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

TommyBoy[edit]

Final (108/31/8); ended 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC) - successful Maxim(talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

TommyBoy (talk · contribs) – Recently I heard that English Wikipedia had its first month with no successful admin promotions since the RfA process began. This prompted me to go out and find a good candidate for nomination. I tried to find the oldest editor who was:

  1. Still an active contributor
  2. Actually wanted to be an administrator
  3. Had never previously been nominated
  4. Had never been involved in any serious drama

After running a few queries on the toolserver, the user I zeroed in on was TommyBoy. TommyBoy has been editing Wikipedia for eight years, currently has autopatroller and reviewer rights, and has over 22,000 edits. He has a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and conventions and is a valuable asset to the Wikipedia community. His mop and bucket seem to be long overdue. Kaldari (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hereby accept this nomination. --TommyBoy (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: If accepted as an administrator, I would continue my efforts to combat vandalism on Wikipedia. I would have no problem blocking a repeat offender if they had already been issued a "final warning", and then committed another offense. --TommyBoy (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC) In response to additional questions posed by User:Kaldari, I would also be willing to perform administrative tasks related to Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion, Page Protection, and Biographies of Living Persons policies and guidelines. --TommyBoy (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions to Wikipedia are the many article and categories I have created or substantially edited which are displayed on my UserPage. --TommyBoy (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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: In the eight years I have been a Wikipedian, I have been involved in only two major content disputes including a June, 2006 discussion regarding Mark Begich at Talk:List of Croatian Americans, and a May, 2009 discussion regarding Dana Fabe at Talk:Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates. In both cases, I participated in a discussion on the article Talk pages in an attempt to resolve the issue. I have also been involved in a handful of disputes regarding my assessment of WikiProject Biography articles, but I usually resolve those issues by either discussing the issue with the user who question my assessment, or re-submitting the disputed articles for assessment by a neutral third party. In response to the question regarding other users causing me stress, the most serious incident I have been involved was a false accusation by an IP user that I vandalized the Michael Nutter article and my own UserTalk page when I removed the resulting frivilous vandalism warnings in January, 2011. As a result of that incident, my UserTalk page had to be temporarily semi-protected by an administrator. --TommyBoy (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Cyberpower678
4. Could you opt in to the edit counter?
A: Please forgive me for responding with another question, but are you referring to the same page that User:Buggie111 is referring to in his comments? --TommyBoy (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Simply create the page with any word and it will activate.—cyberpower ChatOnline 01:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --TommyBoy (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Optional questions from jc37
In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.
  • 5. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.
  • A: I would not implement a block or page protection in situations where I am involved in a content dispute relating to an article unless vandalism or other clear-cut violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines have occurred, but in those cases would give the offending user sufficient warnings to stop engaging in the offending conduct before implementing a block or page protection. --TommyBoy (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.
  • A: While I would absolutely encourage my fellow Wikipedians to "Be Bold" when they are editing Wikipedia, I believe being responsible while editing Wikipedia is important especially if a user intends to invoke "Ignore All Rules" as a defense for his/her actions. --TommyBoy (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.
  • A: With respect to RfC discussions, It would depend at least in part on the subject of the RfC. With respect to "Requested Moves", I would consider first and foremost the reason for the request. For example, I would have no problem moving a page to a more common name where appropriate, or correcting a legtimate error in the page title, but would most certainly decline a request that is made in bad faith or violation applicable policies and guidelines. With respect to deletion/undeletion discussions, I understand the process is not intended to be a simple "yes or no vote" and would encourage my fellow Wikipedians to remember that when they are commenting on such issues. Having said that, I would generally use caution in reaching a decision that I already know most of my fellow Wikipedians would object to. --TommyBoy (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: My first thought would be to check the edits in question to ensure that vandalism or other disruptive conduct is not an issue. If I do find vandalism, I would revert it and warn or block the offending user depending on their previous history of vandalism. Another common situation I have seen revert wars on Wikipedia is when a user adds potentially-dubious information to an article without citing a reliable source for their edits. In those cases, I would contact the user who originally submitted the edit and encourage them to cite a source for their edits. In any case, I would view invoking "page protection" as a last resort measure after all other reasonable attempts to resolve the issue, and would opt for semi-protection if the problematic edits are caused only by IP Users and other measures including warnings and blocks have failed to resolve the issue. --TommyBoy (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: I am willing to become an administrator so that I can expand my efforts to better serve the Wikipedia community in the areas described in my answer to Question 1. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Townlake
10. Why are the participation instructions at the top of your User Talk page so complicated?
  • A: While the instructions may seem complicated, contacting me is actually quite simple. If another user wants to contact me or respond to my comments on their UserTalk page, I ask that they post a reply or TalkBack on my UserTalk page so that I gent the "You have new messages" prompt, but if they are respending to my comments on an Article Talk for example, they should respond there to encourage involvement in the pending discussion by other users. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Salvio giuliano
11. In your opinion, when, if ever, is it appropriate to invoke WP:IAR to speedily delete a page?
A: I have never seen "Ignore All Rules" invoked as a rationale to delete a page. Based upon that experience, I am not sure it would be appropriate to invoke it in a deletion discussion. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Trevj
12. If granted adminship rights, your work will (sooner or later) inevitably move into areas where you have little experience to date. How do you anticipate approaching such work, and how would you seek to minimise the risk of such work resulting in harm to the project? Thank you.
A: I would at first take a "watch-and-learn" approach to areas I have minimal experience and would work in cooperation with my fellow administrators in order to ensure no harm is done to Wikipedia until such time that I would be able to undertake such tasks on my own. --TommyBoy (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from PaleAqua
13. Follow up to jc37's question 8. Your answer seemed to focus on the vandal case, but what if both JohnDoe and JaneRoe firmly believe their change is correct, and also have been valuable editors on numerous other pages without conflict. Both users are able to site conflicting reasons about why their view is correct and that the others is just plan wrong. How would you deal with the situation in that case?
A: I would urge all editors involved to engage in a discussion on the article Talk page before making any further changes to the article, and would remind them to cite verifiable reliable sources for their edits once changes to the article relating to the dispute are made. Incidentally enough, I have been involved in a dispute such as the one you described while editing the Claire McCaskill article which was resolved through a discussion on the article Talk in which I reminded the other editors involved in the discussion to cite verifiable reliable sources for their edits when making major changes to the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Assume you were forced to block JohnDoe an editor involved in a content disagreement over edit warring, who like the above has mostly been a good editor. The block has expired, and another involved editor ( say JaneRoe ) left a message on JohnDoe's talk page resulting in JohnDoe blowing up and replying with an angry attack on JaneRoe and mentions you in not a nice way on his talk page. What would you do?
A: Because of the personal attack on me, I would be inclined to refer the issue to an impartial administrator to determine if administrative action should be taken. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Dpmuk
15. Can you briefly explain your understanding of copyright as it applies to Wikipedia?
A: Submission of copyrighted material is prohibited, and users found in violation of that policy could have their account blocked. --TommyBoy (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[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. As nominator. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ticks my boxes. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 23:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very much ready for mop. Steady character, objective. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Looks good to me, the more the merrier! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--v/r - TP 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Appears to be a solid candidate for the job. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tentative support pending answers to additional questions. Yup, as I expected, I'm supporting this one. Go Phightins! 11:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Can't see any valid rationale for me not to support at this time. --Nouniquenames 04:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No concerns at all. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Aye, goan. — foxj 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. After eight years with the project, TommyBoy should obviously be trusted with tool access. Good luck. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as he's clearly a competent user and will do just fine. Even the most exclusive content admins benefit from being able to RevDel something or block the penis vandal that invariably pops up on everyone's watchlist from time to time, so it's completely worth it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Will be a net positive to the project. Legoktm (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: He an editor who has been here for 8 years. Solid net positive. (What took you so long?) - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Completely agree with Blade here. There is something to be said for editors who have been here a very long time with no hassles or problems. No automated edits, uses the talk page plenty, shows good judgement in editing. Not every admin is going to be an ANI warrior or AfD closer (I never close AfDs or work AIV, or grant rights, for example). The basic test "Will Wikipedia be better off if this person has the tools?" is clearly passed here. If he hasn't shown he is worthy of the bit after 8 trouble free years, then asking 100 questions or counting AfD votes certainly isn't going to prove anything. He has shown he has clue and can get along, the best traits an admin can have. Everything else is learned on the job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support...no evidence they will abuse tools or position.MONGO 19:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support He does deserve his mop and bucket.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support no issues. --Rschen7754 20:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support no concerns -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 22:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I see no problems when looking through all that he has done. He created 151 articles. [1] Seems to contribute to Wikipedia. No problems stand out in the few AFDs he has participated in. Dream Focus 22:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per WP:DEAL. If Jimbo could go around and "make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops", why can't we do that? Someone with no major problems in eight years is ridiculously unlikely to get himself involved in major problems after becoming an admin. You can't be active here for eight years without getting into substantial problems if you're not admin material. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Dennis Brown, <attempt to be funny>though I might like to see a little more content work</failed attempt to be funny>. AutomaticStrikeout 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to use <failed attempt to be funny> or </attempt to be funny>; it won't work if you combine two different tags. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (I think you are being facetious but anyway) I know. My point is that it starts out as an attempt to be funny and it winds up failing. AutomaticStrikeout 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Here we have a user of some eight years standing, happily creating articles in a specific area with little drama (evidenced by an unarchived talk page of some 20 or so headings.) Support so that he can use the tools to keep his back yard clean. --Stephen 22:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per my comment buried somewhere far below here on the page that moved to the talk page. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 23:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Congratulations for eight years without drama. Kraxler (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Questions answered. Looks really good to me. ZappaOMati 00:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, no problems, and agree with Dennis Brown and Blade. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support - All of the negative reactions to this candidate seem quite feeble to me at best. This editor has a solid 8 year record of beneficial edits, lack of drama, and good judgement. The mop really should have been extended to him a long time ago, but the candidate never sought it. Just the person we need if you ask me. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this candidate will misuse his priveleges or will do anything untoward whatsoever, in fact everything seems to indicate the exact opposite. Wikipedia needs all of the TommyBoys it can get. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. No qualms here - certainly has much more experience and a longer timeframe on WP than other candidates I've crossed in the past - definitely ready for the mop. FishBarking? 01:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per Dennis Brown and others. I can't put it any better; TB's lack of drama is a real plus. Best of luck with the mop. Miniapolis (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Appears to meet my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I completely disagree with Swarm here, maybe because I'm a oldtimer (though hardly active now). Adminship should be granted to editors who gained our trust for a significant period of time and with no serious redflags coming up that might hinder the candidate ability to use the tools wisely. Despite some vague answers to the questions, I don't anything in TommyBoy contributions that would indicate he would be a bad administrator. I A person shouldn't fail an RFA just because they prefer to avoid the wikidrama that goes around in AFD/ANI and other admin areas. We promoted tons of these candidates in the past, and many of them became excellent administrators. Why this should be different now? Even if TommyBoy only occasionally uses the tools, one new administrator is much more significant to the project than many who slowly starts becoming inactive and stop editing all together. Secret account 05:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly have nothing against promoting oldtimers, article writers and the like; in fact, I think it's a prime, largely untapped source of potential RfA candidates. However, I don't think asking for a small amount of experience in the areas they intend to work in is a particularly demanding requirement. 30 AIV reports (my particular rough criterion for candidates) is not remotely difficult to achieve over the course of eight years, yet they haven't even garnered a third of that. Again, in eight years. It doesn't make them any less of an editor, it simply means they're not experienced in the area. But we clearly disagree—I don't think adminship is a "reward" for the best, longest, or most trustworthy editors. It's simply an expanded toolset and set of responsibilities, and should be filled by experienced and qualified editors. I'll give you the last word, if you'd like. Swarm X 06:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But with his subject area, American politicians that hardly anyone heard off, you will rarely see any vandalism that requires for someone to do an AIV report, same with AFDs. I strongly feel that TommyBoy is an "experienced and qualified" editor for the tools because no one offered any serious red flags on either on the answers towards the questions (other than some vagueness), and that the opposers agree that he's trustworthy, though unlikely to use the tools a lot. Adminship is no big deal in the end of the day, and I'm surprised someone like you, involved with RFA reform, would oppose this candidate because he intents to help the community with basic administrative tasks which we clearly need more administrators. He been in the project for such a long time and his answers shows he has a basic understanding of all the key adminship policies which haven't changed much the past few years. If I felt that TommyBoy wasn't ready for adminship even with his longevity, I would be right with you on the oppose section. Secret account 06:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Old-timer with no drama issues. Ready for additional duties. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - although I wish the answers to Q5 and Q6 were better. I see nothing to indicate this experienced user would do anything with the tools other than improve the encyclopedia. Begoon talk 06:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, no qualms about this user. If he had run in 2005, he would have been a shoo-in with 3000+ edits, and there would be no reason to desysop him from then to now, so we really shouldn't be penalizing him for not running earlier. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. We need more, and more like this. Secret pretty much hits the nail on the head and while I can understand the arguments of those who are concerned about AfD etc I rather suspect that TommyBoy will take on board the comments here and feel their way into it rather than rush. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support The Oppose rationales are unconvincing. No reason to believe that this user will misuse the tools. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, As per Anbu121 - give the man a mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - a random perusal of their edit history reveals they are perhaps a bit too quick to label test edits "vandalism", but it's not a significant concern. Opposes are wholly unconvincing. WilyD 10:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Trustworthy long term editor who clearly has clue. No long track record of involvement in admin-type activity, which may be seen as a drawback by some but could be seen as an advantage by others (eg no long history of kibbitzing at AN/I). I trust he will develop slowly into admin areas as he gains experience with the buttons. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I've been mulling this over for some time now, have genuinely considering !voting in all three spaces at one point or another - but I realise I now must support. While some of the answers to questions are weak, this editor is highly-trusted and will not abuse the tools. I do not expect them to jump head-first into admin areas they have previously little experience in, and to be honest, some of the opposes make me a sad panda - partly because they are feeble excuses, partly because of the lack of respect shown to this long-standing editor. GiantSnowman 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support We seem to have experienced admins on both sides of this question. I believe granting the candidate tools will benefit the project and help reduce backlogs in some areas. His track record indicates that he is unlikely to misuse tools or proceed rashly in areas in where he has little experience to date. The nominator's methodology for selecting this candidate does differ from what one typically finds at Rfa but it's an unusual approach I'd be willing to support in this case, given the fact that Swarm's well-argued oppose is countered by supports from other sysops. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reluctantly indenting, per jc37's analysis and comments. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Adminship is not rocket science. Editors who have shown that they're clueful and understand how the project works typically become fine admins. TommyBoy has shown that he can read so I'm not concerned with the occasional gap in his knowledge of this or that policy. Will his sysoping will be a net positive? We can never have a 100% guarantee but I do like the odds. Pichpich (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I don't see any indication that he will be a bad admin. I can say from experience that being an admin is not exactly hard if you have any common sense at all. Obviously you can't know for sure if anyone will end up being a bad admin, but I say give him a shot. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support trustworthy and no more unlikely to cause problems using the tools than the rest of the admins are. BencherliteTalk 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support unless anything contrary turns up, Tommy is almost an ideal candidate. Why? Firstly I've never heard of him which means he doesn't have a track record of unnecessary interjections on problem boards and other popular talk pages often frequented by editors hoping to get noticed, nominated or supported. Second, I just like his background. Initial lack of experience in Admin areas will likely act as a brake on over-enthusiastic interventions and fewer rash decisions. Leaky Caldron 18:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Long term uncontentious useful editor with a clean block log. The deleted contribs look fine and the nomination idea is great - hopefully we can find a few more this way. I've read the opposes but find them unconvincing, perhaps if this was a self nomination one would expect more admin like activities. But if we are going to recruit admins from amongst our established longterm editors we may not have the sort of edits we expect from traditional admin wannabes, so I'm glad to see that most of the RFA crowd are looking at other aspects of the editor rather than AFD or or page protection edits. Well done Kaldari. ϢereSpielChequers 18:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support based on his "track record"; seems he would be a fine admin. Agree with Dennis Brown's comments listed above and below. Kierzek (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. (edit conflict) Support per pretty much everybody else above me. There are no red flags, and it is relatively easy to read WP:BLOCK, WP:DELETE, WP:PROTECT, WP:REVDEL, and WP:ADMIN. (Hint: If you haven't, go read them now.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - ShoesssS Talk 19:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support experienced editor, absolutely no reason to believe they will abuse the tools given to them. The editor will surely have the commonsense to tread carefully in their early stages. Valenciano (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I see evidence of a genuine user, whose edits and interactions exhibit maturity. Concerns over lack of experience aren't overwhelming: we're referring to someone who can communicate in a more than acceptable manner with others, and I believe would observe others and seek advice as necessary. Providing the candidate with the mop is highly likely to be a net positive. -- Trevj (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Long experience, and knows what Wikipedia is about. Regarding the opposes due to a shortage of edits to certain project-space pages (xFD, RFPP) and so on, I used to think that way too, but I have seen no evidence that editors who focus on other areas than those discussions turn out to be bad administrators. The candidate has initially stated his intention to combat vandalism, and we certainly need to keep recruiting people who are willing to maintain a watch in that area. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards. Work at AfD is a big plus, but not doing much work there is not a minus, for me anyway. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Rzuwig► 21:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support The opposition appears to be filled up with a lot of WP:NONEED type comments, whilst generally agreeing the editor is calm, cautious and drama free. I note concerns on "experience" but anyone whose been here for years calmly editing probably has that in spades.Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support No concerns here, candidate looks solid. SpencerT♦C 22:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per Dennis Brown. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 22:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Maintenance users get torpedoed at RFA because they don't write articles. Article writers get torpedoed at RFA because they don't do enough maintenance stuff. This is precisely why RFA is beyond useless at this point. Wizardman 00:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Good candidate. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support. Experience and content creation record are great. It's ridiculous to claim he isn't qualified for adminship due to lack of experience in admin areas. When someone has demonstrated excellence as a contributor, he should be able to apply that excellence to much broader areas. dci | TALK 00:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support; the user seems clueful and intelligent, and has the right temperament. -- Dianna (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support: Eight years of drama-free article writing plus a desire for the admin tools strikes me as a good reason to provide them. --Carnildo (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support – His long length of time here, large amount of article editing, and lack of any major disputes have convinced me that he won't misuse "the tools". The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Dennis above is absolutely right. I'm more than comfortable with TommyBoy's experience. --Lord Roem (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - per those taking note of this editor's quality work and lengthy period of drama-free participation in the project. Opposers are unconvincing. Jusdafax 06:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - The method of locating this candidate mentioned by the nominator makes good sense; and that makes this an "Adminship is No Big Deal" situation for me. Carrite (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Opposes are unconvincing, in my view. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting. Why are they unconvincing, according to you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per Carrite and because I don't see any risk that he's going to break the wiki. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: Editors edit articles, we are all editors, I thought. Has suitable experience.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Seems fine. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Weak Support: See no problems, looks fine. PaleAqua (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Weaking my support slightly, I'm a little concerned with the nuances missing in the answers to 7, 8 and my follow up to 8 ( 13 ), but not enough to switch to neutral. PaleAqua (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support A good candidate for the mop. Long history of productive editing, little drama. Edison (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Experienced and uncontroversial, so I doubt he'd cause any harm as an admin. Epbr123 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Fantastic choice -- Samir 18:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Experienced editor who will benefit the project even more as an admin. Angryapathy (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Good candidate. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I agree with Mr. Brown. Rotten regard Softnow 22:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I don't have any doubt of abuse being a non-factor. You generally don't meet my personal requirements of activity in some of the areas below mentioned, so you need to be more active in these areas once you get the tools. Regardless, I don't think you'll have an issue in these areas; you just need to participate more. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    TB, please ignore this nonsense. The only thing you need to do is improve the encyclopedia by working in areas you enjoy and in which you feel comfortable working. Please don't feel that you need to be more active anywhere; that's inviting Wiki-stress. Ease into the role and be active where you're comfortable being active. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support ☮Soap☮ 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support The candidate has been very invested in the project for eight years, has provided thoughtful answers in this RfA and will likely be a valuable admin in the areas in which he chooses to be involved. - MrX 03:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support given he's never run but wouldn't mind, I highly doubt we'll see a stampede to use the tools. If he watches as he goes and takes his time, it will be a decent enough likelihood of a net positive that I think we're ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong support, this is precisely the kind of admin we need, and we've usually had no issues with them. I used to look for and nominate these kind of editors, and in my limited experience they turned out to be good admins. We shouldn't want to turn our content contributors into XfD people. Our content contributors should remain content contributors, that's where they're most needed. Adding the sysop flag to them is merely a way to let them help out in other parts of the wiki, should they desire to do so. This is a very good candidate and requirements of activity on admin areas are silly. Best of luck TommyBoy, and keep doing what you've been doing. Snowolf How can I help? 20:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, exactly what Snowolf said: We need "fresh blood" in the cabal and this is exactly how we get them in! mabdul 21:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support- sure, why not? The tools are not particularly difficult to understand; some of the opposes sound like every candidate's a window-licker until proven otherwise. This candidate has demonstrated dedication to the project, maturity, and an ability to listen to people. That's enough. Reyk YO! 21:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Everything checks out with me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Some of these opposes just make me shake my head; user is obviously qualified for the job if he's crazy enough to want it, but a huge trout to Kaldari for actually seeking out a user on which to bestow this horror. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been wrestling with this for a couple of days now. I think I may have been too quick to support simply because some of the opposes pissed me off so much; the more I read the candidate's answers, the more I feel he may not be ready for adminship. This RfA seems to be on the cusp, and I don't want to be the one to sink it by withdrawing my support at this late hour. Given the fact that this user spent eight years here without asking for the job, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that there's very little chance of him attempting to abuse the tools. And given the fact that it's all but impossible for him to do any worse than the majority of admins are already doing, I'm cautiously allowing my support to stand. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support -- TommyBoy is not actively seeking adminship and therefore did not prepare for this nomination. In my oppinion this is a good thing! He is trustworthy and would be a net-positive on the admin team. Agathoclea (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Just because the use doesn't have a lot of experience with certain admin areas doesn't mean he's going to run off and delete the main page (I certainly didn't!). His statement above to use a "watch and learn" approach to areas where he doesn't have much experience works for me, and calm, mature users with no history of poor decisions, flame wars or other bad behavior is exactly who we should be handing the tools to. Dana boomer (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. I looked through the contributions and was happy with what i saw. Pass a Method talk 18:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support I'm pretty sure he's not going to do anything problematic. Now, if he's been around here for eight years, he'll know that before you jump headlong into some kind of action administrative or otherwise, you do your homework. So if he starts wanting to close AfDs or handle requests at RFPP or whatnot, he will have to go and read up on the relevant policy. But so long as he does that, I'm okay with him becoming an admin. In general, I reject the idea that we can neatly categorise RfA candidates into "content creator" or whatever. Everyone contributes to Wikipedia in their own way, whether that's writing Featured Articles, closing XfDs, patrolling, WikiGnome work, whatever. I try not to make judgments: I certainly don't think that being involved in content disqualifies one from being an admin, nor do I think it makes you uniquely qualified to be one. Content work is just one aspect of making Wikipedia work. We should neither insist on it nor see it as a reason to disqualify a candidate. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Previously, I was running out of time so didn't got any time to go through your contributions. Anyways, after looking at your work, I don't find any issue which can possibly make me oppose this stand and you have my trust. TheSpecialUser TSU 02:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support — Obviously a very dedicated user who will do good work as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support where No Big Deal is concerned, a long term trusted editor who can be trusted not to break the Encyclopedia. Good luck mate! T.I.M(Contact) 05:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support – I was initially concerned that he only has one edit in the MediaWiki namespace (and more shocking NONE AT ALL in the Book namespace) – but then I decided to take my head out of my ass. Nothing in his history indicates, given the tools, he would suddenly go rogue and start tearing up the place. Honestly, if we can't trust an editor such as this with the tools, then the RfA process is truly broken. If the community is expecting every candidate to be experienced in every possible facet of Wikipedia – even areas where they have no interest or inclination of participating, past or future – then it's high time to unbundle the tools. Mojoworker (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support for 2 very specific, yet different reasons. Firstly, in looking at his edits, I see no drama, no obvious misuse of the tools available to an editor and given that, and an individuals desire to wield the mop, I say "go for it"! Secondly, the majority of the "oppose" arguments are that he has insufficient experience in the admin tools and areas, which I take (as suggested by one) with a grain of salt. We are too focused in this process about someone's lack of stuff instead of focusing their actions and behavior. It's a huge problem in the entire RfA process and I will always support someone who wants to be an admin if they've behaved and contributed well to the project. Everyone goes on and on about how being an admin not being a superior class of user, but then there's a lot of argument by some to keep those ranks closed. Rant concluded. Support !vote cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertium (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support because there's no reason not to. While there's little to no evidence of the sorts of things I'd like to see in a prospective candidate, there's also nothing to object to. He's been around for a long time and made enough contributions without giving any cause for concern that I can't see a reason to oppose. The oppose concerns appear to be based on the notion that TommyBoy will do something wrong with the extra tools, but as there is no evidence of him doing something wrong with the tools he already has, I'm not convinced of that. A careful user doesn't usually become careless when they are given extra responsibility. It's also worth bearing in mind that everything an admin can do can be undone by another admin. Problems with admins tend to occur more with poor temperament than with making mistakes that can be quickly undone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a fascinating RFA, isn't it? Many here see no reason to distrust him -- a legitimate opinion -- yet some of us see no evidence on which to trust him other than longevity. It's interesting to see the rally to support someone who hasn't done anything we can analyze here, while so many candidates who dabble in the tasks before running for adminship are penalized for it. It's an interesting message to send to future RFA candidates. (I'm not trying to pick on your vote; I respect your opinion. It just lends itself to me sharing my thoughts here.) Townlake (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Trouble-free longevity isn't a good singular reason and isn't even required, but it has value that can overcome other deficiencies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support He seems temperamentally suitable and has no black marks against him. Some of the Oppose comments below relate to the fact that he hasn't been all over the wiki doing everything; I don't see this as a drawback. This is clearly someone who sticks to what he knows and will not abuse the tools, or even use them in areas he is less familiar with. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support As SilkTork noted above, it is the behavioral pattern like poor temperament which is more problematic for an admin than not knowing all the aspects of adminship. Salih (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Appears to meet my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Indenting and striking duplicate !vote.--v/r - TP 03:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You already voted. (see #32) ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 02:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Fundamentally, RfA comes down to trust. Reading over everything, I trust that TommyBoy will use the admin tools appropriately. Yes, he is inexperienced in "admin areas" and he may make mistakes, but he comes across as a very reasonable person who will be willing to discuss his decisions and reverse them if need be. Jenks24 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Content creators can use the tools, and any incremental uses of them by calm, competent, and experienced editors such as this candidate are benefits to the project. Kablammo (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support I do think that admin area experience is a little weak, but longevity and demeanor inspire confidence. Guðsþegn (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I don't see anything that makes me think you are going to misuse the tools and you have plenty of experience as an editor. I am not concerned about the opposition for lack of experience in admin areas as I think you can pick this up as you go along. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Should make a great admin. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support after a review of randomly selected contributions. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose (moved from Netural) Too few AIV or XfD contribs for my liking (7 and 21, respectively). Not that much vandalism work is visible, either, only 137 edit summaries with the word "vandalism" since 2005. For seven years, even accounting for any long wikibreaks throughout that period, 137 isn't even close to enough. Sorry, Buggie111 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, only 11 edits to WP:RFPP. Too little for a seven year veteran, especially one who hopes to be active in such areas. (I apologize to the candidate if this sounds too harsh, people need to remember that this isn't a hat-collecting nomination initiated by the candidate, but instead a good-faith, but maybe poorly thought out nomination. It's not as if the candidate knew they'd be nom'ed on a specific date and was trying to raise his contribution level to these areas.) Buggie111 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these are a terrible reason to oppose. I would note that TommyBoy has been with the project four times as long as Buggie111 - make of that what you will. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your method of saying "Buggie111 is three times as young as TommyBoy, don't listen to him" is a pointless and somewhat insulting idea. But, if you want to bring me into this, here are comparisons of TommyBoy's and my edits to the above three areas:
    • RFPP: 11 to 13
    • AFD: 21 to 70
    • AIV: 7 to 5
    • "Vandalism"+"Revert": (135+ 395)=530 to (148+ 20)=168 (note that some diffs come up twice due to summaries like "Revert vandalism")
    I'm not a person who likes to think of myself as a maintenance-first type of editor, so the fact that most of TommyBoy's edits to admin-related areas are equal to or less (all less when adjusted for account age) to a person who focuses mainly on content makes me want to !vote oppose. In no way am I trying to degrade TommyBoy on anything else besides what I consider to be too little work to nesecary areas. He is a wonderful content creator and an immense asset to the 'pedia, just not (yet) to the places I listed above. Regards, Buggie111 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That you've misinterpreted my comment as an invitation to have a number fight only reinforces my point. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And what in ******'s name should I interpret it as? Buggie111 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's look at it this way: Do you believe Tommyboy would end up abusing the buttons? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Abuse (As in: I want to keep this article because it's about my dog/myself/whatever...) no, accidentally misuse (delete an article where consensus is to keep, delete foreign language pages tagged as G2), yes. Buggie111 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have admin experience yourself? Either way, how do you think -for instance- the "delete where consensus to keep" scenario would play out. Could you sketch a situation where you feel that this would occur? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I don't have the bit, I agree my oppose should be taken with a grain of salt. The whole delete when consensus is to keep thing could be a nominee/delete !voter misunderstanding a policy, and more !voters simply mimcking the first guy's POV, a bunch of SPA's that aren't noticed by the closing admin, any one of several closes that are closed despite of a different common outcome, decent number of situations. Buggie111 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's say that through some sequence of events, you wake up this morning, and find that you have been given the bit and told that the community has every confidence in you. Once all is said and done, what would you do? Would you -for instance- dive right into AFD and just close things at random; or would you read the documentation first, ask other admins and users for help, and try some easy cases first? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That would depend on my mood that day :). And FYI, no amount of comments by supporters will influence my oppose. The answers to the questions Someguy has analyzed have made my oppose a done deal. Buggie111 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's too bad that it depends on your mood. :-P Once you mature enough to rationally and consistently choose the safe path, do please contact me, and if RFA has been replaced, who knows, I might nominate you for admin. ;-)
    • Please note that I am not a supporter or opposer in this discussion. My interest today can be found scattered throughout WT:RFA.
    • Note that a bare statement "nothing can influence my position" is a prima facie statement of bad faith (because it denies the possibility of reaching consensus). In this case, you do seem to temper it partially by explaining why (to wit: you reference the analysis by Someguy).
    • Hmm, in future it might be better if you phrased this kind of issue in terms of "I would have supported if TommyBoy had had elements x,y,z in his answers to question a,b,c". That way TommyBoy can amend, or can learn and come back to RFA at a later time (hopefully meeting your standard at that next try.)
    Unfortunately I don't have time to discuss every single support or oppose, but I thought I'd give yours some extra attention. Thank you for your time!
    --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    De nada. I just really don't want a third person jumping on telling me that my oppose is "idiotic" and that I should support this candidacy. I also really like your very polite statement that I am an immature excuse of a tool-user and that I have no business speaking my mind with administrators and the like. Thank you for your time, too. Buggie111 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you're reading quite a lot more into that than what I wrote! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, quit badgering. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2 answers: A) Dude, we talked this out on my talk page B) I'll do so when I "stop beating my wife". --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I agree with Buggie. For a user who has been for 8 years (Belated Happy First Edit Day!), he only got a handful amount of XfD, AIV and RFPP which I expect it to be higher. I'm not sounding harsh either. Too bad that he is an edit shy of a thousand edits for a month, yet it's on my own interest and got nothing to do with this oppose. PitsConferGuests 11:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Insufficient number of admin-related edits on which to evaluate the candidacy. Particularly, way too little AfD participation for someone who wants to close such discussions. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did he say he wants to close such discussions? He said that he "would be willing to" in response to my inquiry elsewhere. That's quite different than wanting to. Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, could you please provide a link to that inquiry? I'm curious as to the exact wording. Buggie111 (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Concerned with communication skills. Q5 response is a circular definition of "involved", Q6 only vaguely answers to "be responsible" when using IAR, Q7 alarmingly does not mention the weighing of participants' !votes when determining consensus, and Q8 wanders off to mentioning IPs when the question involved registered users. I agree with Townlake in Q10 that the instructions are complicated, and a response of them being "actually quite simple" ignores the concern. I understand followups are needed from time to time, but the multiple instances already here concern me.—Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on AIV work Looking at his contributions at AIV, his most recent one, all the way back in May 2012, disturbs me. The IP made two bad edits. TommyBoy reports at 20:14, asking how to proceed with warnings. Another editor eventually warned the IP for the first time at 20:32. AIV clearly states that it is only for "obvious and persistent vandals" and the "user must have been given enough warnings". Posting this incident at AIV only to ask questions already explained in the instructions seems like a major oversight for a candidate in their most recent AIV report. This is another reason I cannot support, especially when Q1 response said he "would continue my efforts to combat vandalism on Wikipedia".—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on RFPP work Here's my analysis on his contributions to RFPP. His most recent request in Feb 2012 was after he reverted edits over 3 days (February 17–22) from 3 unique IPs. The article history was stable prior to that, and his request was denied due to "Not enough recent disruptive activity". In his previous request in August 2011, edits and moves by a single registered user prompted him to ask for full protection. The outcome was that only the single user was blocked. With the lack of demonstrated understanding of protection policy and his minimal activity in page protection requests, the lack of PP privileges has not inconvenienced his editing contributions to date.—Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Looking at the supporting arguments since I !voted days ago, I disagree with those who overgeneralized that all opposers are looking for a super-candidate. The candidate in Q1 wants to be an admin to combat vandalism and protect pages, but he rarely made requests at the related noticeboards. The ones he did make were questionable. The lack of a positive, extensive track record in requests for blocks/protection leaves doubt that he is capable to be an admin in these areas, even if his intentions would never be malicious. Demonstration of involvement in these areas should provide success when he reapplies. I am not looking for copyright, SPI, CSD, RM, etc. experience.—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per insufficient experience in admin-related areas. The answers to questions 5 and up do not inspire confidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, well, it's a bit tricky to build up experience if you don't have the flag. But that said, I'm actually interested in what flaws you see in the answers to questions 5 and up. Could you explain on a per-question basis why those answers "do not inspire confidence"? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of experience is not about how he hasn't been blocking/protecting/deleting, but the lack of contributions to AIV/UAA/RFPP/AFD/CSD. With regards the confidence issue:
    5: No explanation is given is to how he would decide whether he is involved.
    6: The question isn't answered, except to state one must be responsible.
    7: The only answer I get is that Tommy would guage the faith of the nomination, and then "use caution".
    8: The answer to this one is OK.
    9: It's quite the minimalist answer, which I guess is OK.
    10: It's OK.
    11: It doesn't seem to me like an actual answer.
    Ultimately, I don't have anything against Tommy. I don't think he's going to explode the Wiki if he's handed the tools. But between his answers to the questions and his prior experience, I have no idea if he'll be a good admin. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your frank answers. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose- Any good admin should have a reasonable amount of experience at AfD. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - User fails to fulfill my criteria and clearly lacks experience. While selecting the most longterm, uncontroversial editors we can find might sound nice, adminship is not merely a game of how long you've been around. Admin candidates should still have experience in administrative-related areas, particularly the ones where they intend to work. And if they've been here a very long time, it should be more reasonable to expect that from them, not less. TommyBoy wants to administratively fight vandalism, yet they've only filed 6 AIV reports? In eight years? They want to work page protection but they only have 11 edits to RfPP (in eight years)? They want to work AfD but in the past 2 years plus have only participated in two AfDs? Come on, the lack of experience is so blatantly evident in my eyes that I'm astounded by the support bandwagon this user's garnering. Now I'm not trying to be brutal or put this user down. I have no doubt that this is a great editor who's deserving of heaps of recognition and praise that they probably haven't ever received. But as an RfA candidate, TommyBoy regrettably falls far short. Swarm X 05:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Someguy and Swarm. Also, a random sampling of articles the candidate claims to have improved revealed this; if I had made these minor changes of formatting and categorisation, I definitely wouldn't claim to be a major contributor. Why has the candidate? --John (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - TommyBoy contributed to the article in question with a total of 34 edits, most of them in 2005, the latest in 2011. Kraxler (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, that's right. Were any of those edits more than the minor ones I found? This looks like resume-padding, which I find dishonest. --John (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Echoing John's observations, I randomly picked Janet Huckabee from the user's list. It is at best a start-class article based on content and only one footnote citation, which he contributed 12 edits (8 major, 4 minor). The candidate might have better examples, but his Q2 response was so open-ended, it is (again) leaving us to guess and rely mainly on good faith. However, his 2.36 average edits per page also seems to suggest contributions are usually not substantial to a given article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose admin tools aren't really needed for content writers. A combined 8.41 percent of his edits are to WP/WT/UT namespaces. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does there need to be a label of 'content writers' who arn't allowed the tools? Maybe there would be less animosity toward the admin corps if the 'content writers' weren't getting black balled at RFA because they are actually doing content work and avoid drama. They shouldn't be punished for building the encyclopedia. They should be trusted and allowed the tools for the off chance they need them. Why should a trustworthy content writer have to be at the convenience of a mop pusher?--v/r - TP 14:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    because in 8 years of editing here he's really kept away from areas that admins deal with. If someone hasn't participated in those areas it's hard to judge how he'll handle the tools Hot Stop (Edits) 14:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got 8 years of behavior to judge how he'll handle the tools. He'll use the tools like he writes articles.--v/r - TP 17:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you strip the administrative tools from User:Geometry guy or User:David Eppstein, two distinguished content-writers? When they use the tools, they have excellent records. Please reconsider! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of argument, Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) and Will Beback (talk · contribs) were also noted content contributors at their RfAs. Not that I'm arguing that either of these users is particularly like TommyBoy, but the argument that "other users who are good at content creation are typically good admins" does not seem like a particularly effective one. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant question is whether editors like TommyBoy are good administrators. Since you explicitly disclaim the falsehood that TommyBoy is like either of the two problematic editors, your comment is irrelevant. Second, by definition of "typically" the straw-man proposition is compatible with two bad administrators-writers, unless there are only four such administrator-writers. Third, I did not make "the argument that 'other users who are good at content creation [sic.]...'", since writers must be tortured to write "content creation" and I have not been tortured. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Candidate seems like an excellent contributor, and I'm grateful he's volunteered for this role. However, the main support argument seems to be "8 years of drama-free service," which to me sounds a bit like we're giving candidate a longevity-of-service trophy instead of analyzing his readiness to be an admin. And to me, there's not enough evidence available to determine whether or not the candidate would be trustworthy in this role. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Townlake and Swarm have said it much the way I would sum up my own findings. Doesn't meet my criteria for lack of metrics, but I'm sure if he did he would be trusted not to abuse the tools or the responsibility. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you agree that he would be trusted not to abuse the tools, why oppose just because of a person personal criteria? Again I'm a bit surprised with some of the opposes here. Secret account 06:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clearly stated my reasons. Is this just an attempt to turn yet another RfA into the kind of dramafest that we're supposed to be anxious to avoid? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Secret account 06:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He did exactly the same thing at Sergecross73's RfA. I've left a note on his talk page. - a boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking few previous RFA !votes, its deja vu. TheSpecialUser TSU 06:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Oppose - I don't see a need for the tools, as Buggie explains well. And it doesn't really seem like this was the nominee's idea either, but rather picked out of a hat. There's simply not enough admin-esque experience, and so while 8 years of trust is good, and probably indicative of how they'll do, admin tasks are different, and there's simply not enough of a track record in something close to that. Shadowjams (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm changing this to a strong oppose (as though that distinction matters) because I think many of the supports simply have not understood the objections here. I can't speak for anyone else, but this is a nom based... let's be honest... almost exclusively on the candidate's tenure, and perhaps on their edit count. But let's be honest, anyone who's even looked into their edit count realizes quickly there's almost no admin work here, hardly any content work either. The nominator's statement indicates they just went out looking for somebody, and they finally found somebody that was willing. I have no reason to believe Tommy will blank the main page, however, I have little else to go on. We reject controversial candidates here all the time, often for stupid reasons. But at least they have some record to go on. I'm really annoyed by the "adminship is no big deal" line, however, that seems strangely absent when there are controversial RfAs. I would much rather have vetted admins that know what they're doing, rather than shoe ins that stayed quiet long enough to not piss anybody off. This RfA seems to me like a referendum on where we are at as a community, and I'm frankly dismayed at the supports on this, not because I have any animosity (or opinion really) towards Tommy, but because I think few of the supports do either. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose — per Swarm and general lack of activity (in admin areas) given the eight years. —Theopolisme 21:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Admins are the arbiters of consensus on protected pages, and de facto preferred arbiters for RFC closures on editorial disputes. They need to know what quality editing is. This candidate's article-edit history is weak—I checked all articles to which this user has contributed 30 or more edits, and find none beyond class B. The nature of the subjects does not explain the ratings; in the case of John Y. Brown Jr., another user, now an admin, took the article to GA. Churn and change (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose -
    Ok, I've gone through the candidate's contribution history (see some notes about it on the talk page).
    (One cool thing about going through edit histories is you find interesting pages - This time it was Stupid Motorist Law.)
    Anyway, from what I see, the article topics the editor tends to mostly edit relate to BLPs, places, and legal-related things. (I'm surprised others have not asked BLP-related questions.)
    He also seems fairly calm in talk page communication, what there is of it. The majority of his talk page edits seem to be related assessment and other WikiProject-type gnomish stuff.
    I look to his answers to question 1, and have to say I am not comfortable with him having the tools if he intends to help out by closing AfD - or honestly, closing any consensus-based discussions. His answers to the consensus-related questions show no sense of understanding how consensus is determined. And in looking over his contribs, other than "voting" (and at least once he called it voting), as far as I have found, he has done nothing to show an understanding about consensus, or to ask anyone about consensus. This alone typically would earn an oppose from me, as determining consensus either directly or in assessing a situation in relation to past consensus is something rather fundamental to adminship.
    However, I really liked his interactions with others. And I also liked how he was not afraid to go to others for help (with templates, with complicated edits, etc.)
    I also like that he seems to understand the collaborative sense to how editing Wikipedia works. And that he does do a fair amount of what we would call gnomish work.
    If I was sure that he had one or more admin mentors to help him with consensus (I was fortunate to have as advisors great admins like Kbdank71 and Hiding, among many others), IAR, and when to block or protect, then I might be less inclined to oppose, but it seems things like Wikipedia:Admin coaching are dead/marked historical.
    So this is sort of a NOTNOW oppose. (Feels odd to say that to an 8 year experienced editor, to be sure.)
    I hope that if this request passes (and even if it doesn't), one or more of those several admins supporting will step up and mentor to help the candidate. - jc37 08:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you are saying, essentially, is that you would be less inclined to oppose if the candidate had a long term, experienced admin (or 2) as "mentor(s)", prepared to spend time analysing his contributions and helping him to improve in areas where such improvement seemed desirable? It's good that you were fortunate enough to have such advisors, I've found some good advice here myself, often. I've maybe even given some. One question - why would it need to be the admins in "support" who stood forward? I'd have thought an admin opposing for clear reasons such as you have given would have a "head start". I'm not putting you on the spot - I've done a small amount of mentoring, and it's far from as easy as it looks - it also needs to be something one is keen to do, not "feels they should" do, but it strikes me it would be somebody like you who would fit the bill. Got any friends you'd recommend? Or fancy it yourself? Begoon talk 09:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I personally think you do a decent job of mentoring. And I've been on the editor assistance list for a long time and still am happy to help. (As I think you know as we've run into each other helping out others previously : )
    So with that out of the way, to try to answer your questions... Way back when, I took the initiative to go talk with kbdank to ask him about closes. I was heavily active at CfD at the time, and was trying to understand some of the intricacies of that thing called Wikipedia consensus. (One of which led to the response at the top of my talk page.) But as I look over the candidate's edits I don't see much if any of that sort of interaction. The closest concerns some reappearing vandals to some articles he had on his watchlist, and he merely informed someone.
    Setting that all aside, look at the thread on his talk page right now. While he was welcome to treat my request as optional, he acts as if he doesn't understand that I was asking for an expansion of his answers, not merely to answer. Communication is another important thing (though, as I said, the candidate seems civilly polite), and while misunderstanding is understandable, I'm still confused as to how my initial request appears misunderstood. When I had posted that, it was before I had gone through his edit history, and was trying to suggest he take an opportunity to better represent himself.
    Adminship isn't a prize for being around awhile. It's a set of tools to help out in additional ways. He hasn't shown he needs (or honestly wants - note the word "willing" in one of his question responses above) the tools.
    As for mentorship, or even just having someone willing to be a "go to person" to help explain some things, I think that would go a long way in helping prepare the candidate for adminship. But it seems that none of the things he could do to help prepare for it have been done at all. The closest he came to even asking Kaldari a question related to adminship, is related to activating his email, something he apparently had issues with when FT2 came around more than hinting about adminship last year. (I couldn't find where that went much beyond asking about the email thing. I had thought that perhaps they finished the discussion in email, til I got to the discussion with Kaldari.)
    All that said, I'm merely one Wikipedian. So if at the end of the discussion, the closer finds that consensus results in this being successful request, I would hope that the candidate please follow his statement at Q #12 and not attempt to close anything until some help/mentoring/learning.
    I tried to note some of the positive things I've now discovered/seen about the candidate's contribs above. But at this time, I don't think he is ready for adminship. - jc37 10:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the detailed answer. I'd like to have seen fuller, more detailed replies to some of the questions too - but not enough to stop me supporting. Yes, I do remember running into you on "help" missions - I was being serious when I said someone like you could help with admin mentoring (even if not right here, right now) - maybe even try to revive the defunct programs you mentioned - but I'm always loathe to suggest someone else does more, thankless work, so I'm just saying I think you might be good at it. Back on point - I take the concerns from your investigation seriously, but I still don't see any real problems arising from supporting this candidate. It would be a boring world if we all agreed, though. Begoon talk 11:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Responses to #7 with respect to RfCs and AfDs are not encouraging, and I think a little more could be said about how consensus can be considered with responses more substantial than "it depends" and "I'll remind participants that it's not a vote. I also think that the response to #12, while honest and probably what I would say in the same situation, is also suggestive that the editor could simply spend time working in those areas first. I'm not expecting participation at ANI or anything like that. I am also unconvinced that experience in the mainspace like TommyBoy has (though Churn and change (talk · contribs) has brought up that even this might be questionable) is sufficient preparation in itself for mopping, despite it being a main focus of this project. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose candidates for adminship should have substantial experience in doing administrator-related tasks. This isn't an issue of whether the candidate has any need for the tools - such experience ensures that the candidate knows how to use the tools appropriately and that we can verify this by inspecting their contributions. I'm sure this particular candidate isn't going to delete the main page or anything stupid, but that's not the main potential problem with prospective administrators. More concerning is the possibility that they might use the tools inappropriately in good faith. I'm not expecting candidates to get involved in "drama" or become "ANI warriors", as was suggested above, but for them to get involved in some area where admin tools are helpful. We have many, many such areas and ANI is only one of them. This particular candidate occasionally submits a request to AIV or RFPP, or participates in an AfD, but they've only done to on a few occasions over a long editing career and that is not, in my opinion, enough to show that they can be trusted to handle requests at these venues. The answers to jc37's questions are somewhat shaky as well. Hut 8.5 16:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. TommyBoy appears to be a good editor, he wants to help, and I commend him. The circumstances of this nomination give me pause. Kaldari went looking for a long-term editor to nominate based on some arbitrary criteria and found TommyBoy. I'd use different criteria that looked for some experience under fire (I want to see good behavior in bad conditions) and actually bumping into situations that could use the bit. For example, an editor who keeps her head and is helpful in an awkward situation; an editor who must refer undelete requests to admins because she doesn't have the tools to restore an article. TommyBoy says he wants to fight vandalism. Fine. That means I look at the edit count at WP:AIV -- and find a total of 7 edits. TommyBoy may be coming across a lot of vandals, but he's not reporting many to AIV. (And Bagumba points out that a May 2012 report really sought advice about warning vandals.) It's one thing to revert vandalism, but there's a benefit to leaving talk page messages and making AIV reports. Reverting only fixes one act of vandalism; blocking a vandal can prevent dozens of acts. AIV reports show an editor understands that benefit, and you don't need a bit to make a report. The candidate also has a low AfD edit count: 4 AfD votes in the last 3 years; none this year. I'm not seeing reasonable experience in the areas TommyBoy wants to work. We turn down long time editors when we see limited activity. With so few reports, it is also difficult to be sure about the candidate's understanding of the appropriate issues. A candidate does not have to be a gung-ho vandal fighter or engage in lots of AfD debates. I'd be happy with a candidate who did those tasks every so often – but often enough to keep an iron in the fire and demonstrate the required skill and understanding. Yes, Pedro is right about WP:NONEED. I think TommyBoy is safe: I would not expect him to abuse the tools. At the same time, I don't think a sense of safety is enough to grant the bit. If an admin says he will work in a particular area, then I want to see some basic skills and understanding in that area. I'm not asking for skill everywhere -- just where the candidate points in Q1. I'm not asking for CSD or copyright skills. Overall, I did not like Q1 or Q2; Q3 was reasonable. I'm not happy with other Qs (especially the jc37 set): the answers are not atrocious, but they tend to wander off topic (making me question focus) and don't seem that sophisticated. In an edit war with two named users, it's more appropriate to block one or two offending users than protect the page. (Yes, the candidate did not say he'd focus on edit wars, but he did mention page protection.) Edit count is fine; good distribution; good (but sparse) AfD main diagonal. I'd have a much different view of this application if there were 30 recent AIV reports or 30 recent AfDs. Or even 20. Glrx (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking forward to your nomination of this hypothetical editor :) Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Glrx, Re: "In an edit war with two named users, it's more appropriate to block one or two offending users than protect the page." I respectfully disagree. If both editors are long term editors who are otherwise well-behaved, a quick 24-hour page protection is more productive and less disruptive than two blocks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hesitate to prevent the rest of the community from editing the page due to the squabbling of two users.—Bagumba (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Moved to oppose. A number of admins in this discussion have persuasively raised legitimate and serious concerns about a lack of basic, key skills in areas where the candidate has expressly stated he wishes to become involved. sorry, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I'm sure TommyBoy is a good editor, but I don't see enough activity where it matters for someone to be an admin. The user says "...continue my efforts to combat vandalism on Wikipedia" - but a look at the automated edits shows zero for all the tools. Trying to fight vandals and not use the tools available, does not seem like a good idea.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do it a bit. Automated tools discourage us from treating each other like people, and result in a lot of well-intentioned but poorly executing new editors being tossed into the woodchipper with the actually malicious vandals. In an era where we're concerned about declining participation (well, some of us, anyhow), not using tools is a feature, not a bug. WilyD 10:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors treating newbies as vandals is not something that is caused by auto-editing. Better education on anti-vandalism work is the solution, not abandoning auto-editing tools altogether. And auto-editing tools are necessary, because unfortunately the English Wikipedia is so large that the vandalism it attracts can't be countered effectively manually. However, I believe the only time it automated contributions should be considered at RfA is when evaluating someone's edit count, because I don't think auto-editing is always good or bad. David1217 What I've done 00:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One can play with the semantics a bit, but using automated tools is a significant factor in why good faith new users who merely suffer from a lack of experience in Wikipedia's policies and procedures get lumped into the vandal bin. It's probably strictly speaking possible to avoid, but it is the reality. It's not necessary, and it encourages the kind of bunker mentality you're expressing here; automated tools are a big part of why the reception new users get has become increasingly unfriendly. Maybe it doesn't have to be so, but it is. WilyD 08:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I'm don't think that what this wiki needs is yet another Vandal fighting Admin. It is possible to do this work effectively with just rollback rights. IMHO it is better for the community that more Vandal fighters to be non admin and therefore acting as peers rather than Defenders of the Wiki. Besides the above dissenting voices have made a significant number of valid point. BO | Talk 01:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to start a fight - and nothing personal towards you, but your comment serves as an exceptional illustration of some of the challenges faced in the RfA process. Admins are not "elevated" to a superior role, they are simply given additional tools. The use of the word "peer" indicates that there might be a perception that Admins are somehow no longer peers of editors. I disagree (as does WP policy). Nor do I believe that admins are any more a "defender of the wiki" than any conscientious editor. It's troublesome that there are frequent references being made about admins and editors, as though one is better than the other. I wonder what it would be like if all the non-admin editors took a wiki-break for a week just to see just how well the admins do in "defending the wiki" on their own. Rather than focusing on what a volunteer hasn't done - let's instead look at the activity level for all 1500 admins and see just how many of them are regularly active in "defending the wiki". Vertium When all is said and done 13:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Swarm. The almost complete lack of experience in AfD, AIV, and RfPP is a deal-breaker for me, for a candidate who wants to be active in those areas as an admin. I'll also point out that he has had no activity in AfD this year, and that before he has averaged roughly 2 or 3 a year- definitely not what I would call active. He has made only one report to RfPP this year. In addition, the report was unnecessary and improper (and the page was not protected), which leads me to question his judgment further. The only report he made to AIV this year was also completely improper as well, to an IP who had only made two edits and was not warned for either of them before the candidate filed a report to block. During the block report, he also said that he was not certain if there should be a blanket warning for both edits, or one warning per page vandalized. It's clear that this candidate is completely unprepared for adminship, especially in the areas that he intends to work with. He has incomplete knowledge of policy, and almost no experience, and I have no confidence in giving him the tools.--Slon02 (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Oppose - Seems like a good editor, but I'd like to see more experience in admin-related fields. Michael (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose albeit a week oppose per Swarm's comments. I see a good editor who doesn't have any experience in admin-related tasks. It is hard to give support when there is no track record. I think if TommyBoy works in AfD, AIV, and RfPP over the next 6 months, they would gain over 90% support during the next AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I have to agree with Townlake, Bgwhite, Buggie111, Slon02, and Swarm. I'm concerned with the low AFD participation. And with the number of years that candidate has been editing on Wikipedia, I find it very puzzling that he didn't understand how to opt in. Even after several attempts to explain it, there remained confusion. Seems like such a shot in the dark for this candidate, i.e., has a desire to take aim, but has no idea what he's shooting at. I think he needs to take a step back, review the tools that he has available to him, and learn how to accurately utilize them in administrative areas to the benefit of the community. He needs to see the full picture and be able to fully grasp how the community functions before he can dive into the areas in which he has expressed interest. It is important to have the knowledge and understanding necessary to carry out the responsibilities with confidence. In my opinion, we already have too many admins that lack a basic understanding of the project's policies and guidelines from the Manual of Style to the deletion policy. Other than that, answers to Qs #5, #6, #10, and #11 raise an eyebrow. I think we need to see a bit more experience here. I don't think it will take much time for this candidate to gain this knowledge, but until then, I have to regretfully oppose. Cindy(talk to me) 03:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose The mop isn't a prize you get for being here x number of years. I would happily support in the near future if the user has SOME experience with admin-related tasks. Trusilver 07:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. I don't see this editor as admin material. I appreciate the polite demeanor and the no doubt sincere attempts at creating articles, but there is no indication that Tommy will be able to handle most of the duties of an admin, and I don't believe his article content skills are very good. I took an article at random (Kay A. Orr) from Tommy's list. Tommy indeed started the article, but his efforts were meager and subpar. Two other editors (User:Zigzig20s and User:SWMNPoliSciProject) actually improved the article, including sourcing it and creating a reasonable layout. I'm not impressed with the content Tommy added (the article was still unsourced many edits and two years after creation) or the credit he's taken for doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That article was created in 2005, and your link points to 2007  :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the phrase "two years after creation".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised to see the phrase "duties of an admin". Isn't adminship supposed to be the ability to handle the extra tools rather than duty. --Anbu121 (talk me) 03:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose According to the bio Tommy has been growing up whilst being a Wikipedia editor and that is a great thing. But the long tenure of quite and productive editing notwithstanding there is little to work with when trying to evaluate how he'd do when equipped with the tools, from the little on his talk page to his answerers to the questions that I perceive at somewhat missing the point. So whilst certanly not mistrusting his intentions, I'm just non confident enough. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Due to lack of experience in admin-related areas. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose no doubt he won't wilfully misuse the tools, but new editors can be put off from continuing to contribute, and general disruption to the project can result, from inappropriate use of the tools (even if reversed quickly). In addition, administrators are looked on as being arbiters of consensus and policy - how can you do that if you aren't familiar with them? I'm not asking for anything much - just a few weeks of actively contributing to the relevant areas. QuiteUnusual TalkQu 18:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral. Looking back to May 2012, TommyBoy has no XfD comments. He certainly should not be closing AfDs. I am unconvinced that he will spend time blocking vandals. I do not believe that TommyBoy will make any significant impact with the tools. On the other hand, I don't think that he will misuse them either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Does use of the tools have to be a prerequisite? They are pretty cheap.--v/r - TP 00:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion: yes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a good reason to me. Shadowjams (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of TommyBoy's AfD votes can be seen here. Legoktm (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning oppose As of now, the only info I have is the edit count and AFD history. While the edit count sure looks good, only 21 AFD's seems waaay too little for me. Might change once I see how many edits have been made to WP:AIV. Buggie111 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use either WikiSense or Scottywong's tools. X!'s counter isn't your only option. Legoktm (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally neutral until I can see more answers, replies, etc. from the candidate, then I can form an opinion. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now - until the candidate answers the questions listed. ZappaOMati 07:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now, perhaps even moral support, I will wait till see the answers to the questions (especially the ones from jc37), however I must say that the fact that this page is listed in the top 10 most edited pages in the WP namespace is cause for concern, and will need some good answers to over come that . Mtking (edits) 11:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TommyBoy is a solid content contributor, for sure, and they are more valuable to us than admins; however, there is next to no evidence of actual work in admin-type areas (7 edits to AIV and 11 to RFPP are the sum total of his contributions to admin areas of projectspace). I'm somewhat concerned with the relatively high level of support already evident here given this situation, and would appreciate some clarification from those presently supporting (of the nine at the moment, only Kaldari has offered any proper rationale in the form of the nomination itself, and even that is unconvincing). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment had an associated ongoing thread which has been moved to the talk page. - jc37 02:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I was going to oppose, based largely on the candidate's lack of experience in the pseudo-admin areas (for example, the relatively sparse participation at XfD for a prospective admin with eight years service). On the other hand, I don't really see anything that indicates that TommyBoy would make a mess of anything were he to be given the mop, and I find Dennis Brown's argument pretty persuasive, so that leaves me here. — sparklism hey! 14:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I've been going back and forth between support and oppose, and can't make a decision. So, I guess that means I end up here. I lean to oppose because of the lack of experience in admin areas and lukewarm answers to questions. I lean to support because the candidate has been here for such a long time and hasn't screwed anything up yet, so it's likely he won't screw anything up as an admin. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 15:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I'm leaning support, mostly for the same reasons as Dennis Brown states. I'm not too concerned with the lack of experience in AIV, AfD, etc. per se, but I am concerned that some of the answers to the questions, especially 6 & 7 (but really 5-8) don't tell me much, and while I think TommyBoy has clue and would be a net positive with the mop, I would like to see a little more evidence of that with more explicit and detailed answers to jc37's questions before I commit to support. Rlendog (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to jc37's question, especially 8 almost had me consider switching to neutral and hence my follow up questions. There were a couple steps in the answers that I was hoping to see that weren't present. 7 was also a little bit of a weak answer for me. PaleAqua (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - an excellent editor who has done some really fantastic work in the past years but I agree with the above in saying I do not see much experience or reasons to grant him the sysop status. Don't think it will be a tragedy if he is given the extra tools though. Keep up the good work! --Mark91it's my world 00:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I find no evidence that the candidate would be definitely inappropriate to be given the bit (if I did, this would be a comment in the oppose section), but I also do not see enough evidence in admin-areas to be able to judge how well the candidate would be able to act there. If the candidate seriously wants to work in admin areas (and I hope the experience here doesn't put them off!), then perhaps such experience would help in a future RfA. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:29, 18 November 2012 (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