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

Toddst1[edit]

Final (42/0/0); ended 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Toddst1 (talk · contribs) - Toddst1, previously known as Toddstreat1, is a fairly prolific editor, specifically in vandal-fighting, newpage patrol, and article writing. He's been with us since 2 May 2007 (quite a bit longer than myself). I'm not certain when I encountered him, but was immediately impressed by his contributions.

At the moment, Todd's User talk namespace edits outnumber his mainspace edits by 241. One of the reasons that Toddst1 may do so much editing in that namespace is that he receives quite a few messages, often from editors who have recently created new articles which, obviously, were listed at Special:Newpages. He often tags these articles as meeting the criteria for speedy deletion or some sort of cleanup, and sometimes the pages' authors take exception to his taggings. When this occurs, he responds courteously and with civility; acknowledging when the other editor is correct and doing same when he may be. These interactions also show thorough understanding of policy, and once again a willingness to discuss potential mistakes.

Toddst1's vandal-fighting work is also excellent, assisted by WP:TW and the rollback tool that he received on 9 January, both of which he has put to good use; reverting vandalism, warning the vandals, and reporting them to AIV if need be. He has done some UAA reporting as well. Though his editing may seem bot-esque, there are excellent content contributions sandwiched between the spouts of reversions, tagging, and reporting, including Chesapeake Bay Flotilla, Benjamin Ogle, and others mentioned below in his answer to Q2.

In short: I think Todd's a good editor who would benefit greatly by the tools, responsibly using them to block persistent vandals at AIV, block inappropriate usernames at UAA, and protect pages at RFPP, all areas in which he has experience.

N.B.: You may be wondering as to why I have been using male-specific language throughout this nom—I asked Toddst1 beforehand.

--Kakofonous (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this gracious nomination. Toddst1 (talk) 05:49, 7 March 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: Primarily, I’d like to expand my work with recent changes patrol and participate in Administrator intervention in vandalism.
While reverting and stopping vandalism is important in general, I think cyber-bullying is specifically distasteful and especially harmful. It’s damaging to Wikipedia, but much more so to its targets. I try to be extremely vigilant around that issue and plan to continue that work.
Being able to protect pages from repeated vandalism would be helpful, and at this point, I’ve made about 240 reports to AIV.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’ve created or substantially contributed to a number of articles across a variety of topics but the two I’m most proud of are Belair Mansion and St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Mind you, neither of these have made it to GA, but I’m working on them. I just finished a peer review for both of them and have made substantial improvements (suggestions welcome!).
Why? I created and have been the primary editor for both of these. I think my contributions have been well cited, documenting historic buildings from England’s colonial rule of its colony.
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: Doing vandal patrol, you can frequently find yourself the target of folks that are either indignant or otherwise agitated, but you quickly learn that such reactions come with the territory. Usually these are pretty minor, but sometimes they can be more pronounced than others.
Several months ago, a seemingly new user was pretty upset with me for a speedy deletion tag I had put on a short article he (editor was male) had written. To be fair, I probably put the tag on too quickly, but I’m not sure it would have made much of a difference to the conflict. The editor responded with some name-calling on my user page. I wrote a message about civilty (not a template, but a polite note) on the editor’s talk page, but that seemed to only invite a few more such comments in several places on my talk page. I removed the comments and let the user calm down, deliberately avoiding further conflict. It turned out that this user was a Sockpuppet of a fairly experienced user who within a few weeks was blocked indefinitely after a series of similar incidents with other editors, in the last one making a series of ageist and sexist personal attacks against an administrator.
Aside from the quick tag, I probably would handle such incidents similarly in the future. If direct, polite feedback doesn’t work, taking time out is a pretty good policy.

Questions by DarkFalls

4. What is your understanding of the policy on the biographies of living people and when should it be invoked?
A: In short, if biographical information on a living person doesn’t have one or more high-quality references, it should not appear on Wikipedia. This is especially true of controversial info.
WP:BLP should apply whenever biographical info appears in an article whether the article is about that person or not.
5. What is your understanding on the fair use policy and what are the restrictions posed by it?
A: All 10 of the following criteria must be met.
1. No other free substitute available
2. Use must not damage future commercial opportunities
3. Use as little non-free content as possible and use as small a portion of a work as possible
4. Must have been previously published outside wikipedia
5. Must be encyclopedic.
6. Usage must adhere to the Wikipedia policy for that form of media
7. Must be used in at least one article
8. The use of the non-free content should significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic
9. Only in articles in mainspace
10. A media description page must attribute the source, must contain a copyright tag and a list of articles that the content is used

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

6. When would a block be appropriate? When would it not?
A: A block is appropriate to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia or people or things outside of Wikipedia through Wikipedia edits. It is not appropriate as punishment or in a simple content dispute.
7. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When would the "snowball clause" apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?
A:
8. Will you list yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open for recall?
A: Sure. Accountability is good. We need more if it in this world. I feel that if I can’t be held accountable for my actions, I don’t deserve any authority.
9. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behavior?
A: There is plenty of vitriol at Wikipedia, and as I mentioned above, some has been directed at me. I expect quite a bit more will be, with or without passing RfA. I tend not to take things personally, and I think I’m mature enough to know when to take a break.
I’m not going in to details, but I’ve held a number of jobs where quick and accurate responses to complex problems were required to prevent loss of human life. At Wikipedia, things are quite a bit simpler. I’m not trying to negate that there is real stress and pressure, rather put it in context.
I guess that’s why I take WP:BLP and cyber-bullying so seriously. Those are areas where editors' actions on Wikipedia can have real effects on people’s lives.

Questions from Majorly

10. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. No

11. Why do you think that?

A. It's your opportunity to ask what you want. The idea is for you to figure out if I'll use the tools of an admin effectively and responsibly. Besides, answers in this section are optional, as is your participation.

12. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. No, I don't.

Question from Sallicio

13. Why can't the Redskins seem to play a consistant season? ...kidding, What is your opinion on the length of time that a new user must be registered to edit semi-protected pages and why (i.e., should the time limit be more than four days, less than four days, or stay the same)?

A.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Toddst1 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support, as nom. --Kakofonous (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Excellent all around. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support muy bien--Pewwer42  Talk  05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Largely based on the contents of User talk:Toddst1/archive3 which I've just spent some time reviewing. Now, there are some instances of accidently reverting vandalism back in, or wrongly identifying a bad edit. There's also a couple of minor speedy deletion items. But what shone out was the civility you demonstrated, how you tried to approach every query with good faith and your clear policy knowledge when discussing articles - making recomendations to new editors regarding our core policies and guidleines. I'd suggest you take it easy at first, as the outcome of innocent mistakes can be a bit harsher with admin tools, but there is nothing here to indicate anything but a net positive to granting you admin tools. Good luck, and best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  09:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I think Pedro puts it quite well. You seem to have - like me - made some mistakes in the past and have handled them in an excellent manner and I am sure you will work well with the tools. You pass my simple rules: yes, you can be trusted and yes, you have enough overall experience. Good luck, Poeloq (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Pedro puts it well, mopship likely to be net positive. I take comfort in the fact that you have a decent history of content contribution as well as the mandarin stuff. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Good candidate. - Darwinek (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Well rounded. SpencerT♦C 12:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Looks a goodie. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - trustworthy editor and keen vandal fighter. Addhoc (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. All out support due to his anti-vandalism work. you'll pass the adminship test (if there is one). Handle the big mop with care and sweep them all out! -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Can find no reason to oppose at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Increasinly per Pedro. God is he original! ;) Rudget (?) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support would like to see more rfa noms like this around! Good user in every aspect! --Camaeron (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Adminship isn't a big deal, and I think he's trustworthy to put the mop to good use. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No issues here, that I can see anyway. Dustitalk to me 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - we need more fans of historic sites. That, and he has a good track record of contributions and knowledge of policy. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support. I don't remember how or when, but I seem to have developed a high respect for your work somewhere along the line, but I don't remember interacting with you...Whatever, you'll make a great admin anyway. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Over 13000 edits with over 5500 mainspace edits .Good track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Looks good to me. RC-0722 communicator/kills 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. The candidate is a good article writer and vandal fighter. Majoreditor (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - sound answers to questions. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - civil and a good vandal fighter —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 11:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Demonstrates civility, engages in vandal fighting, exhibits knowledge of the policies and guidelines—I am reasonably comfortable with the community extending its trust to this user. -- Avi (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, seems fine with me. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 12:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Looks good. нмŵוτнτ 18:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Hands down the best of all the users this month. No question this user will be an excellent admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Looks good to me. The mop should be yours! --Sharkface217 02:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Answers to the questions are pretty good, and civility is always a good trait to have. GlassCobra 14:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Actually written articles, and wants the mop? Give it to him! Relata refero (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, seems like a good editor that would use the tools wisely. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. MrPrada (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Seems trustworthy, demonstrated need for the tools, technical knowledge and experience. Good luck! AGK (contact) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Great editor, has created several new articles and fights vandals. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Well versed user, will be an asset to the project. Tiptoety talk 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to weak - [1] this makes me question if you assume good faith, this user was not really vandalizing, sure there where some test edits here and there, but his account is only a few days old, I dont think reporting this user was the appropriate action to take. Tiptoety talk 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Very trustworthy, active and calm in discussions, so a complete support. Woody (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Clearly up for the task. --MPerel 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Good nom. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Looks good to me, we can always use another vandal fighting admin :). --Mifter (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support In agreement with Mifter. Kukini háblame aquí 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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