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

Tommy2010[edit]

Final (8/9/2); ended 11:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC) - [Withdrawn.] - Tommy! 11:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Tommy2010 (talk · contribs) – (Self nom) Hi there. I am sure many of you have seen me around Wikipedia by helping out in anti-vandal efforts, copyediting articles or submitting some DYKs. I've been with Wikipedia since February and I feel I am suitable to be an admin because during the time I've spent here, I feel I've learned so much about Wikipedia to be point where not having administrator privileges makes me wonder why not, because I believe I have sufficient WP:CLUE. I've also seen the admin tools on the flagged revision wiki so I admit, after being granted with admin tools there, I've foreknown what being an admin is. I've been on WP for just under 8 months and due to massive Huggle-ing, I've accumulated some 67,000 edits. However, I've also written some articles as well, mostly chef BLPs. Even though a large chunk of my editing has been vandal fighting, I feel I am well-versed in Wikipedia's policies to be an admin. I must admit though, due to my relatively short tenure I am not expecting this to pass, but nevertheless, think I can help out by taking my time, not rushing my use with the tools, should I gain access and most importantly, stay cool. I haven't always been perfect, I've made some mistakes during my time here, but I think for the most part I've learned, moved on and kept a level head, even if it had been difficult. At the bare minimum, I'll look at this as a way to improve. With all that being said, I look forward to answering your questions. Cheers- Tommy! 04:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As I’m sure most of the community is aware, I am a highly active vandalism fighter, but I am more or less a copyeditor too. With that being said, I would help other sysops at WP:RPP, WP:AIV, CAT:CSD and WP:UAA, which are the areas I am currently most comfortable with. I’d also use the sysop tools for is to help further coordinate anti-vandalism efforts from the “##Until it sleeps-bots” IRC channel with other sysops. This includes protecting attack targets on other sites and blocking vandals. On top of that, I’d also be able to directly block vandals from the Huggle application’s interface, skipping the AIV process at times while also lowering other admin work. Tommy! 04:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Hm, I give equal weight to my 10 DYKs to my vandal fighting honestly. I suppose that may sound weird, but I take a lot of pride in my writing because I am helping Wikipedia grow, while I view my vandal fighting as more or less maintenance work. While I know WP:Vandalism does not matter, I feel it does because many people turn to Wikipedia for information: it is easy to read, direct and to the point on its information. I know I personally get mad when I’m not logged in looking for information and see a vandalized page (even before I was an editor!). It is also very often at the top or near the top of many, many Google searches, even for freshly minted new articles. For readers who genuinely want information, and for them to see deliberate false or dubious information (which I think is the worst kind of vandalism, as opposed to the insertion of obscenities) it ruins what Wikipedia was designed to do and compromises its integrity for everyone else.
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: The most stress I’ve experienced was a time when another user had obtained personal real life and Wikipedia information about me and attempted to out me, at his own ignorance which resulted in him being hard blocked indefinitely. It was pretty hard to handle, but he's gone now, so that's that. In hindsight, I believe I handled it fairly well.
At times I admit I may have been harsh, but I am not perfect: I can become hot-tempered and have an occasional outburst. However, I personally believe I am able to be an admin, because I am not one to hold a grudge or stay upset... I try not to take myself too seriously, so I forgive and forget, literally. Like I said, not perfect, but I do try very hard to handle disputes rationally, as opposed to emotionally. Tommy! 04:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional question from Groomtech
4. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: Well first, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. So, with that being said one person, admin or not cannot dictate what or who may do what in this sense, at least I don't see myself doing such a thing as issuing orders. Adminship is a demotion, not a title. If the community collectively decides on such a topic ban, such as on ANI or AN then yes, an admin can enforce the ban as expressed by the community. Although, just a note, I see myself at the 4 admin areas listed in Q1 mostly. Tommy! 06:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Yes.. Short tenure, but made up for by the fast learning. Makes himself useful in admin areas and offers sensible input on reports at various venues. He knows what he's doing and it be more efficient just to give him his own mop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Airplaneman ✈ 04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Good Vandal fighting and content writing feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. We need admins to go to town on AIV not write FAs. There is enough content creation to be confident that content policy knowledge is sufficient. Outbursts look fine. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a ridiculous comment. I hope that admins can be something more than monotonous block-drones.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with your second sentence, which makes your first rather perplexing. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support IMO, admins do not need to be authors. Tommy looks like a great user who would be unlikely to abuse the tools, and a net positive to the project.. Acather96 (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support. I've encountered Tommy a number of times, and he seems to be a pretty dedicated Wikipedian - and I'm sure his motivation is only positive. Some people do seem to oppose candidates who are largely vandal fighters, but I think we need them - when you're reverting and reporting large amounts of vandalism, you can save valuable time for other admins by being able to block and protect yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose You've listed DYKs and a rapidly-accrued plethora of automated edits as your best contributions to Wikipedia. I see absolutely nothing in this nomination to convince me that you're looking for anything than a level-up. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but until you put forth enough substance to convince me you're here to build an encyclopedia instead of wanting the block button to play whack-a-mole with vandals with more authority, I see no reason to support. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (discussions of this oppose moved to talk page) Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With all due respect, I believe that you're quite mistaken. Tommy2010 has made significant contributions of content to Wikipedia [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (please do not remove this comment.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Temperament problems per Q3, as well as IMO unsatisfactory content building as noted by Jclemens leads me to not trust the user at this time. Vodello (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Excellent vandal fighter, but not a whole lot more Seems level uppey to me as well, although this is a fairly gut reaction, I man change it. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would request that you reconsider, in light of Tommy2010's substantial contributions of content noted in my comment above. Though these weren't adequately described in answers to the questions, modesty is not an unwelcome trait in prospective administrators :) Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose Sorry. I had a look at your rollback contributions and saw that this edit recently (which was a diff originally shown by Wayne Olajuwon) was not called vandalism. Also, I haven't seen a lot of article promoting (Even though you've got a couple of DYKs, which isn't a bad thing). Per the diff I've shown, whether he's trigger happy or not, I'm worried about his judgement in relation to keeping the encyclopaedia neat and tidy. Also [11] this edit summary could be summed up a lot better than "utter shit". Minimac (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know that RFA standards are pretty high, but writing ten substantive articles is usually considered a sufficient contribution of content [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Also, I'm sure that in reverting vandalism ten thousand times or so, anyone would make a few mistakes, or might enter an ill-considered edit summary. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just a quick comment, I told Wayne that that edit is not vandalism because if you look at the nature of the users edits, it appears s/he is testing and trying to figure out how to use the templates, which is technically not vandalism. Kind regards, Tommy! 06:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose. Per temperament issues. Inconsistent w/admin status.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose, share the same reservations as Native Foreigner. -Regancy42 (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose No. Per past interaction with the user in question. Also per Epeefleche's & NativeForeigner's oppose.  IShadowed  ✰  10:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Weak oppose The candidate has been a Wikipedian for only 7 months. Vandal-fighting creds are impressive; however, the candidate needs more seasoning in other areas. Keep editing and learning. Come back in 6 months to a year.--Hokeman (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Candidate seems to be more involved with quantity of edits over quality of edits. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral This really pains me to do this. You are a great editor and I have seen you in a lot of places. That being said, those outbursts were rather recent. If you had fudged around with afd or something more minor, I would be willing to forgive and forget but emotions are a big thing when dealing with the crap that goes on around here. Come back in a few months and I will be more than willing to support, barring anything bad happening. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Er... not to badger a neutral, but what do you mean by "fudged around with AfD or something more minor"? Are you placing errors in content below lapses in civility? sonia♫ 09:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. neutral seems to have not yet enough around experience yet, such as dealing with a fair use situation yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[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