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

Tnxman307[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final: (79/2/1); ended 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tnxman307 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Tnxman307 for adminship. I've known this editor since October 2008 when he joined WikiProject Articles for creation. Since then Tnxman has reviewed hundreds of articles and demonstrated an excellent grasp of policy and common sense along the way.

A quick glance at User talk:Tnxman307 will show you that this is a friendly and welcoming editor who is keen to help others. This attitude is also reflected in his long and dedicated service to Wikipedia:Help desk where he may often be found giving out helpful advice to newbies.

Tnxman has contributed to various other areas of the encyclopedia, including Articles for deletion, vandalism fighting, Usernames for administrator attention, and new page patrol. I am confident that the concerns of participants in his first RfA (which in my analysis failed primarily due to lack of experience) will be alleviated by studying his contributions. To conclude, we have here a well-rounded and experienced editor with impeccable manners who will, in my opinion, make an outstanding administrator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination - it is my pleasure to co-nominate Tnxman307. We have interacted mainly at the Help Desk and New Contributors' Help Page and he always provides speedy, helpful advice with a sound grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I agree that he would be an outstanding admin. – ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I thank my nominators for their gracious words and accept the nomination. TNXMan 21:55, 10 March 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to stick with the areas with which I am familiar, namely, UAA and the help desks. I will also continue to help with the new page/recent changes patrol. I'm not going to rush into any areas with which I'm not familiar, but I feel that I can also help out at AIV and RPP. I lurk quite often at the AN and AN/I, so I'd be able to help with any issues there as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions on Wikipedia have been at AFC and the help desks. I'm drawn to those areas because I enjoy helping people start editing. I've made just about 1000 edits to the help desk and new contributor's help page. I've also reviewed several hundred articles for AFC and moved almost 100 of them to the mainspace. It's my opinion that there are some very good contributors out there and by answering questions/showing them how to create articles, we can get them to stick around.
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: Thankfully, I've had very little stress while editing Wikipedia (knock on wood). I did run into some trouble last year with this AfD discussion, which led to some interesting discussions on my talk page. Other than that, the worst thing I've run into is drive-by vandalism on my user/talk pages. The way I deal with disputes is to stay civil, back up my arguments with facts, and don't let people get under my skin. I enjoy editing here, disputes, vandalism, and all. I know that some stress is unavoidable, but if it ever got to be too much, I'd be able to step back and take a break for a while.
Optional questions from Aitias
4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. There are a few. Blatant attack pages, copyright violations, and obvious vandalism should all be deleted right away. Generally, I would give pages tagged as A7 a while or see if I can find something myself in the way of supporting info.
5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. I haven't thought about it much, but I would grant rollback after a couple hundred-ish problem-free edits. If it's used for anything other than reverting obvious vandalism, I'd remove it.
6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. It can't. Since the person is alive, a free photo can always be taken and used instead of a non-free photo.
7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?
A. I would block the IP. I don't believe it's a conflict of interest because it's a case of vandalism. If I were in a content dispute with the IP, I would always ask another admin to review the case or report the issue to AIV.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A. The blocking policy states that warnings are not a prerequisite for a block, but I feel that most users should be given a chance to change their behavior before being given a timeout. However, Grawp-style vandalism and massive linkspamming get an immediate block. Blatant username violations usually get an immediate block as well.

Optional question from Keepscases

9. Should you become a Wikipedia administrator, who in real life will you inform of this?
A: I wouldn't run around and tell everyone I know, but I wouldn't hide the fact either. To be honest, online activities don't come up much with my friends/acquaintances/coworkers/what-have-you, so the answer is probably "nobody".

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tnxman307 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]


Support[edit]
  1. FIRST I mean um...Support — Jake Wartenberg 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. An excellent help desk contributor, being nominated by an excellent help desk contributor — enough evidence of the proper temperament for me. Oh, and thought he was one already. Hermione1980 16:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Looks good to me Great editor, will be a great admin.--Res2216firestar 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. No concerns. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I think he'll be an asset. -- Mentifisto 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Noticed a few things which indicate that the candidate may not be the most policy knowledgeable candidate I've seen, but certainly a net positive. Don't feel the need to expand further - the issues I've seen are nothing to oppose over. — neuro(talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. No problems here that I can see. Looks like he has the experience and helpfulness needed. Cool3 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support I supported the last time around and I still do but your recent history shows a couple of bad CSD tags like [1] (claims of notability), [2] (G11 where there was a previous non-promotional version to revert to), [3] (essay tagged G11), [4] (game tagged A7 - software is never A7), [5] (declined that myself, a clearly notable organization tagged A7). But as you have not expressed an desire to work in C:SD and those mistakes are in a span of 3 weeks, I will still support. I hope though that you will not make those mistakes again (especially the software one) and that you will make yourself familiar with WP:CSD should this request pass and should you decide to venture into C:SD. I'd be happy to provide guidance if needed. Regards SoWhy 17:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I will certainly take you up on that. Thanks for the offer! TNXMan 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong oppose for consistently stealing my work at UAA Support - one of those users who already are admins without the technical bit. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Supported last time - Tman is another user I encountered during my clerking at UAA and I find him to be thorough, fair and clueful. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support EdBever (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No issues this time around. America69 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I've read all the opposes and neutrals and ... oh wait ... - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support as co-nominator. – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Net positive.--Giants27 T/C 19:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I looked at the previous RfA, and see the problems of lack of experience cited there have been overcome, especially with excellent and prolific work over on the Help Desk. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support looks good to me. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support Wizardman 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Unless I get a reason not to, too lazy to look...  GARDEN  21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Excellent work at WP:AFC!!! Good Luck - Fastily (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support — I've been waiting for this one. I frequently see his signature at WP:UAA, and I generally liked what I have seen. Apparently he has done good in other areas of the project, which indicates he has both the experience and adaptability to be a very effective admin. It's high time we gave this editor the mop. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support – What? You mean you're not an admin, yet? MuZemike 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I'm surprised he hasn't been nominated previously. -download | sign! 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He has. :) LittleMountain5 review! 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah... sorry for my mistake. He really deserves the tools now. -download | sign! 01:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I supported him last time, and still think he'll be a great admin. LittleMountain5 review! 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support What?! No problems?! Tavix (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I have seen this editor at WP:UAA and I have been impressed by his work. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Sure, seems good. Xclamation point 02:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Seems a good candidate for the mop, well intentioned, no problems seen.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - long overdue. ascidian | talk-to-me 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No apparent reason to oppose. Keep up the good work ;) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 05:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Though I disagree on #6, if an image of the living person would not represent how they looked when they were active, such as post car crash and disfigurement, then a non-free image which better represents them should be used, since any images taken at this point would not accurately represent the person as they are commonly known. Having said that, we have both crossed paths a number of times at WP:AFC, and you have done great work there, no reason to not support.--Terrillja talk 05:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, never seen you make a bad edit. Oli OR Pyfan! 06:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: Excellent at helping new users at the Help Desk and the New contributor's help page, very level temperament, always displays patience, would make a great Admin in my opinion, and everyone else's apparently. SpitfireTally-ho! 07:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Looks to be a well rounded editor, should be fine with the mop. --GedUK  08:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: Only good experiences with this editor, every reason to trust as admin. Now stop being so downright disrespectful and pick up your pants you young whippersnapper. FlyingToaster 08:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I see nothing of concern, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good attitude, good work, no problems. However, I would disagree with you re: question 9. You should annoy as many people as possible by talking about wikipedia constantly. :-) Fribbler (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Gave me good assistance at the help desk. --DFS454 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Clean block log, last RFA was long ago (and nearly succeeded) also we had an amicable discussion recently about a CSD case, details on candidates talk. WereSpielChequers 15:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Helpful editor, and he has my trust. Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support I don't even have to look anything up for this one. Worked with him on the Help Desk, have seen the work: Has a clue, very tactful, knowledgeable in many areas, always looking out for what's best for the wiki. Also, considering that this candidate never seems to have a POV, I'm wondering if he's a real person or a bot - Good Luck TnXman. — Ched ~ (yes?) 18:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been editing ever since I became self-aware. TNXMan 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No qualms here. Good luck! :) hmwithτ 20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Has made many helpful contributions and would make a very good admin. GT5162 (我的对话页) 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. SupportSeems to be help all kind of editor.Hopefully,will be a good admin.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
  47. Support – will do finely as an admin. TheAE talk/sign 22:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Seems like he'll make a great Admin! Spyfox5400 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: has clue, will travel. Ironholds (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support excellent answers, we can always use another good admin! Royalbroil 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support net positive. go for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. No problems here. He should be a great addition to the Admins.--Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 04:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Does excellent work at UAA; will make a good admin that we need. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Certainly. Last time, perhaps not ready; now, for sure. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. As last time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Krashlandon 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Has been around since Nov 2007 and has overcame the concerns raised in previous RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Seems to be trustworthy, intelligent, respectful (and knowledgeable) of policy and a generally good contributor. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -- Great editor who knows Wiki's ways and would benefit from these tools.--₮RUCӨ 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Yes. I've seen this user around, particularly at WP:HD. He's fast to respond, courteous, and all in all, a tremendous asset to the community. PerfectProposal 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per above. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I am quite impressed with your edits and command of wikipedia. Support! Basket of Puppies 03:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support See him a lot on WP:HD and WP:NCHP. What I have seen is enough to tell me that he knows Wikipedia policies and guidelines very well. He is always civil and helpful, and will make a good admin. Chamal talk 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Good editor. Malinaccier P. (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Definitely an asset to the community. DiverseMentality 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Looks good. RayTalk 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support. It has always been a pleasure dealing with this user and I have no qualms with him being an admin. ERK talk 20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Good editor. I think he's ready for the admin work challenge! Versus22 talk 05:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Have been impressed by the work I've observed. I do not find answer #7 at all unclear on the use of admin tools. On the contrary, blocking such a vandal is clearly and frankly within admin scope as set out at Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED: "If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious (genuinely vandalistic for example), then historically the community has endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion." Setting up hoops that prevent admins from blocking vandals who have vandalized their talk pages in the course of their destruction is just opening the door to gaming. So, kudos to the candidate for sensibly responding within policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support ⊕Assasin Joe talk 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Looked over his answers to the questions, and I trust him. AniMatetalk 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support has been helpful and active over at WP:AFC and has a good record of interacting with users. He should be a good administrator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. No issues here. Acalamari 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I am very new here, but have learned a lot just from reading tnxman's comments on the help desk. ZachInOhio (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to the world of WP:RfA :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Can find no fault. Good luck! Fredrik • Wilhelm U|T|C 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Seems fine. -- Banjeboi 03:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79.  Frank  |  talk  12:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Weak Oppose Sorry I just dont think your ready. You need to create some articles instead of editing already created ones (not saying that is bad)GLFan151 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC) (struck sock vote)[reply]
How does article creation equate to administrative proficiency? — neuro(talk) 02:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There are also hundreds of thousands of existing articles (let's not forget about stubs) that need that "push" in the right direction. Every article that reaches GA or FA is nothing but a good thing. MuZemike 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note – above !vote struck by Casliber as the user is a sock puppet of an indef-blocked user. MuZemike 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Answer 7 shows an unwillingness to consider it as a possible CoI, which makes it impossible for me to trust them in such an area. We have enough borderline CoI problems among admin which cause problems. We should not promote new admin who already come in declaring that they will probably enter into such situations. Admin should not act unilaterally, so there is no real excuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern regarding the use of admin tools in content disputes and arguements, but I don't see a problem with an admin blocking someone who vandalised their userpage, if all edits are clear vandalism. It would seem rediculous to classify edits like this as any sort of content dispute. Tnxman's answer seems quite clear that he would only block in the case of obvious vandalism. Raven4x4x (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Generally, admins should not use their tools on pages that they are involved with and this would include their user and talk pages. However, a dose of WP:COMMON is needed here. If someone replaces an admin's talk page with a giant penis 5 times, he shouldn't be faulted for blocking the vandal instead of waiting for the AIV backlog to be cleared. Same goes for an article he's been editing. However, if there is any doubt that the edits were made in bad faith, he should let another admin handle it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, as I should have been more clear in my reply. Admin tools should never be used by one of the parties in a content dispute, period. However, any admin can block someone whose only contributions have been vandalism, even if some of that vandalism is to their user/talk page. Sorry, if I wasn't clear before. Best, TNXMan 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a difference between "can" and "should". By stating the above, I feel that Tnx does not immediately look to working with other admin, discussing with other admin, and reviewing with other admin as a first response to such things. I believe in patience and discussion, especially when there are personally connected pages. It is a disposition, but a minor one. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose from neutral because of the already mentioned reason and no response from the candidate. I think I gave enough time (3 days are past)--Caspian blue 04:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral leaning toward oppose (moved to Oppose) I appreciate your contribution on WP:AfC Moves, so new articles in disorder can be cleaned up. However you've created 0 article so far (this sandbox test is not a creation at all and this is very surprising compared to the old RFA requirement like FA/GA). In short, you're not a content builder that I expect from admins, and I don't know whether you even need the admin tools for Gnome works. Since you mentioned AN/I involvement, you can show me some evidences that you successfully resolved disputes by your "judgment" if you want me to change this vote.--Caspian blue 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a good reference on which I relied. (No offense, User:Soxred93) --Caspian blue 19:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might respectfully disagree with your WP:NONEED reasoning - in any case one might successfully argue that it's the gnomes who are more likely to need the extra tools than the content builders! Regarding contributions to WP:ANI, perhaps I could draw your attention to a recent discussion where the candidate brought up an issue which arose at the helpdesk. I think you'll find his input was effective and appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvinced and unpersuaded, I don't think that case required much "judgment".--Caspian blue 04:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Support per reasonable stance in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India, as candidate has never been blocked, and per barnstars on userpage, but oppose per weaker argumnets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Mata Nui, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCKUP, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCKUP. So, that's three to three, i.e. neutral. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that you have listed the same AfD twice. Perhaps you were referring to a different discussion? (I mention this as I'm curious to see the third debate). Best, TNXMan 11:49, 17 March 2009 (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