Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 4

TenPoundHammer

Voice your opinion (talk page) (31/4/3); Scheduled to end 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) - Ah, what to say about TenPoundHammer. I studied the previous RfAs carefully, and it looks like he's learned from those mistakes. The fact that he's a very frequent AfD patroller is quite good as well. He has a huge edit count, for starters. He writes plenty of articles, as I see him at DYK every so often, and he's clearly created many articles, as well as helped make some country music articles look pretty nice. His participation throughout Wikipedia is certainly notable, plus he's using edit summaries regularly the past few months as well. He's certainly a very improved candidate the past few months, and is ready for the tools. Wizardman 05:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: My otters and I accept the nomination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nominator forgot to transclude this, so I did that for him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Primarily, I plan to continue contributing regularly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If I become an admin, I will help in the actual deletion and/or undeletion processes. I believe that I am familiar enough with the deletion process to know when to delete a page, and will make sure to exercise caution so that I don't screw up. In the past, I've been accused of taking too many pages to AfD at once, or applying WP:SNOW too soon -- but lately, I've been making sure to think twice (or even three times) before I act. For example, I make sure to do several searches for reliable sources and/or claims to notability regarding a page's subject before I take it to AfD.

Although I'm not as active in countering vandalism as I am at AfD, I also plan to help out in that department whenever possible. I make sure to remove any vandalism I see, and report to WP:AIV if the need arises. If I become admin, I will help to block obvious (and I stress obvious) repeat vandals when necessary. Again, this is a department where I'll make sure to think it through first -- if I become admin, I really don't want to screw up.

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

A: Although I haven't helped promote any articles to WP:GA or WP:FA status yet, I've made considerable rewrites to several articles. Diamond Rio, Collin Raye, Lila McCann, Jeffrey Steele, and Cincinnati Mills are among the articles to which I have added the most information. Also, I rewrote Doug Stone (singer), Pirates of the Mississippi, Stephanie Bentley, The Bellamy Brothers, and Stephanie Bentley are a few of the articles that I have re-written from scratch as the previous versions were copyright violations.

In addition, I have created four articles which have appeared on WP:DYK: Neil Thrasher, Sakowitz, Larry Stewart (singer), and Pearl River (band). (Dennis Robbins, another one of my creations, is currently in the DYK queue.) I have also created new pages for very many notable country music artists; among the largest, most comprehensive, and most sourced articles I've written almost entirely by myself are McBride & the Ride, Robert Ellis Orrall, and Sons of the Desert (band).

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: Yes. My most recent conflict was with User:Keri Nowling, who has repeatedly been changing the year of birth in the Collin Raye article from 1959 to 1960. Although I warned the user several times about adding unsourced info, he or she continued to add the inaccurate info, citing Raye's MySpace as a source. I then informed the user that a.) MySpace is not a reliable source, and b.) the sources in the article all state he was born in 1959. The user ignored my warnings and changed the info again, so I undid the revision (mainly because it screwed up the infobox coding) and took it to WP:AIV.

It turns out that I was one step ahead of myself -- since Twinkle contains a Level 3 "unsourced" template but no Level 4 "unsourced" template, I thought that the Level 3 was a final warning in that case. (Even though it wasn't a final warning, I also cited "evidently vandalism only account" in the AIV listing, which I felt was valid since the user had made no other edits besides persistently adding the wrong info -- and I have witnessed other users who have gotten blocked indefinitely for similar disruptive edits.) User:Tony Fox informed me of my simple mistake regarding the warnings, and left a note on the user's talk page.

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer
• Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 2
• Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 3
• Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 4
• Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5
• Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 6
• Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 7

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support. At this point, he makes an overqualified admin. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support —BoL 06:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support --- thought he already was an admin; a good sign, I think. --- tqbf 06:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong Support I thought he was an admin, too. Look what he's done without the mop. Imagine what he'll do with it! Best of luck to ya! Mr Senseless (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - I have seen him regularly around Wikipedia, and I also thought he had the tools. He seems well-balanced, keen and responsible. Go for it! docboat (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - Does great work around Wikipedia. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Both I and my otters support this nomination. Lankiveil (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
9. I dorfbaer I talk I 10:00, January 1, 2008
10. Support. He is very involved in the AfD process, and although the opposers say that TPH has made a few judgment errors in the past, I can trust that he will be more keen. Overall, he would make a great asset as an admin. Singularity 10:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support I previously opposed TPH for swinging his hammer a little too readily but I'm sure that with the extra experience he's gained since his last RfA he'll be a fine admin. A lot of people stomp off after failing an RfA or simply ignore the suggestions of other editors but TPH has kept working hard and deserves to succeed this time around. We all make mistakes but I think he's always open to discussion and that's the main thing for me. As I want this RfA to succeed I would urge him to perhaps leave the more contentious closes to others, at least to start off with, to assuage some of the concerns of the opposers. An article which can be improved is not an article which should be summarily deleted and I take him at his word that he'll search for sources (and add them) himself before taking things to AfD or speedily deleting them. Nick mallory (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support A hardworking, civil committed member of the community who would not intentionally abuse the tools. Perhaps a little too deletionist for some but we have a mechanism to correct poor deletion decisions. I'm sure the candidate will listen to concerns raised on their talk page about borderline (and not so) decisions and will learn from experience. If you get the tools, please start off slow. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support First saw TPH on AfD and that's where they shine. We all make errors once in a while (in reference to the comments below). <humour>But isn't sharing an account with a couple of otters in violation of m:Role account and possibly PETA?</humour> =P NF24^{(radio me!)} 13:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support This user can be trusted with the tools. I like that he is very responsive to opposing points of view if they are backed up with evidence. It seems to me like TPH will continue to work to improve his editing, and his work ethic is impressive. Darkspots (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support The user here is civil and well versed in how we do things around here. I was a little concerned over his AfD's until I examined closer and realized that while he does not think the articles belong, he is not attempting to have them speedied. He's bringing them to the community for a decision. Of late he is not contentious when people oppose him but in fact often withdraws his own nominations when he sees consensus is against him. That, to me, is a sign of someone who wants to work with people to build a fine encyclopedia. -JodyB _talk 13:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support have seen him at work, a fine man for the mop I say. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Strong Support - Will be a great administrator addition to the AFD logs. Rt. 15:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support per many good reasons. Dlohcierekim 15:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support 110%. This guy helps Wikipedia no end. Has definitely learned from previous mistakes, and I really think Wikipedia will benefit from his being admin _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}• 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support as nom. Wizardman 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Weak support. I'm in a similar boat as Tiptoety (down in neutral), even though (no offense, Tiptoety) I really don't want to be there. I think TenPoundHammer is an excellent editor and a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, which is why I'm in support, but I'm somewhat concerned with a few things I found in contribs, which is why I'm tentative in that support. The AfDs mentioned in oppose do not concern me, especially as in a number of them the nominator withdrew the nomination once it was demonstrated to him that consensus was against him. I note that in the same period of time, he listed a number of mall articles for AfD that were accordingly deleted by consensus: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, to name a few among the many. It's not like the nom is working to delete articles on former English kings, here—there is obviously legitimate need for discussion over what renders a mall notable and what does not. However, I've gone through his recent contributions (deleted and otherwise) with an eye for locating mistagged speedies, since I think those are probably a better indicator of misuse potential, and I do have some misgivings about some of those, particularly in WP:CSD#A1 territory. A1, no context, is for articles that cannot be comprehended because there is insufficient material in them to parse what they're about. This seems obviously to me not to apply to the following: 1, 2 and 3. (This one is hardly a stellar example of an article stub, but it was tagged 2 minutes after creation—surely not enough time to allow the creator to establish the article? I tend to think it might be better to watchlist an article in such a case and come back to it later.) Also, this A7 nom is concerning given that the article asserts a charted hit. The fact that half an hour later, after the speedy was declined, nom admitted "didn't catch that, they have charted a hit" in the AfD doesn't reassure me. We ought to read the whole article before !voting for delete, much less tagging for speedy deletion. :( So, given these misgivings, why am I in support? I've thought for a long time about it. I feel very confident in his work overall. I do not believe he will willfully abuse the tools, and these indicators of potential misuse are very small in proportion to his overall contributions. He is overall very familiar with policy, and given his obvious desire to work within guidelines and to seek consensus, I believe that once an issue is pointed out to him, he will work in good faith to correct it. Still, while he says above that "lately, I've been making sure to think twice (or even three times) before I act" in terms of deletions, one of those A1s was placed on 12/31 and that unread A7 was only a month ago. I would really like to be an enthusiastic supporter of this RfA, but can't without some additional assurance that he's going to be careful with deletions to apply policy properly and to thoroughly evaluate candidates before deciding that an article should go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Support add me to the list. Avruchtalk 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
23. support demonstrably a constructive member of the project, has earned my trust for access to admin tools. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Support, as previously. - eo (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Support, this user seems to have a good grasp about AFD, and although he makes mistakes sometimes, we all do. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. As for deletion concerns, which seem valid, anyone who gets taken to DRV frequently as an admin learns how to correct their behavior quickly - it's not always a pleasant process. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Support well involved at afd and his arguments are always well thought. As others have pointed out, we have DRV if he has too much of a deletionist bent. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. Work with him in AFD, very good editor. Good luck!! Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. I think he might have invented AfD :) J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Support I know it's the oldest RfA cliche there is, but it's true: I'd long assumed he was one already! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Support good user, seen him around.--Phoenix-wiki 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, maybe bordering on neutral, primarily because I seem to still be seeing too much quickness to want to delete stuff rather than improve articles. I do, however, acknowledge that TenPoundHammer has been polite with me even if we do disagree in AfDs, so again, I am just a bit concerned that there may be a quickness to delete good articles or close articles as delete that we really do not have a consensus to delete. Maybe if I saw even more effort to rescue articles, I would feel differently, because personality wise, I think Hammer does put a good deal of time into this site and as I mentioned above is certainly one of the more pleasant editors with whom I have disagreed. It is reassuring at times that with some editors, we can disagree and yet still be able to do so civilly and be pleasant on other matters, even if it is simple things like holiday greetings. Thus, my opinion of Hammer has certainly improved over time and so on one hand, I commend him for participation such as here; however, in this discussion, if nothing else, I would hope that an admin would point out at least that the AfD does not link the first AfD as is usually the case with multiple nominations. In any event, good luck and happy new year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I do not trust this user with deletion. Recently nominated AfDs:

   inadequate application of IINFO, 2

   questionable source searching methods, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

   inconsistent standards, 2

   The candidate mentions too often when an article has OR, POV, or lacks RS, when those are generally maintenance issues that don't warrant deletion. –Pomte 07:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   Point taken, but (if every one of these AfDs had run to its conclusion and he was otherwise uninvolved) how would TPH-the-admin have closed the discussions? I see in his edits--in your list of AfDs as much as everywhere else--a solid respect for community consensus. Darkspots (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   Hammer spends a huge amount of time at the afd's. And as he is human, there will be a few questionable calls. But at an rfa, the important questions to answer are - Is he flexable? Does he follow the concensus? Does he modify his vote when the article had been improved? Does he modify his vote when someone points out the questionable application of Wikipedia policy? His record clearly indicates the affirmative, and that's why he would make a great admin. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose The examples cited above makes me not want to trust him with a delete button. I'd rather see editors put effort into improving articles rather than deleting them, and it seems like he would press the delete button on articles that should be improved instead. RxS (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose I still see the editor making many minor mistakes in his speedy-closing of XfD debates fairly regularly: nothing so glaring as to stand out in one diff, but a pattern of mistakes that (combined with editor's high activity) make me worried should he be given the delete button. Xoloz (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. --'n1yaNt 07:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Very good user, do not think they will purposefully abuse the tools, but think they may be a bit button happy when it comes to deletion per diff's at WP:AFD. This user is very civil, still unsure whether to switch to support. Tiptoety ^talk 08:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral: The issues addressed above are concerning enough. However, other than that, I've had several positive interactions with the user, and am leaning toward support, but I'd like some more time to go through TPH's contributions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)