Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5

TenPoundHammer

Voice your opinion (talk page) (150/63/9); Scheduled to end 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) - I have never heard fifth times the charm, but nothing is impossible. When I first noticed this user I thought (I know, you've heard this before, but this is true) he, and his otters, were already an admin('s). So far as I've seen, aside from various mistakes, this user has done plenty of admin like actions and seems well deserving of the tools. I think he's been given adequate time to reflect on his prior RFA's and correct any mistakes he made. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: The otters and I accept.

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 deletion, as that's one of the areas I have the most experience in. I plan to help by closing discussions when necessary, and deleting any page that clearly needs to be deleted. I feel that I have a solid enough understanding of the deletion process to know when a speedy is called for, when a PROD is called for, and when an AfD is called for. Of course, if I turn out to have made a mistake (or if another admin made a mistake), I'd gladly undelete the page when necessary.

I would also do some work in vandal fighting -- although I'm not as proficient in vandal fighting, I already use Twinkle to revert unhelpful edits, and I warn users when they're not contributing in a helpful manner (of course, I always assume good faith). I feel also that I have enough of an understanding on blocking/unblocking policy to call the shots there -- for instance, a person who's made three pages that all got A7'd may truly be a good faith contributor who doesn't understand the rules, but someone who keeps posting blatant nonsense might deserve a block. And I emphasize might here; I understand that blocking is usually a last resort.

I've been learning from all the people who gave me constructive criticism in my past four RfAs. While I'm probably not at the top of my game yet, I think that I've taken care of enough of my stumbling blocks. (I've also informed the otters that they should take a little more time to think things through; darn critters are so impulsive. :-P)

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

A: I have been very busy filling in many of the gaps as far as country music artists are concerned; check User:TenPoundHammer/Pages I created for a list of all the pages I've created. Several of my creations have been listed at WP:DYK (seven at last count; currently have two more in queue).

I'm also quite proficient in pages in shopping malls. Although it could use a bit of cleanup, Northwest Plaza is probably one of my most in-depth pages that I have created.

While I have yet to push an article to GA or FA status (it ain't easy!), I did promote Diamond Rio, Collin Raye, Cincinnati Mills, Joe Diffie, and a few other pages from stubs or barely-even-start-class to solid B-class articles.

Of course, I work outside those two fields as well -- I try to make little fix-ups on other pages whenever I see something that needs work.

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: Not really. The biggest one I can think of recently is a user who kept trying to add slanted information about how the Meijer chain treats homosexual workers; in the process, said user was removing perfectly valid, sourced info and replacing it with his own bias. I reverted the info multiple times, only for said user to accuse me of adding my slant to the article. I kept my cool and pointed out that the user seemed to be deliberately adding unsourced info; after a few more edits from this same user, I reported him and he got indef blocked.

As for how I will deal with WikiStress™ in the future, the answer is simple: I will try to keep my cool whenever possible, inform the user that he or she is going against policy, and -- definitely -- save blocking only for when it's absolutely necessary.

Optional questions

4 If you had to block a user for vandalizing your own userpage, how long would you block that user if they already had thier last warning?--RyRy5 (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A.It would depend on how persistent their vandalism is. If the user were clearly a vandalism-only account, I would probably go with an indef block because it would be clear that the user wasn't here to contribute positively. However, if it was just a user who got a little cranky and went on a slight vandalism spree, I'd probably let it go with a one-day block. This question is a little tough to answer, as I've not really dealt with userpage vandalism (mine is protected).

5. If there was one thing you could change about Letterman, what uh, would it be? Dlohcierekim 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A. Letterman? As in David?

That's the one. Dlohcierekim 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Have him start doing Numberwang jokes. No, seriously, I can't think of anything to change about Letterman, he's funny as hell. Although, as a keyboardist myself, I wouldn't mind if he let me fill in for Paul Shaffer on occasion.

Question from Shell Kinney (talk · contribs)

6. Could you discuss what you learned from your other RfAs and what you have done to fix any issues brought up?

A. One of the main concerns in previous RfAs was that I was a little too trigger-happy with AfD and speedy -- in other words, I would sometimes overlook a vague assertation of notability, and thus have an A7 declined, or I would end up placing something at AfD when maybe a redirect or merge was in order instead. I've been making sure to read articles thouroughly before I tag them, and even though I still make mistakes occasionally, I've been trying to take a little more time and make fewer mistakes.

Also, when it comes to looking up sources, I'm making sure to do a more thorough search there. Sometimes Google doesn't catch everything, so I have to either use {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} instead of {{afd1}}.

Questions from Malinaccier (talk)

8. What is a decent bedtime for an administrator?

A. Whenever they're tired. I usually go to bed at 1 AM.

7. (That's Numberwang! -- TPH) What is your opinion on the sudden surge of ridiculous questions in RFAs that have nothing to do with anything?

A. Levity almost always has a place on the project, so long as you don't let it get out of hand. Just like my Numberwang jokes, or always linking to red link.

Optional Question from Guest9999 (talk)

9. Three part question (sorry). (1)When do you think it is appropriate to close an deletion discussion per WP:SNOW, (2)under what circumstances might it be appropriate for someone who has taken part in the discussion to close the discussion, (3)when (if ever) would it be appropriate for the nominator to close a discussion?

Part 1: Any nomination that is frivolous in nature (e.g. a clearly bad faith nom placed by a sockpuppet, or -- as is the case here -- has an agenda), or an article that has received a WP:HEY job and suddenly sees everyone vouching for a keep. I usually try to wait a full day, but sometimes -- especially with the disruptive nominations -- I feel that an earlier close doesn't hurt.

Part 2: Even though WP:DPR#NAC states that you probably shouldn't close an AfD if you !voted in it (unless you're withdrawing your own), I sometimes ignore all rules and close a discussion. I try not to do this unless a.) the nominator withdrew and consensus called for a keep (even if I !voted keep myself), b.) the nomination was clearly disruptive in nature, or c.) it's been open for at least a day and WP:SNOW is imminent. (I should also point out that I don't recall having ever had anyone complain to me for closing a discussion I took place in.)

The only other time I close a discussion that I've taken part in is when an admin deletes the page but forgets to close the discussion -- sort of a picky thing for me.

Part 3: I only close my own nominations when I withdraw them -- usually, that happens in cases where all of my concerns for deletion have been taken care of. For instance, I recently withdrew a nomination after an article was greatly improved; even though the discussion was only open for a few hours, I felt that the article had been improved enough that it no longer warranted an AfD discussion.

Optional question from User:Jon513

10. On March 13, 2008 you nominated University of Georgetown for deletion after a G3 speedy request(deleted edit) was declined. As hoaxes are generally not speediable, I am interested in understanding your reason for the speedy request. Also, in general, where do you draw the line between "blatant and obvious hoaxes" that are speediable and one's that are "even remotely plausible"?

I was a little misled here. The nominator's evidence showed that "University of Georgetown" didn't exist -- and doing a search for the name, I at first thought it to be blatant misinformation, as I was finding a very low number of hits, which I didn't find sufficient to consider "University of Georgetown" a misnomer for "University of Guyana". Given that the information in the Georgetown article didn't seem to mesh with the University of Guyana article, I then tagged it as G3 because I thought that it was blatant misinformation -- trusting in Camillus of course, whose user page states that the user has even been in Guyana. Maybe it wasn't quite blatant enough for a G3 (A1 probably would've been closer, as the page only comprised one sentence), but the page was deleted and turned into a dab anyway.

As far as blatant vs. not so blatant, I figured that since nothing concrete was turning up on a college (i.e., nothing on Google Maps, negligible on Google Scholar, no official website), and since the article seemed to -- even in its lack of context -- imply that it wasn't the same as University of Guyana, I felt that the content was indeed a hoax or misinformation (i.e., a very rarely, if ever used misnomer).

Question from Dusti

11. I see that you have had numerous other RFA's. What is your main reason in wanting to become an Admin on Wikipedia. Let's assume that out of the RFA's currently listed, only one would be promoted. What do you think sets you apart from the other canidates and makes you worthy to have the tools?

Uninvolved comment before you answer: Sorry to be intrusive here. I would say not to answer this. Whatever is happening at other RfAs is absolutely irrelevant to this one, and there isn't a way to appropriately answer this question. Hoping Dusti will see this comment and withdraw. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, WTF? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous question from Glacier Wolf

12 Do you consider yourself to be a meatpuppet, since you have otters editing on your account?

A No. A clampuppet, maybe.

Question from Dacium

13 If a AFD is withdrawn by the nominator simply because the nominators reason was wrong, but in discussion others have brought up valid reasons for a deletion, what would you do considering most people will be opposed to AFD'ing the page again immediatly?

I would probably leave it open until a consensus is formed; or if no consensus forms, give it a relist. (Of course, if the article has been improved, I would let all "Delete" !voters know that they might want to reconsider their !votes after an improvement.) I actually had this happen at least once -- I withdrew a nomination but some valid reasons for deletion had been placed; the admin closed it after one relist as no consensus, because no consensus had formed after a relist.

Question from Stifle

14. Under what circumstances is it permissible for a non-free image of a living person to be used on Wikipedia?

A. From what I understand, a non-free image would be acceptable for a living person if a.) their notability relies on an apperance from earlier in their lives, or b.) the image can be proven as notable commentary (e.g. if a biographical article discusses a subject's apperance on a magazine, and then a pic of said magazine is shown).

Question from Sallicio

15. If you were the closing adminstrator, what would you do with the AfD article Kaua'i County Police Department as it stands now (i.e., keep, merge, delete) and why?

A. Given the improvement to the article, I would probably leave it as is -- maybe a keep through lack of consensus. The "keeps" and "merges" seem to have almost equal amounts of validity (because the article's been imrpoved -- and as it stands, it may be a tad too long to merge). This is a tricky one; I might close it either as a keep or no consensus.

Followup Could you comment on any BLP issues involved with the article? 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says "...has faced numerous allegations of corruption, cover-ups and favoritism" but I only count two, one of which is unsourced -- and in a search, I could find no other accusations of that nature. However, the information does seem to have some bearing to the article, even if it's not presented in the best of ways ("numerous" seems a bit slanted). Admittedly, I've not dealt much with BLP.

Questions from Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸

16. What is your opinion of Ignore All Rules and Be Bold? When should you use IAR?

A. I think that there are indeed cases where logic can override Wikipedia rules, and it is up to an individual user to decide when to ignore all rules. BOLDness should be saved for uncontroversial decisions -- something like merging a permanent stub on a non-notable song to another relevant article.

As for IAR, one of the only times that I invoke that is closing a withdrawn AfD nomination in which I have !voted. I feel that this does not show a conflict of interest, as a withdraw after several !votes of "keep" indicates a clear consensus that the article should be kept. (Usually, I do this only in cases where the closing nom doesn't know how to close an AfD.)

17. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A. Admittedly I've never dealt with banning per se, so I have a very hard time understanding the difference from blocking.

18. It comes to light that a user you are friendly with has been accused of sockpuppetry. Which side would you be on, and would you participate in the discussion? Would you be the blocking admin if they are found to be a sock?

A. I would try to assume good faith first, regardless of whether or not they were a user I'd been friendly with -- but if the evidence shows that they're a sock, then they're a sock, no bones about it. If it was a user I'd been friendly with, I'd participate in the discussion, staying neutral until I'm convinced that they are or are not a sock. Even if it were a user I'd been friendly with, I would still enforce the block.

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

• I would also like to say that I have worked personally with TPH on closing many AfD's. I believe this shows a non bias for deletion discussions. I have yet to see his neglect for procedure, policy and guidelines. Theres no doubt in my mind on the subject of misusing the tools, as he has knowledge of their applications. An opinion is an opinion, but it is never set in stone. While adminship is a serious thing, there has to be humor in editing. Adminship is no big deal. You cant take everything so seriously. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• TPH gets my full endorsement because I fully believes that he deserves and has earned the mop. That being said, I didn't like his answer to number 4. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when you become personally involved in a situation, then you should get a third person to act. If somebody vandalizes one's own page, that person should not block the user, but report it to ANI or the appropriate location to get somebody else to act. It's not that an issue is necessarily wrong, but rather we must maintain independence. (Gee, I bet that just gave away my profession to some of you!)Balloonman (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't intend to comment decisively in support or opposition because I am not familiar with TenPoundHammer and because I don't have the time to look through his/her contributions. My initial reaction, however, is to oppose, because this is the fifth RfA and the last was two months ago; because I get the impression upon looking at his/her responses to questions and deletions that he/she acts too quickly when deleting or nominating for deletion, and has not changed significantly in two months; because of the heckling of the opposers (and those who dare question supporters); among other things. Anyways, those are my initial thoughts. --Iamunknown 04:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I was hoping that following his reasonable answers to my questions on my talk page, that I would be able to switch to support; however, I am still seeing questionable judgment in AfDs. I'll use two examples. First, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional raccoons. TPH was the first to vote delete. Half of his argument is Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT, which is essentially the only argument for deletion offered by the nominator. In fact, the bulk of the nominator's statement is spent launching a personal attack or assumption of bad faith against another editor (who happens to be an admin, incidentally). That alone should send up warning signals when participating in an AfD. Moreover, as the AfD progressed, the article has been slightly improved by myself and Casliber and the only other editor to have voted delete has now struck through his delete (it's at 8 to 2 in favor of keeping, with the two deletes being the nominator and TPH). I would hope that a potential admin would take issue with a nomination that dwells on spending the bulk of the nomination text criticizing another editor, rather than focusing on the article and that when evidence is demonstrated during the discussion (as I did with that link to an encyclopedia) that the topic is encyclopedic that the vote would be reconisdered. Second, please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent Mothers in Disney films and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Mothers. In these cases, we are referring to articles created on 19 March 2008 and 17 March 2008. Surely articles should be given more than a couple of days to develop. Now notice that all of the delete votes in these discussions are either WP:PERNOM and/or focus on the article being unsourced and not in context, which were indeed valid statements initially; however, I and a few others have since found a wealth of scholarly sources (theses, news articles, books, encyclopedias, etc.) that cover absent mothers in Disney films. Thus, any claims of original research or lack of context or unsourcing are totally unfounded at this point, not to mention again that the articles were created only on the 17th and 19th respectively. So, what concerns me here is that the same effort I and a couple of others spent finding sources through regular Google and Amazon.com searches that anyone else could have also done was not done by those who voted "delete" and now that the articles have since been improved considerably, notability has been asserted, encyclopedic nature has been indicated, verfiability is no longer in doubt, and again all in the course of the but couple of days the articles have been in existence, is all improvement efforts that could have been done by anybody who participated in the discussions, i.e. instead of asserting that sources don't exist, editors should make at least some effort to see if such an assertion is actually true, because in this case, clearly sources did in fact exist and could have been easily found and added to the article. And finally, it bothers me that when all this has been done, some of the delete votes have not changed. I don't think AfDs should be approached as a "vote and move on to the next discussion," but should be watchlisted to take into account new revelations as the discussion progresses. Are these articles mentioned above "perfect"? Of course not; they definitely could use more improvements, but they certainly have been sufficiently improved to justify their being kept and I would be far more apt to trust in TPH's judgment if I saw an acknowledgment of the changed circumstances regarding these articles. Anyway, I hope that clarifies my stances. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: It looks like TPH has addressed the points I made above in these four edits. I am pleased to see these edits and commend him for responding positively to advice expressed here. The Disney mothers one is admittedly a bit complex, because somehow or other, because the articles are essentially identical, one should be redirected to the other, but I'm not sure which one or if they should be made into separate articles on separate topics, i.e. if Disney mothers should be an article with a sub-section on Absent Disney mothers or something. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note I supported TPH, but left a quick passing comment because I don't have time for the project anymore, but here is an extended comment for everyone to see (especially the oppose side). Most of TPH opposes was on 5 RFAs on less than a year, and on poor AFDs. On the 5 RFAs on less than a year, several editors including myself had 5 or more RFAs in a year timespan, I'm surpriced the consensus on that changed that easy, his last RFA was three months ago, more than enough time to fix concerns other people had. Secret ^account 13:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be enough time, but the trouble is precisely that the concerns have not been fixed. I was curious enough, after voting myself, to look quickly at the all the previous RfA's and it was striking how the same points (less the 5 in a year one initially) are made by both supporters and opposers throughout. Opposers have always been able to find days-old mistakes of the same kind. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat the nom support Ok, so I didn't actually beat the nom. But that's how enthusiastic I am! Anyway, TPH is an invaluable contributor in XfD related areas, and I'd trust him fully with the tools. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Nom support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Great experienced user. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - Seen this user around WP:XfD a ton - very knowledgeable about policy - a huge asset to the project if you ask me. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Just like in his other RfAs, I am supporting. Captain panda 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6. OK. Dlohcierekim 03:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Otter have the mop! Dlohcierekim 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Never saw anyone ask for dif's on a support before. Not really needed. Dlohcierekim 04:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Strong support based on his answer to my question. Shows he can stay on an even keel and keep sense of humor while under pressure. Dlohcierekim 04:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Strong Support. Very good editor. Work on WP:XFD is phenomenal, and I know he will make a great admin. Malinaccier (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - TenPoundHammer and his otters deserve the mop. Tiptoety ^talk 03:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - I've interacted with TPH on a number of occasions and always found him to be a good user. Also willing to explain points/guidelines/etc. to newer Wikipedians (i.e. me), which will suit him well as an admin. Never seen any issues with his work TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support because I think he answered the questions well. Good editor too... won't abuse magical powers. Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Support – Let me begin by say saying I opposed TenPoundHammer last nomination for Rfa, and it was a reluctant oppose. Do I still have a few concerns, yes! However, very minor concerns. Do I have a fear this user will misuse the tools of the administrator, no. TenPoundHammer has always taken criticism, in a positive light, and looked for second opinions in questionable situations. He has shown that he grows from his mistakes, rather than sulking and or trying to validate his/her point of view, with misguided remarks. Happy to support, this time around. Best of luck to you. Shoessss |  Chat  03:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    I've said it before and I'll say it again... why does everyone copy Pedro's signature? Walton^One 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Why mess with perfection! :-) Shoessss |  Chat  02:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

11. Support Supported his last RFA, Still support.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Trustworthy for sure. VanTucky 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Do you have any diffs to support that claim? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    When a candidate's 40787 contributions are overwhelmingly positive, here on Wikipedia we assume good faith. VanTucky 04:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Did you say 40787? That's Numberwang! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Do you have prood that they are overwhelmingly positive or do you only assume bad faith against those with whom you disagree? For what it's worth to TPH, I know you have made positive contributions, but I am just not confident with so much effort and time spent wanting to delete articles that would have been of immense value helping improve and reference article and I'm just concerned that with some articles like that one on Clinton's kin the same time spent voting delete could have done what I and others did with finding and adding the sources. Can I be sure that you will close AfDs based on consensus and not on personal opinion, i.e. that if the article has been improved during the discussion or if there is a clear majority of good faith editors making at least somewhat reasonable arguments to keep that you would be willing to at least close with a neutral "no consensus" or per the GFDL if there is a merge, then redirect the article without deleting it? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    You seem to be missing the point, which is odd because I know you've commented at RFA before: support votes do not require differential proof. Support is the default position, and only oppose votes require a detailed explanation. VanTucky 04:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    In order for me to take seriously anyone's challenge on my stance, I need to see that he or she is not merely voting, but has a basis for his or her side as well. If he or she is unable to defend his or her stance, then I cannot take his or her challenge seriously. If he or she is able to substantiate his or her reasoning, then we can have a constructive and fair discussion. I do not participate in one side-discussions; I am not a defendant. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    This isn't about you, or how seriously you take anyone's comments. VanTucky 04:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Then please avoid commenting about me in my oppose stance and stick to the candidate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Would y'all two mind terribly if I asked you to take this to your talk pages? It's really gotten out of hand. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    I will just discuss civily with TPH any concerns I have. I agree that it is unfortunate for the discussion to have devolved as it has. Have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

13. Support Yes. Works in good areas, and will be a great asset. Oh yeah, and 5th time can be a charm. :) Jmlk17 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Seen him at WP:AFD many times ~ LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - It's time. Soxred93 | talk bot 04:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Give 'im a ten pound mop. --jonny-mt 04:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Giggling uncontrollably. Dlohcierekim 04:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Made me smile when I read that...good one :P Tiptoety ^talk 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

17. My failed noms are 4 for 4 in subsequent RfAs. Let's make it 5 for 5. Wizardman 04:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support, but I absolutly Oppose giving mops to his otters. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support It is time to give him the mop! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - he improves all the time, and I'd be happy to trust him with the mops, especially after absorbing the concerns from the previous attempts. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. No problems with this one, except he has made morally good but tactically bad choices, picking his enemies. Dorftrottel (complain) 05:12, March 19, 2008
22. Support The candidate wants to use the tools to help out in deletion discussions, which he has contributed to solidly in the past. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Strong support. Flat out one of the most experienced users in matters pertaining to AfD. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - don't see there being any problems. Guest9999 (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - very experienced, especially with AfD. I trust him with the tools (but not his otters :p). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support per all of the above. Ridiculously high level of participation at AfD. Extremely civil and cooperative editor with loads of experience. No worries from me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Strong support. The user is civil and is a extremely great contributor to wikipedia.No concerns absolutely.He has loads of experience.TPH has been around since Dec 2005 with over 40000 edits with nearly 28000 mainspace edits.User is very helpful.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Experienced user who has learned from his past RFAs. Five should be the charm! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Support - TPH looks like he'd make a good admin, especially when it comes to deletion discussions. --clpo13_(talk) 06:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Support MBisanz ^talk 07:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Support per my question and a look through the contribs, looks like he's resolved the past problems and is ready for the mop. Shell ^babelfish 07:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Strong Support Please, this tme. Pedro :  Chat  07:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
33. support trust with tools (hmmm, there really ought to be a way to replace that bold number at the left hand end of this line with "numberwang") Pete.Hurd (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Per this. Please write a GA one day - it's fun! I'll help! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Support on Steroids, user makes consistently good contributions at AfD. I have no doubts whatsoever that they would make a first-rate admin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
36. ...again. Avruch ^T 10:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Obligatory "I thought he already was one" support. Will ^(talk) 10:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Support TPH does a lot of great work to maintain the quality of Wikipedia. He will be more effetive in his work with access to the admin tools. I have seen no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Gwernol 11:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, TPH, but I'm moving to neutral. There are just too many valid issues raised in the oppose comments, particularly around some of your speedy tagging. Gwernol 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

39. Support I'm very happy to support an all round great wikipedian. Good luck! TheProf | Talk 12:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Funny, I was looking at TenPoundHammer's last RfA yesterday and wondering when he would next be coming up. I thought I was going to have to wait another few weeks — but no! TenPoundHammer is probably the contributor at AfD by a long way. I have total trust in his abilities and despite Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles concerns, he appears quite neutral in AfD, and is not overly inclusionist or deletionist, and is careful to follow policy and guidelines. Make this an über otter support. Regards, EJF (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Strongest Possible Support We need more like him. An invaluable asset to the project. Eusebeus (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Support, logical, valuable contributor to XfD discussions, grasps wiki-policy and good answers to the Qs. Mrprada911 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Support doesnt look like there's anything left to say...Seen this user around a few times..v. hard-working...Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Support At this point, I feel this user couldn't be more aware of how Wikipedia works. I'd trust him as an admin. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Strong Support — an asset and I'm sorry I missed the last RFA. More framing hammers needed. Cheers, Jack Merridew
46. Support, from what I've seen of TenPoundHammer's contributions at AFD and his professional behavior during my time here, I mistook him for an administrator already. I see nothing that would give a clue as to him abusing tools, and in my opinion, him having access to them would benefit the wiki greatly. FusionMix 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Without hesitation. this is copy pasted from TPH4, which I had hoped would've passed...I profoundly agree with myself: "TPH is very versed in AfD's, cites policy appropriately, and as such, would do well with the added buttons. Although I've held the opposing view on a few AfDs with TPH, he's always civil and backs up his views with policy and guidelines where appropriate. When he is wrong, or too fast to the CSD, he says as much. When his noms are proven incorrect through additions to the article, he withdraws the nom. All in all, I think he would be very trustworthy with the buttons and would only do what consensus tells him to do in closing AfDs. I would trust The Hammer". Yep, its time. Long overdue even. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Support again - long overdue :) krimpet✽ 15:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Support His XFD edits look quality, and the description of being a "non-biast" XFD contributor also sounds like he is worth having the tools. AndreNatas (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. Doesn't hesitate to acknowledge and remedy occasional lapses in judgment. Knowledgeable about malls. Deor (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
51. OMFG YES SUPPORT I was thinking about asking him to run before his last failed nom... and think he got the shaft then. I don't even have to look at his edits/answers to know that he has my FULL UNRESERVERD SUPPORT!!!Balloonman (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Wait, 10LB's NOT an admin? Please fix this and give this man the tools he rightfully deserves! Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
53. Support. I've seen lots of good, conscientious work from this user around Wikipedia. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
54. Support Good User.can handle the admin tools.--5faizan(talk) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Oppose the Hammer, but Otters rule! :) Editorofthewiki 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • By the way, per this comment, that is indeed a support. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I did put it under the support section. Good job anyway. Editorofthewiki 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - the fifth's the charm! Bearian (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
57. Support, per VanTucky and Krimpet. If he wants it, I don't see why we need deny him it. Sure, he's energetic, but that's a good thing: if a guy is willing to go through RfA quintuple, then just think what a difference he can make to the backlogs :) I say go for it! AGK § 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
58. See, recognise, trust, respect, support. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Why not? Recent AFD comments have indicated that TPH now recognises that iwherever possible mprovement is a better alternative then deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC) now Neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

59. Strong Support Bobby, I've just gone through about this RFA. (As I previously supported) This time you'll defenitely make it. Man, Hit The button with HAMMER :)--NAHID 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
60. Support - I already thought he as an admin. Excellent work in WP:XFD, and this is long overdue. Good luck with the mop. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Pleased to be able support this time after having reluctantly opposed previously. Having looked through his contributions including TenPoundHammer's speedy nominations am persuaded that the concerns from previous RFAs have been addressed. His prolific contributions at AFD and elsewhere should make him a positive asset as an admin. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
63. Support Although 5 RfAs makes me a little wary, I think he'd do just fine with the hammer...er, mop. ;) Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - Will not abuse the tools. iMatthew 2008 20:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
65. Support Outstanding AfD work. I trust him to use the extra tools well. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
66. Support Like last time. Great contribs at AFD. Spencer^T♦C 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
67. The number of RfAs is a slight concern, but it's not really serious. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
68. Support per the otters. Walton^One 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Has improved since last RFA (in which I did not support). Ready for the tools. --Sharkface217 20:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
70. Strong Support. TenPoundHammer and I have interacted a few times and it has always been good. I supported him twice before and I support again. He's extraordinarily hard-working and dedicated to the project. This will reach WP:100. Useight (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Yep, I was right. Useight (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

71. Strong Support. I agree with the above statement. Keep those otters working!!!-- Barkjon  21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
72. Haemo (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
73. TenPoundHammer has gone through 4 RfAs and this is his/her 5th. He/she has improved in the past and deserves the mop. No reas to oppose. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Strong Support: Having frequently encountered TPH patrolling vandals, I have no hesitations. 24.4.98.230 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry editor. Only signed in contributors can offer supports/opposes in RfAs. You're welcome to add your thoughts to the discussion section above though. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

74. Tenpoundhammer is an excellent contributor to the project, that muchs need not even be stated. He is well-rounded in his experience on Wikipedia, from article creation to deletion discussions, and his ability to provide logic and reason in discussions clearly and capably shows that he will be able to clear misunderstandings with maintenance work. The civility concerns raised by User:Elonka are, in my honest opinion, minimal. Generally he is fairly civil and that, being an isolated instance, is not really enough for me to personally oppose an RfA, when there are administrators on the project who are far less civil than TPH (I'm not addressing specific contributors). The concerns with mistaken CSD tagging are not of tremendous concern to me, because everybody makes mistakes. If these mistakes were frequent enough, I would likely oppose, but seeing as they are not, and especially with the fact that TPH is in himself a trustworthy figure and an "administrator without the tools," I'm going to support this nomination. Valtoras (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
75. Administrator TPH? sounds good to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
76. Support No real reason to oppose. I like the variety in the contributions I'm seeing. Also, I like the answer to my question (this has nothing to do with my support, but lightens the mood). Good luck! Cheers, Glacier Wolf 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
77. Support. This guy has been waiting far too long to get the tools, and it's time he had them. I see no reason to oppose this candidate and have confidence he will be a great admin. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
78. Support. I don't see how eagerness to become an admin is necessarily a bad thing, but I am somewhat discombobulated by the ridiculous questions. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Eagerness isn't, but over-eagerness may be. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

79. Support, excellent and invaluable work in cleaning up the results of the "firehose of crap" - as some refer to the Newarticles log. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
80. Support, in spite of the shopping mall articles. Clampuppet indeed. Risker (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
81. Support Very informative comments in AfD. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
82. (ec x2)Support - If others have concerns about your judgment in certain CSD areas, you can always keep the otters out of those areas for a while, at least with toolbox in hands. There are plenty of deletion discussions to close and I'm confident you can read consensus quite well. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
83. Support Good work in AfD. :) Midorihana^~iidesune? 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
84. Aye. Won't abuse the tools, has improved policy knowledge, that'll do for me. Black Kite 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
85. Getting tired of supporting this guy. This better pass! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
86. Support. Though he was one, already. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
87. Support Just don't go crazy with the deletion hammer. Will help wikipedia more if he has the tools.--Dacium (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
88. Support. Will do great with 'dem tools. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
89. Support It's been well worth the wait. Ten Pound Hammer will become an outstanding addition to the AFD crew. His answers show a thorough understanding of process and policy not normally seen in the typical admin candidate who has less experience in these areas. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
90. Support - Maybe I'm being nonsensical, and this is a break from my past RfA votes where I tried to give a detailed reason for my position, but I'm supporting this candidate because of Kmweber's comments below. They suggest to me that this candidate is definitely qualified and should be given the figurative tool right away. Sorry for any confusion that may result from this strange expression of opinion. Enigma ^msg! 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
91. Support - And people seem to be confusing our RfAs. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
92. Support again. Just like last time, TPH is always everywhere at AfD, always with good sense, and the even better sense to recognize when he is wrong and to correct any errors he may have caused (which doesn't happen often). Definitely trust him with the mop. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
93. Strong support He has created lots of articles for Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
94. Support - had to oppose last time, but I'll gladly support this one. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
95. Support: It's saddening (if not surprising, given the way things work in RfAland) that such an able and dedicated editor hasn't gotten the mop before now.  RGTraynor  04:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
96. Support - based on my observations of his work on music related articles. He is patient and careful. I trust him.--NrDg 05:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
97. Support. We differ often, but TPH is always reasonable. He certainly has the experience and I think he'd do an excellent job of representing the community. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
98. Support See him around plenty, trust his judgment. Ordinarily I would probably oppose anyone's fifth RfA just on principle, but this is a special circumstance. Maybe he is a tad power hungry, but mops can always be taken away. Not that I expect this to happen, I suspect TPH will make a fine admin. One word of advice: one of the opposes below mention that he behaves like an admin already, and there is some truth to this. I strongly suggest to take things very slowly early on: you're going to have quite a bit of power, and while some will tell you it's not a big deal, with great power comes great responsibility. All that being said, I trust your judgment, and giving you the tools will benefit the encyclopedia. Just use them judiciously. Good luck! faithless (^speak) 09:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
99. Weak Support Hopefully this time will be the charm. GlassCobra 09:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    I have reviewed my support, and still argue that the countless positive contributions from this user far outweighs the evidence brought up by the opposers. I would, however, strongly encourage TPH to consider the advice from the opposers, and to take it easy on the SNOW closes, as this is clearly his greatest weakness. Aside from blatant speedy cases, it's usually okay for an AfD to go at least a couple days, if not the full five. Good luck. GlassCobra 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

100. Support TPH is a voice of reason in AfDs, so I have no doubt that he'll use the admin tools responsibly --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
101. Strong Support per Wizardman. I know this is the fifth RfA in a year, but see here - only one (the second) was a self nom, and the third even notes that (had he not been nominated) he would have waited a while before seeking Adminship again. The first and fourth RfAs were not self-noms, and this request was initated by Wizardman, of all people. TPH keeps finding himself nominated for Adminship, not unreasonably so. I don't think there is a question of power hunger, though it is clear that TPH seeks to help the project through the use of Admin tools. Rather, I think enough people believe that TPH would make a good admin that they keep pushing for him to finally get the tools. That's not unreasonable, if you're familiar with the candidate's work at AfD and elsewhere. While WP:SNOW obviously does not apply to this RfA (and NEVER as a reason to grant the tools), it is telling that a deluge of 100-some-odd editors have already supported this candidate after only a day and a half. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
102. Support. I've seen him around. He's a busy little soul, and clearly committed to the project. SilkTork *^YES! 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
103. Support - I think that it’s time to support TPH. With his experience, the extra buttons will be put to good use at AfD and elsewhere. Pick a strong password to keep the otters from abusing the tools, though. —Travis^talk 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
104. Support per the other 100+ supports above me. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
105. Support. I've been apprehensive about TenPoundHammer in the past, but in my opinion he finally has it. I understand the concerns the opposers bring up: this is his 5th RfA, and his last one was only 2 months ago. However, I think that if he wants adminship (honestly, most people actually want it, but are too afraid of garnering oppose (!)votes to say so) it is for noble reasons. He will be an asset closing AFDs, and is definitely committed for the long haul. Therefore, I support his candidacy. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
106. Weak Support I have seen TPH around DYK and he is dedicated. Hopefully he will help update DYK. My only concern is his deletionism as expressed in earlier RFAs. I hope that he takes the time to think out each deletion decision by spending the time to wring out the mop before scrubbing the floor. Good luck! Royalbroil 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
107. Support: Does great work at AfD. See no reason why he wouldn't make a great admin. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
108. Whoa, he wasn't one already Support I thought you were an admin already....no reservations here. Thingg^⊕⊗ 16:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
109. Support - User knows his way around Wikipedia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
110. Weak support - Still a lot of deletions overall rather than article improvement, but has made my list of nice Wikipedians four times now and has addressed any advice or questions I made throughout this RfA in a satisfactory and respectable manner that I'm ready to give him the benefit of the doubt. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
111. Support, as always. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
112. Support for basically the same reason as last time. I don't think his tagging is perfect, but every time someone expresses concern TPH has been willing to revisit, respond kindly, and very often change his mind when presented with new arguments. I think he'd be an all around positive, rectifying any small mistakes he might make himself. --JayHenry (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
113. Complete and otter Support, I see no problem with repeated RfA that are not self-noms, and his judgement on AFD has been fine every time I've encountered him. --Canley (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
114. Weak support. Dedicated, lots of experience, and a good communicator. Deserves to be given the rope to hang himself by, if he so chooses. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
115. Support. Very meta-involved. Long overdue. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
116. Support It is finally time to make TenPoundHammer an administrator. This RfA is excellent. Lradrama 10:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
117. Strong support, great editor. Corvus cornix_talk 16:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
118. Support would use the tools wisely Dreamspy (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
119. Yip Yip Yip Yay! Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
120. Support King Pickle (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
121. Long overdue Secret ^account 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
122. Support Yes, long overdue. Lots of evidence that the mop will be in good trustworthy hands. docboat (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

     Support Good knowledge of policies, able to communicate clearly, professional manner. Will make a quality admin as TPH is willing to discuss his actions. --12 Noon ^2¢ 04:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Switched to Neutral--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

123. Ye old Ten Pound support, per above and Q15. Viele Glück! --Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
124. Support Epbr123 (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
125. Weak Support Nothing444 12:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
126. Strong support like last time. Absolutely no valid reason why he shouldn't have the tools. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
127. Support based on ridiculous AfD experience and strong knowledge of wikipolicy. I trust him with the tools, and it totally looks like he knows what he's doing. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
128. Strongest Possible Support An absolute pleasure to work with, does fantastic work for the project. I think he has learned from his past AfD's and will certainly not misuse the tools. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
129. strongest support Works hard, and removes uncontrovertible bollox articles from the wiki. We need more people handling the backlog of obvious closes, that otherwise sometimes accumulates at AfD.special, random, Merkinsmum 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
130. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
131. Weak Support. Lots of experience, appears to be entirely "for the good" of Wikipedia. Has user been perfect in the past? No. Still will make an excellent admin - just don't go nuts right out of the gate. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

     Amending support to, well, non-weak due to this sort of behavior. This is the sort of person I want as an admin on Wikipedia. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

132. Support. I supported last time saying there was a net positive to be had. I still believe that. SorryGuy  Talk  22:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
133. Support Maxim_(talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
134. weak support I share many of the concerns expressed in the "oppose" section and was not completely satisfied with the answer to my question (Q10). Nevertheless I think that overall TenPoundHammer would be a good administrator, even if I would occasionally disagree with him. Jon513 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
135. Support for TenPoundHammer, and fresh fish for all his otters. A tireless contributor. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
136. Weak Support. Weak only because of your deletionist attitude, but support because your contributions outweigh this concern. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 12:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
137. Support Again. Devoted music-related article editor of quality. This isn't a nom for head of surgery, people. dissolve^talk 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
138. Support I think that this user's exceptional knowledge of Wikipedia Policy would make him a great Admin :).--Mifter (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
139. Support. The times that I have worked with him, he has always been level-headed and extremely helpful. A great editor. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
140. User:Krator (t c) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
141. Support based on both well-reasoned deletion debates as well as on good new articles (even if they are country-related :P ). // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
142. Support per my comments in his last RfA. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
143. Support for the fifth time. TPH doesn't play the wannabe-admin game, he is prepared to make difficult and contentious decisions and give his opinion. Sure, he has made mistakes, but with no greater relative frequency than most current admins. I'm sure he realizes that he could walk an RfA by sticking to deletion discussions with blatantly obvious outcomes for a couple of months; that he has repeatedly chosen not to do so is to his credit. CIreland (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
144. Support - seen him at AFD, he seems to know what he's doing.  jj137 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
145. Support Per Elonka. Twenty Years 11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

     (Have been asked to clarify) Elonka has raised concerns that he has inflamed a situation, when he should be trying to avoid any problem basically during his RfA. This is largely why I will support him, he is willing to make a tough call, even when he knows he will get some opposes because of it. Good luck to him, an excellent contributor who at times probably doesnt DGAF, and thats what we need here. Twenty Years 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

     I was rather surprised to see my name in the "support" column, which I think could cause confusion. So just to be clear: I am opposed to this nomination.[1] --Elonka 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

     I would have to ask than, what are his/her support reasons for the nomination on this page? As it seems that his/her current support is invalidated by a misrepresentation! Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

     Twenty Years support is valid, when I saw his support I queried him on his talk page as I knew Elonka had opposed. This is why he has clarified his support above. We may or may not agree but he was aware of Elonka's oppose when he supported. Davewild (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

     Thanks Davewild, the way the opinion unfolded was not sure he/she was supporting TPH or El. Thanks for the clarification. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

146. Strong Support A great user in every way I have 100% confidence in him. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
147. Support Not likely to abuse the tools. Lawrence § t/e 18:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
148. Excellent editor: unlikely to abuse the tools. Acalamari 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
149. Support Although I am surprised at his answer to the Block/Ban question, which was one easy to find out, the answer to the last of my questions swung it into his favour. 150 is a lot - congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microchip08 (talk • contribs)
150. Support Have seen him around, generally have a good impression of his edits over a period of time, believe he will be a good admin. Some of the opposes do carry merit, but I am not swayed by them - I think the candidate is capable of taking those concerns on board if successful. Orderinchaos 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
151. Support first class editor - will make a good admin. Jack1956 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose. I think there has been some improvement since the previous one, which is why I'm going with a weak oppose this time rather than just an oppose, but I am still not entirely confident in acceptable inclusion criteria, which is significant if he primarily wants to work on AfDs. Still too much focus on diminishing Wikipedia, especially against certain types of articles or in repeated nominations of articles or even lack of seriousness, which tends to turn off contributors and donors. In the Jeff Dwire example, myself and others were able to easily find sources. So, it's frustrating to see delete votes in AfDs for articles that are eventually kept, especially when others are able to find sources with ease. If the time spent voting to delete articles was spent finding sources as was the case there, we could only improve the project more. Here there is a lack of "giving an article a chance." Administrators must understand that our first pillar is that we are a combination of general and special encyclopedias as well as almanacs. That means that anything that appears in published encyclopedias or almanacs is fair game for inclusion in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that its founder said is the sum total of human knowledge. So, I have had some positive experience with him and have even praised some of his actions, which is why I feel comfortable downgrading from a regular oppose to a weak oppose, but I still seem too much effort to relexively remove material especially certain types of material rather than to spend that time bettering the project. Plus, the previous RfA wasn't that long ago. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

None of your diffs and arguments have anything to do with whether he can be trusted to carry out admin actions; this is an assumption of bad faith. The candidates personal approach to voting in AFDs has nothing to do with whether they can be trusted to fairly close an AFD. Obviously he's not going to be closing debates in which he participates, so where he lands on the deletion/inclusion spectrum is irrelevant. Does he understand how AFD works? Yes. Does he understand an admin's proper role in the deletion process? Obviously. Is there any evidence he would abuse the tools? No. VanTucky 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All of my diffs arguments have everything to do with whether he can be trusted to carry out admin actions. This is not an assumption of bad faith, but a fair observation after looking over contribution history. The candidate's personal approach to "voting" in AfDs has everything to do with whether they can be trusted to fairly "close" an AfD, because it demonstrats their understanding of policies and guidelines, so if he is not neutral and overwhelmingly apt to want to delete things, it can be a sign of a realistic potential to do so in closures. Is there evidence that he may be prejudiced to lean a certain way in AfD closures, certainly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that the candidate knows how an admin should behave in closing an AFD; he's very experienced. Since he knows that to close an AFD means disregarding his personal feelings (which just so happen to be on the opposite spectrum from you), you are assuming bad faith to say that he would not do so. VanTucky 04:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith with both of your replies to my comments here. There's experience, and there's experience. Take these examples:

00:19, 14 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Colosseum National Park‎ (→Mount Colosseum National Park: n/m)

00:19, 14 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitforms gallery‎ (→Bitforms gallery: K)

00:18, 14 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart of Brooklyn‎ (→Heart of Brooklyn: K)

Thus, even the handful of instances with keep arguments, three AfDs in just over a minute? I realize that it's possible people can read faster than I, but to adequately have read the AfD discussions and reviewed the article in a timely manner so quickly? I never assume anything; I only base my arguments on observations and personal experience. I don't know how much familiarity you have with RfAs, but we are all entitled to express our opinions one way or another and to provide a basis for our opinions if relevant. The bureacrat who closes these discussions then can judge whether any arguments are or are not compelling. If you wish to participate in these discussions, I strongly urge you to do so without tossing out allegations against those with whom you disagree in the discussions, as it is supposed to be about the candidate and not the supporters, opposers, or those who are neutral. My feeling is that TenPoundHammer has at times proven friendly and respectable in some closures that I have seen. I have praised him when I thought it good to do so, I have sent him nice messages at times to and he has been pleasant with me at times. I do however notice some problems with AfDs and the frequency of these RfAs. I want to be nice by downgrading my regular oppose in previous RfAs to a weak oppose here and hopefully next time to a neutral or even support. It is of utmost important to me that Wikipedia does not lose encyclopedic content out of any narrow interpretation of our inclusion policies and it is similarly important that no editor or donor get discouraged by having his good faith article deleted by a handful of AfD voters. Thus, I believe it important to take seriously an admin's stance and interpretation on our inclusion criteria. As I don't fully agree with the candidate's interpretation based on rapid or vote like AfD posts, I cannot support at this time. It does not mean that I think him a bad person or that he never makes good contributions or that he is editing in bad faith. Nor does it mean that I would never treat him with respect or kindness or even that I would never argue to support him at some point. It does mean that I am not convinced of his interpretation of policies. Challenging my weak oppose here with faulty accusations does not help him. I will defend my arguments when prompted, but I doubt you'd be doing any favors to the candidate if you are trying to turn this section into a battleground. As was the case in Seraphim Whipp's AfD, a more civil approach is what tends to persuade editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH - Here – Here Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and to youVanTucky Good night - to all and to all a good night. I’m coming Martha ;-) . Shoessss |  Chat  04:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Dlohcierekim 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Oh, God, it's past my bed time and I can't stop typing.) I don't always agree with the candidate. He's not as conservative as I am. I'm more/less conservative than others with deletions. Machts nichts. I would trust him to determine consensus in that very wonderful arena, WP:AFD. Dlohcierekim 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to see evidence that he is willing to close articles as "keep" or "no consensus" even if he personally wanted it deleted, then I would be happy to change my mind. The main thing is that we keep in mind that we're here to write an encyclopedia that is a combination of BOTH general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. There are many special encyclopedias out there and so with our diverse and ever expanding community of editors, we can afford to be incredibly open with what we include, whether or not we personally like it or dislike it. If editors are willing to work on the article, it isn't a hoax, it isn't a copy vio, it isn't libel, it isn't a recipe, it isn't a random person's my space page, then we should be willing to accept it or at least redirect it without deleting it. I am more than willing to give TPH a chance if I am convinced of these things. And I hope that as with any editor, we can edit colloboratively and constructively together. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand Roi, you gave three examples of TPH's AfD votes up above, and complained that he came to a decision too quickly. I know this may shock you, but it took me the same length of time to come to the same conclusion - that all three articles should be kept. They are all obvious keeps - notability well established even in the versions that he saw during the AfD, particularly the national park. I would ask you what reason you have to think that TPH would fail to follow consensus when closing deletion debates. I haven't seen him heatedly arguing to delete something that has been closed as "keep" in any of the random AfDs I checked; have you seen otherwise? Risker (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Risker, TPH has addressed my concerns on my talk page, so, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and at least switch to a neutral for now. I have just seen a good deal of what look like delete votes from the candidate in many AfDs and again, even in ones for which sources could easily be found, and I can't help but think how great it would have been if that time was spent finding those sources. But you know, he was the first admin candidate to ever thank me for participating in an RfA, even though I opposed, so what the heck, I think he adequately addressed my concerns so, I'll go for a neutral for now, will see how he responds to other questions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose, of course. C'mon, folks--his FIFTH RfA in less than a year? This guy REALLY REALLY REALLY wants it, and that's a bad thing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   to know. to desire. to dare. Ok, 3 outta 4 ain't bad. Dlohcierekim 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Plz tell me how it's REALLY REALLY REALLY bad to want to help Wikipedia further? Plz enlighten me Kurt, I'm intrigued at how you came to this conclusion. --82.19.11.15 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment - Of course he wants it! If he didnt, he would have declined the nomination. TheProf | Talk 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Kurt has a right to his opinions. Dlohcierekim 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   No ones suggesting otherwise. I'm just stating mine! TheProf | Talk 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   I'm asking that this thread be moved to another discussion and it be ceased here. While Kurt's opinion is in fact frivolous, replying is not going to dissuade it. Stick to the opposes that warrant clarification. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   eeeewwww.Otter be a good idea. Dlohcierekim 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   AMEN and that goes for all future responses of similar nature to Kurt's position. His view is clearly not accepted by most, but that doesn't mean it is open season on him! Even if he is a Colts' fan.Balloonman (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   As far as i was concerned the conversation was over. But point is taken. Apologies all round! TheProf | Talk 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   In fact, yes, anyone has the right to their opinions. But I am just not impressed by the way that Kurt Weber opposes RfA. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   'Sorry One more Comment – To be honest, if Kurt Weber does not Oppose at my Rfa forum, I will be offended. Because I will be a self-nomination, and that he has Opposed at all other Self-Nominations, I will be slighted and will take that to heart! Either it means that I am not worth his time, or I have flown so far under the radar, I do not deserve the tools :-) Shoessss |  Chat  01:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   • Perhaps he may decide in your case to oppose on the basis of you having here advertised your upcoming RfA, otherwise known as canvassing? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. As unfashionable as it appears to have become, I am in agreement with Kurt that five RfAs in less than a year is too many, and perhaps indicative of too great a desire to become an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   I find a great desire to be an admin a positive trait in an editor. However, I can also see where you are coming from. I don't want to heckle or even try to change your mind, I just wanted to voice my opinion on editors with ambition and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Useight (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   Users have the right to have 5 RfAs within a year, as long as some time passes between them; there is nothing wrong with it. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   And I have the right to consider five RfA nominations in less than a year to be a little suspicious. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   If the candidate seems ready to be an admin, then there shouldn't be a reason to be suspicious about having 5+ RfAs within a year. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   Why this incessant heckling? You have an opinion, which you have stated, and so do I. No amount of heckling is likely to make me change my mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   Malleus, first of all, NHRHS stated very clearly that he was not trying to heckle you. Second, your attitude is exactly why RfA is becoming a straight vote. Any sort of discussion (which, I remind you, is what RfA is supposed to be) is considered heckling. GlassCobra 20:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

   Have you ever considered that perhaps the mere fact that someone has had 5 RfAs in the past year is in itself evidence that he's does not "seem ready"? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 06:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

3. I have concerns about TPH's use of WP:SNOW in deletion discussions, and eagerness to become an administrator. Ral315 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_4. Friday (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Friday, I can't help but notice that you didn't participate in #4. Is there anything in particular about that RfA, or any particular opposition to it, that is leading you to this conclusion? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Several valid concerns were raised at the last one, and each one before it. The last was very recent, so it's not reasonable to assume these problems have gone away. Or, if that's not compelling.. Read this as a protest vote against the notion that a candidate need only keep trying in order to get the buttons. Persistence is irrelevant, folks- we need to expect competence. Friday (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Persistent? Yes, without a doubt or question. So be it. Is there anything in his contrbs (excluding multiple RfAs - just entertain me on this) - that makes him incompetent? Or is your view of incompetence based on the number of RfAs...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   The last RFA had several examples of this. The number of RFAs isn't very relevant, altho I'll admit that handfuls of them make me lean toward Kmweberism. (But don't tell anyone that- they'll think I'm crazy.) Friday (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Allow me clarify my dumbfoundedness here a bit. In RFA#4, the vast majority, (actually I think it was all 42), opposed TPH based on his deletion(s), deletion nominations, or somewhere in between. They all had something to do with deletion. 42 opposes based on his AfD/CSD experience. The catalyst? A bunch of diffs provided by User:Le Grande (I don't speak French) Citrouelles, and it snowballed from there. Le Grande... is now neutral (not opposed) to RfA #5. So, again, what about #4 is bothering you (that isn't bothering the primary opposer in #4?) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   A poor grasp of when to delete, from only a couple months ago, concerns me. I shouldn't speak for others- they can speak for themselves. Friday (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose Too soon since last RfA (and the one before, and....). Pleasant guy, but too many of his nominations are not well-grounded in policy or are under-researched - I mainly see his Cfd nominations (usually unsuccessful) or Visual arts AfDs. No heckling please. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose some of your early afd closures bother me. Yahel Guhan 00:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   So the more recent ones don't? Dorftrottel (harass) 01:28, March 20, 2008

   Of corse they do. I just remember the older ones more. Yahel Guhan 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   I thought you were referring to him closing AFDs early, as in, prematurely, not AFDs he closed a long time ago. But I guess I was wrong. Useight (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose - He nominated a deletion of Olia Lialina without any apparent attempt to cross reference his decision, nor to inform himself on the subject matter. Amanniste (talk)

   This same user posted the same opposition here in User:DeadEyeArrow's RfA and then removed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olia Lialina. After improvement by User:Rosiestep, it was decided to keep the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Strong Oppose - I can't remember which of the previous four I've voted in, but I think 3 of them. My feelings are unchanged. TPH uses the mop now, and cannot be trusted with real tools. I've seen him about with some articles, but I don't get the impression he really creates articles, he just deletes them (when necessary). And 5 RfA's???? If one of the better admins would nominate him (self-nomination is getting tiresome), maybe I'd reconsider. I just think he wants this thing more than anything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   Er, this is not a self-nomination, as you'll note above; and as for article creation, this might be an interesting read. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   Further comment. I usually don't watch RfA's after I make my support or oppose, because I don't want to engage in defending my "vote." I forgot to unwatch, and I noticed something odd--how many time TPH updates the tally. I don't know if nominees usually do that themselves (I don't recall it too often), but it is an indicator of the desire to have this position. Everyone that wants to be an admin should desire it to a point. But I think there is a point at which one must wonder at the motives of a nominee like TPH. Then you read the regular missteps with regards to RfD's, the lack of serious involvement in critical articles on this project, the lack of editing of controversial issues where one might show their strengths and/or weaknesses, and I still wonder if TPH has the maturity to be a good admin. I am unchanged in my viewpoint that admins need strengths in many areas to really help this project. TPH shows some strengths but too many weaknesses to really help out any more than he does already. I think a year or so of doing what he's done, really involve himself in writing some articles, and showing his mettle in a controversy or two, and he can come back with RfA #6. But 5 in a few months is just not indicative of what we need. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

   One more comment-This RfD which was open yesterday, further indicates a lack of maturity. How can we trust someone with buttons when they comment, whether in jest or in reality, that they made a mistake and need a wiki-break? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose per above.--Filll (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Minor Oppose Your last RfA ended just over 2 months ago. Give yourself more time and I will reconsider on your next RfA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Unfortunately I do not think you are ready for adminship yet. There has been many instances, although they have been in decline, where your speedy deletion tagging have been, in my view, wrong. For example: [2] (This has sufficient context to identify what it is talking about, although it isn't written well) [3] [4] [5] (obvious hoax or vandalism? No.), [6] [7] (No assertion of notability whatsoever on the article?) [8] (I am a little disturbed on how you would rather delete the article than try and fix it, as one look at the history will tell you.) Overall, although you have improved since your last RfAs, I am hesitant to support the nomination due to these diffs. Disturbingly, some of the articles you have tagged have survived AfDs, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary cognitive task, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burford County Combined School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Vojinovich. I feel (strictly my opinion) that your knowledge of speedy deletion, especially the G3 criteria, is a little awry in regards to this area. To a minor note, I echo Alisyn's concern about the timing of this RfA, although I will not solely oppose this RfA with it. —Dark ^(talk) 06:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    This is just a personal observation, and very very minor at that, but what exactly is wrong with diff 6? A7 isn't related to notability. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 10:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    I presume that "The company exports its products all over the world." contains an assertion of notability. Exporting stuff internationally is not exactly something that could be done by any company. —Dark ^(talk) 11:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Diff 7, by the way, was actually a redirect out of userspace at the time (although the history doesn't show it as such), and I G6'd it, asking for a history merge. I don't see what's wrong with that. 12:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Understandable, however I am still in opposition due to the above diffs and numerous image uploads which do not have a fair use rationale such as: Image:Spiesslogo.jpg and Image:Aarontippinstand.jpg. This sealed my opposition. Under US copyright law: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." This list is information, contains no creative components, and is not protected under copyright laws. If it is, we wouldn't have any lists on Wikipedia, would we? In text, copyright can only ever be extended to wording which would enable the text to be considered creative. It does not extend to pure data, such as information. I have no comment on the notability of this list, but tagging it as G12 is wrong. —Dark ^(talk) 00:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    Almost all of the images I've uploaded have a proper fair use rationale. That album cover was uploaded nearly a year ago, way before I had a fair grasp on fair use; I've since fixed the rationale. Also, I've changed my stance on the list that I tagged for speedy; I wasn't aware that copyright law didn't apply to such info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    Any ebay "store" can ship around the world. In today's world, international shipping is nothing.Balloonman (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    I highly doubt exporting stuff internationally is meant in that way though... From the wording of the sentence, it feels as if the editor is saying that the goods are exported into a white goods shop, supermarket etc. Disregarding that, being traded in the Bombay Stock Exchange, and the fact that it has 3 manufacturing plants in India, demonstrates that the company has some assertion. —Dark ^(talk) 10:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose per concerns raised above, especially DarkFalls' comments. In the first diff presented by DF (2 days ago), a speedy on a new article (one sentence, but with a reference) within a minute of its creation. . .that worries me. Sorry, R. Baley (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
13. The instances above do not give me confidence with his judgement in evaluating articles for deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
14. I'm a bit of the fence - TPH seems to jump in and nominate articles for deletion where even a cursory check for information would reveal an abundance of sources (cf. the AFDs for Power of the Dollar and Da Drought 3). Normally I wouldn't oppose over something like this, but TPH has expressed that his primary administrative area will be in article deletion. east.718 at 11:06, March 20, 2008
15. Oppose per East718 and OhanaUnited. Rudget. 11:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Q4 is what did it for me as it is a definate conflict of interest issue. Also, 5 RfA's in one year seems to indicate candidate is desperate for the mop, a trait that I don't find desirable in an admin. ArcAngel (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose per the diffs posted by DarkFalls. He just seems a bit too eager to drop the hammer, rather than improving a marginal article. While deletion is necessary to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic, we should be a little reluctant to do it, rather than defaulting to it. And, seriously, 5 RfAs in a year? Coemgenus 15:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Agreeing with Kurt here. -- Naerii 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose due to poor understanding of non-free image policy. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    You are referring to his answer to Q14 I suppose, and I don't get it. His answer looked correct to me. If TPH doesn't understand WP:NONFREE, then I guess I don't either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Neither of those reasons were valid. #1 was the downfall of Image:Connie Talbot X Factor crop.JPG, and #2 is just plain wrong. Magazine covers etc. can be used in the article about the magazine, not in the article about someone who happens to be on the cover. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    Ten Pound Hammer's answer was 100% correct according to the guideline. Regarding #1: For "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." Regarding #2, magazine covers: "If the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." He gave a perfectly good answer, and got opposed for it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    Hmm. Perhaps the nonfree policy needs to be amended. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose because of erratic judgment and hasty decisions, such as the one outlined in question 10. I think the ed. has good intentions, good will,and a good attitude, but still is to quick to judge and too likely to make mistakes. I simply do not trust him with the buttons. His eagerness for non-admin closures has been commented on adversely by numerous people in his previous AfDs--it is still present--even just these last few days before this AfD, and shows an unfortunate haste and desire for what he sees as the power of an admin. we've had an unfortunate rash of early closures lately, and he's been a major contributor. AfDs are supposed to last 5 days in almost all circumstances. They're discussions, and there should be time for people to discuss. DGG (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Here's another example, from just today, in an AfD: [9] , explained as "I guess I need a Wikibreak, I'm really acting strange today" If this is while the AfD is actually in progress, what are we to expect tomorrow? DGG (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

    And, just to confirm, here's another poor AfD nomination made just this morning. [10]. He knows its wrong; after it was pointed out to him that the information he asked for was on the subject's website, he withdrew the nomination and closed the AfD. This is not the degree of competence and care we need from an admin. He's making unnecessary work , not solving problems. DGG (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose. I'm sorry, TPH, but some of your recent taggings, as mentioned above, just strike me as hasty and unconsidered. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose The answer to Q10 is worrying, not because a mistake was made, but because the nominee still doesn't seem to understand just how far of the mark he was or seem to be overly concerned that his reasoning was wrong, when he says: "Maybe it wasn't quite blatant enough for a G3 (A1 probably would've been closer, as the page only comprised one sentence), but the page was deleted and turned into a dab anyway." It was absolutely nowhere near being a blatant hoax, and just because the page was eventually deleted doesn't negate the fact that it was incorrectly nominated in the first place. This leads me to doubt his judgement at the moment with respect to deletions. If this failure of judgement was itself a one-off, then it would perhaps be OK, but it seems that this has been a major concern for others at least as far back as his last RFA. Because his answer to Q1 indicates that deletion related work will be his focus, and that this is the are where he has the strongest knowledge - I think the nominee needs a bit more time before getting the tools. He can add a lot of value now, but somebody with a little more experience needs to review his nominationa before the delete button is hit. TigerShark (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose per pretty much all the reasoning in relation to AfD and speedy tagging. I don't think I am able to trust your judgement as an administrator yet. Spebi (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Per Friday, DarkFalls, Kurt Weber, and Q10. Daniel (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Poor speedy deletion tagging. --- RockMFR 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Sorry, I just can't imagine supporting someone with 5 RFAs in less than a year, certainly not without some serious introspection and analysis as to the reason for the failures. Guettarda (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Great editor with a lot of valuable contributions also to deletion discussions, but also many striked-through opinions and hastily applied speedy tags. As an admin he would evaluate already tagged articles, so endorsing two days ago an incorrect speedy tag during an AfD isn't reassuring (and it is more than one sentence that asserts importance). Overall, that points to a quality of correcting himself, but also to a certain reliance on others to look more deeply, which makes me not confident enough with him making the final call. I'd also like to see more experience in other administrative areas than article deletion (and the answer to question 14 is rather vague).--Tikiwont (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose - per above. --Flesh-n-Bone 13:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Opposed Surprised to find myself in agreement with Mr Weber with regards to RfA, but here I am. 5 in a year is just really pushing it. Sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose per DGG and RockMFR comments. QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose per tagging concerns as well as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Ronnotel (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose. I do understand that TPH does a lot of great work in AfDs, but I have to wonder about his ability to handle stress, especially based on what I've seen of his actions over the last day or two, such as engaging in an edit war at Trace Adkins and pushing in unsourced knowledge from "seeing him in concert."[11][12] Then some of his reactions to the other editor involved, KellyAna (talk · contribs), were not as helpful as they could have been. KellyAna does freely admit that she occasionally has trouble staying civil, but TPH's comments, calling her rude,[13] and justifying his own actions because he's "out of sorts"[14] were the kind of thing that escalate a situation, not de-escalate it. Further, when KellyAna challenged his unsourced additions, TPH responded by placing a "bad faith" warning on KellyAna's talkpage,[15] asking her to supply a source that his information was incorrect. Sorry, but that's not how WP:V works. The responsibility for providing a source is on the editor wanting to add the information, not the one wanting to remove it (and as it turned out, KellyAna was right and TPH was wrong).[16] And I am especially concerned that TPH was taking these kinds of actions during his RfA (when most people would know better than to get involved in something controversial such as an edit war or uncivil comments). It is essential that those who are seeking administrator access be able to set a good example of calm under pressure, and, if they're going to get involved in disputes, they need to show that they are the kind of people whose participation will de-escalate a dispute, not escalate it. But based on what I've seen today, I have to really wonder about TPH's judgment and ability to handle on-wiki stress. As such, I'm sorry, but I cannot endorse this nomination. --Elonka 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose per delitionism concerns and Friday. --Irpen 10:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose for the reasons well-stated by DGG. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose per the deletion concerns. Nick (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose per Q 14. ➪HiDrNick! 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose just too many concerns here, especially those by DarkFalls and east718, as well as Kurt to some extent. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose I see a good editor who wants to help out and feels he is ready for the tools. Unfortunately some of the oppose comments raise very valid concerns. If you want to be a deletionist that is fine but you must gain a more nuanced understanding of what the rules for deletion are. I would like to see some article creation or improvement to balance all this deletion too. Work on your people-skills, and let a little longer go by before your next RfA as, rightly or wrongly, people are very nervous of power hunger here. --John (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose Per Stifle and DGG. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose Sorry but any editor which has a strong deletionist approach to wikipedia and has rights to be able to enhance his power of this is a very bad thing. I;m sure he has done some good work on wikipedia and is often correct about AFD'S but tools given to a user who ihas that kind of approack is a potentially damaging one. Sorry ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Oppose I'm not crazy about the focus on deletion, and the Trace Adkins sequence just above is really concerning, not least because of slapping a editing in bad faith template on a longterm editor. Fighting over something like this during your RFA and turn out to have been wrong all along...seems like pretty poor judgment. Put these 2 together and I'm feeling like it's a recipe for admin drama down the road. RxS (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
41. DGG, DarkFalls and Elonka raise issues here that make me think that this is not yet the right time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Oppose per deletion concerns and the 5/year --Stephen 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Oppose This doesn't seem like the right time, and per Johnbod, Riana and others above. - Modernist (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Oppose Wow ... five noms in so little time. I gotta say Kurt's got a point. Would have overlooked this for the good qualities 10£Hammer has to offer and the better things he could potentially do with the mop, but Elonka has swayed me to oppose. Maybe on nom 6 or 7. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Oppose. Too many RfA's in too short a time. No time for reflection. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Oppose, regretfully. Viewed in a vacuum, this RFA is excellent. However, this isn't a vacuum. I have grave concerns about the deletionism issues raised above (and I'm a bit of a deletionist myself) and question some snap judgements by TPH. In addition, I think it shows a fairly serious lack of situational awareness - which is the key tool in an admin's toolbox - to submit this RfA at this time. I'm afraid that every subsequent RFA is simply exponentially hurting this candidates chances to "pass" RfA. I strongly encourage TPH to take some significant time - perhaps even a year - before reapplying. That would, I think, mitigate the "too much/too fast" issue that I and so many others seem to have. I have a great deal of respect for TPH's work here, but am afraid that these issues are prejudicing the discussion. - Philippe | Talk 09:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Oppose per DGG and previous RfAs concerns. TPH I really appreciate your work on AFD and CSD, but you should focus on quality not quantity. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Oppose Per Elonka. Needs to be more constructive to be an admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Oppose Per previous RfA concerns and above. Tnayin (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
50. Oppose While the editor's dedication is admirable, I remain unconvinced that he is seasoned enough to avoid damaging the project. There is plenty of prior evidence that the editor is too quick to make decisions, and little sign of positive development in this regard since the last RfA. Xoloz (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
51. Oppose. I believe I have supported this user at least once in the past, but don't feel comfortable doing so this time around. Civility is a neccessary trait for an admin, and in this respect, the concerns raised by Elonka (and others) give me pause as to this editor's ability to deal with conflict, etc. I'm also a little troubled by the frequency of the RFA's. Carom (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Oppose. Per concerns raised by Darkfalls and Elonka. I have no problem with multiple RfAs; they do invite scrutiny but should not disqualify a candidate automatically. I'd also be inclined to support in the future if the issues (particularly the incorrect tagging) don't show up again. Mike Christie (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
53. I don't really trust him with speedy deletion, given some of the above evidence. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
54. OpposeStrong Oppose per DGG, Philippe, and others. Unsolicited advice to the candidate is that his chances will be much improved if he waits 3 to 6 months before RFA #6. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (note added) It's your fifth RfA and you still don't understand the difference between blocking and banning???[17] Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Oppose per all the above. I understand the good intentions of TPH, but he seems to be a bit too trigger happy, and is likely to misuse the tools. Misuse of the deletion functions is likely to cause more damage than just plain abuse.--Alasdair 08:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
56. Oppose Given some of the diffs shown here and the short amount of time since his last RfA, I'm afraid I just don't see the need at this time (still). Like some people have said, 5 RfAs in 1 years times is a tad too much. --Charitwo ^talk 12:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
57. Oppose per Darkfalls and DGG. I had hoped to be able to support this go, but hasty speedy tags remain a concern. I'm particularly concerned about the near-instant placement of A1 on a one-minute old article on March 18th. I brought up my concerns about A1 usage in the last RfA, including the speed of application. WP:CSD itself recommends against deleting articles that are young for concerns related to completeness, since as we all know many editors construct articles incrementally.) One minute after the speedy was challenged (and, edit history suggests, being worked on), he sent it to AfD. At Talk:Elementary cognitive task. He noted at the talk page that he "wasn't trying to be overzealous in speedy tagging or anything" but "honestly thought it to be lacking in context". Why go straight for the speedy? Why not tag for {{context}} and see what happens? In the early withdrawal of the AfD, the candidate indicated that this was a learning experience. I hope it was. But the concerns that caused me to go neutral last time persist: "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." Since they do persist in spite of the concerns expressed by many at that time, I feel I must at this point oppose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
58. Oppose there have been many valid expressions of opinion given in relation to this RfA. The answers to Q9 are of a concern, for an editor with an apparent pro-deletion disposition finding it acceptable to just close AfD's in which they have participated is a concern. Combining this with great desire to have the mop only heightens my concerns. Gnangarra 14:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
59. Oppose per Elonka. Keepscases (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
60. Oppose I've had my eye on this RfA as I check this page on a daily basis. I've taken a close look at everything and have decided to oppose. The primary reason is that of controversial use of speedy delete. TPH seems to act in good faith most of the time, but I'm looking for admins that can answer the tough questions and exemplify wisdom in AfD. I simply haven't seen that in TPH's case, rather, it appears to be in many cases the opposite. By itself, I don't believe that opposing based on 5 RfAs in a year is very well thought out, but I think there are some valid reasons to oppose TPH in this instance. That being, I do detect a very strong desire to become admin, basically waiting the minimal reasonable amount of time then having another go. This might be acceptable if all previous issues were properly acknowledged and dealt with, but that doesn't look to be the case... hence I think in this case he clearly should have waited at least a few more more months... consequently this potential 5th failure could hurt long term chances for future RFAs. I'd reccomend waiting at least 6 more months until the next request, primarily to adequately address issues brought up, but also to show proper acknowedgement of the many editors that have issues with 5 RfA's in a year. Even if TPH disagrees with this, he needs to respect that many have this opinion and will always be a part of these once-every-few-months RfAs. Gwynand (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
61. oppose per Johnbod, Gwynand, Moonriddengirl, Xoloz and others. Way too willing to delete things and in general too impetuous. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
62. Oppose per many of the above, especially DGG and Moonriddengirl. I'm afraid that I may have reached the point where I just don't think that TPH is ever likely to be an admin candidate I can support (although I'll give #6 the same consideration I gave 4 and 5, if it comes to that). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Addendum: Although I do find it very painful to oppose a fellow Numberwang fan. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

63. Oppose per many above and the give it up already clause. Baegis (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
64. Oppose. Way too keen to do things quickly rather than properly. Many contributions to AfDs seem to be delete recommendations within a short time of nomination, showing that no great effort has been done to look for sources or otherwise see if an article can be improved rather than deleted. Also far too often tries to pre-empt AfDs by nominating for speedy deletion while they are in progress. Apart from attack pages there's no need to short-circuit discussion in this way. This leads me to believe that the candidate would not not give enough consideration when processing speedy deletions. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
65. Oppose per prominent pro-deletion stance which would exacerbate what I see as pro-deletion sentiment among admins -- we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to erase one. The concerns raised foremost by the Great King of the Pumpkins, but also by JoshuaZ, DGG, Colonel Warden, Deacon of Pndapetzim and others make me doubt whether popular support for this adminship candidacy differs from that for this editor's previous RfAs. I'm willing to reconsider given a better commitment toward keeping and improving content, particularly controversial articles. --SSBohio 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I am sorry, but this is not the first time I've seen this user having an RfA in my short months here. His last RfA just closed a little over 2 months ago, and I'm sorry, I just can't really support nor oppose, but standing on the sidelines, I've seen you fumble the ball in your last RfAs. If 4 have already failed, I'm not so sure you're really ready... although you do edit and revert and you to me are a magnificent user. --Alisyn^talk 02:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Switching to neutral for now per TPH's respectable answers to my questions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2. While I think TPH is one of the best voices we have at AfD, I can't help but be concerned about this fifth RfA in less than a year. I don't agree with Kmweber on pretty much everything, but the drive for adminship is a bit concerning. Also, the speedy history on the talk page, although at ~91%, is not great. Especially when you consider that the 9% is 17 articles. But like I said, the AfD contributions are outstanding, so I can't oppose, but I strongly encourage you to be more careful with your delete button at CAT:CSD. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   I have to differ here. I think the fact that he's gone through 4 other RfA's is more of an inditement against the process than the candidate. I felt he was worthy long before this round. I also think that 91% is an excellent rate. Remember when you nominate something for CSD, you are also alerting the relevant parties that they had best act quick to save an article. You are also relying upon others to see the article in the same light that you saw it---I know that on the rare occassions when I do CSDs, I delete a much lower percent than 91% of the articles I review.Balloonman (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well, as an administrator coach I think you of all people would be aware of the pretty much indelible community expectation that an editor wait at least three months between RfAs. That requirement is not without merit. We want enough time after a failed RfA so that we can evaluate whether or not he has addressed concerns. I particularly am firm on it because disregarding it indicates, at least to me, a disrespect towards the community and its expectations, and a willingness to disregard them. As for the speedy deletions: would you consider a 91% accuracy rate in deletions a good statistic? It is not unreasonable to assume that if he had been an administrator, that he would have deleted those articles he tagged. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral This is one of those I would have sat out in the past; however, with the community's clear mandate that silent abstains are prima facia evidence of non-participation (sorry, Kurt), I am letting y'all know I am here and have looked at this candidate, and still wish to abstain at this time. . -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I've a gut feeling TPH will make some poor calls that cause unneeded drama. It's not enough to oppose on without decent evidence however, so neutral. Neıl ☎ 09:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

   Changed from support. For once Kurt is right 5 RFAs is too many in 12 months - especially when the previous opposes concerned judgement. You need more then 2 months from the last one to show you have resolved the judgement concerns. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Now opposing per Elonka. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral pending answer to my question. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral. I really, really want to support, based on my numerous interactions with this editor at AfDs. Always has a reason (rather than just a !vote), and the reason is often well-reasoned, so to speak. But the speedies really concern me. I think the mop would probably be in very good hands, but the speedy issues give me just enough doubt. Sorry.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I've never gone "neutral" on an AfD before, and don't usuallly see the point, but I feel it's the only fair opinion I can provide here. I supported TPH in one of his earlier RfAs, but opposed him in a subsequent one when his work at AfD crossed my screen. In the (recent) past he's been very quick with SNOW closes, which have had to be reversed or reopened. I (and other editors) have mentioned these hasty decisions to him several times on his talk page, but it seems that this has not always produced effective results in his M.O. I really do like to give the benefit of the doubt, which is why I'm not going "Oppose" again, but I'd really feel more comfortable if I saw some consistent positive contributions at AfD. The frequency of the RfAs don't bother me, nor his desire to be an administrator, that's fine... I would just like to be assured that granting him extra tools won't result in more work for the other administrators where the removal or retention of articles is concerned. ◄Zahakiel► 19:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral' I switched from Support in looking at Elonka's extremely recent (March 21) diff's on TPH's quick fuse, I am not convinced his conflict resolution skills are developed enough. Combined with that, I can't as easily overlook the 2 things I had reservations about: 5th RfA so soon, and the marking deletions as "minor". Taken together, while I am convinced TPH is of great value to the project and inevitably will become an admin, I can't support this RfA quite yet. If this RfA is not successful, I would also strongly suggest waiting at least 6 months, as Kurt brings up a good point. --12 Noon ^2¢ 17:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral moved from Support. There are just too many valid issues raised by those who are opposing this RfA. TPH, I still believe you are doing very good work for the project, and I very much hope to be supporting a future RfA. You have a wonderful opportunity to become an even better editor by taking note of the issues raised here and correcting them. I still believe your positive contributions far outweigh the few negatives raised here. Good luck and please don't be disheartened. Best, Gwernol 21:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral due to my poor understanding of non-free image policy as pointed out by BongWarrior. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)