 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

1. Weak Neutral Sorry Tiptoety, but I have to go with my gut here. I know I supported last time, but it bothered me a fair bit afterwards. The thing about misrepresenting yourself as a police officer really rubbed me the wrong way. I also think that your articulation and spelling leave a lot to be desired, even here at your RfA. GlassCobra 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, dear. You are right, I guess I forgot to run my answers through spell check :p. I have done so now. As for the police incident, I can completely understand why it bothers you. It was stupid, and not very thought out. I have sense tried to fix the mistakes I made in the past, and never bring up my relations with any form of Law Enforcement. Tiptoety ^talk 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your response, Tiptoety, I'm sure your RfA will pass. Good luck to you. :) GlassCobra 07:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral: Changing my !vote from "oppose," in recognition of the broad array of editors who seem to have had positive interactions with Tiptoety and faith in his future as an administrator. It would be nice to see a few specifics among the support !votes, a diff here and there illustrating his helpful nature, or a description of his work in a certain area. But, from what I see my concerns are a small aspect of his experience, and I don't want to stand in the way based on my limited and apparently atypical perceptions. -Pete (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral: 13,000 edits in nine months, working four hours a day on nothing but Wikipedia, 7 days a week, works out to around four minutes spent on each edit. That's an absurd pace of editing and not consistent with giving careful consideration to all viewpoints in article and meta discussions. Even going to the extreme of saying half your edits were vandalism reversions requiring only 30 seconds of your attention, at two hours a day, seven days a week, you're still only spending 4.5 minutes per edit, dropping to as little as 2.4 minutes in September of last year. As I do not have personal experience with you, however, and do not have time to do a statistical sampling of your edits to ascertain their quality, I simply post this to ask you to consider slowing down and verifying sources, refactoring sections, and merging edits like [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. In that last case, you made 22 edits in 20 minutes; did it really only take an average of 54 seconds to conclusively determine something's notability, click the edit link, insert the appropriate template, and write an edit summary? Jouster  (whisper) 23:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I neither endorse nor discount your comments, and I respect your analysis. However, I am reminded of something which I had once read: "If you torture the data long enough, they will accept anything!" --Bhadani (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   On the AfC side of things thare are tools that we use that make declining articles expecially speedy, the template in inserted and summary provided with one mouse click. It can take only a few seconds each. That leaves the time to read the article and think what is the problem (or what is good). Tiptoety has done a good job of WP:AFC reducing the backlog to nothing and then keeping it that way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral: I wanted to see a GA or something more substantial WRT mainspace edits. I agree the AfD noms have been better , apart from the Japanese author highlighted above. Sorry, I just think that some mainspace editing would really help in this case with balance etc.Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I respect your !vote, and see where you are comming from. While it probably will not change much, I would also like to offer you with a few other articles that I have created: Multnomah County Sheriff's Office and Portland Police. I understand both are small, and may backup your argument even more :P, but just wanted to point them out. Tiptoety ^talk 23:23, 28 February 2008 (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.