Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tcncv

Tcncv

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (75/2/1); Scheduled to end 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Tcncv (talk · contribs) – Tcncv has been with us for a year and a half (having been a rollbacker since December 2008). He has extensive vandalism fighting experience and always reacts calmly even to the rudest of comments. I have no need for an extravagant nomination statement — Wikipedia would benefit from having Tcncv as an admin, enough said. @harej 03:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I expect that my initial participation will be slow and cautious, likely limited to monitoring and taking action on some of the routine action lists. I will admit up front that I am not familiar with all of the policies and procedures associated with adminship and have a lot to learn. That said, I'm not going to jump right in and start mucking things up until I watch, read, and learn the accepted procedures for each of the tasks I take on. Still, I will likely stick to the routine administrative tasks in the foreseeable future, possibly looking at areas that tend to get backlogged. As a recent changes patroller, I have a particular interest in seeing prompt action to entries on the WP:AIAV page, but would not limit myself to that task.

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

A: I am not a major contributor of new content. I have mostly participated as a recent changes patroller, page watcher, and reference desk participant. Occasionally, I'll voice an opinion on some of the policy pages.

In my participation as a recent changes patroller, I keep a special watch for subtle changes to established facts, such as dates and figures, and will take extra time to check he page history, follow cited references, and do a quick Google search to determine of the change warrants a revert. I also watch for and will occasionally defend the new user attempting to make some good faith changes that is being repeatedly reverted by Huggle operators. (Don't get me wrong - Huggle is a great tool, but once a user has two of three warnings, the resulting red flag will almost certainly lead to a revert from someone on any subsequent edits.)

Occasionally, I'll stop and attempt to resolve a conflict, not as a mediator, but by researching the subject and either voicing a third opinion or proposing a compromise. Possibly my only significant contribution was to research and rewrite the US Airline Pilots Association article to provide balanced coverage following a series of provocative edits, presumably by members of both sides of the covered seniority list controversy. Admittedly not great writing, but I believe tha relevant facts are fairly covered.

I also participated for a while on the 2008 Olympics articles - mostly performing table maintenance in the athletics and swimming categories. One of my edits ([1]) consolidated several bullet lists into a (IMHO) much more readable table format. I also led a discussion on medal result table formatting standards.

On the reference desk, I try to contribute where my background and knowledge allows. I've had some really good answers ([2]) and an occasional bad one ([3]). Well, nobody's perfect.

I am really more of a technical person than a writer and have dabbled in fixes to the {{nts}} template to fix sorting or negative numbers ([4] and [5]) and a proposed change to wikibits.js to fix sorting in tables containing rowspans and colspans. Unfortunately, neither has yet been implemented due to lack of apparent interest. I also worked on a sophisticated template to calculate accurate geodetic distances ({{Template:Tcncv/Geodist/Vincenty1}}) at the request of another user, but there is likely little practical use for it, so it was more of an academic exercise than a real contribution. Recently, I have contributed the regular expressions and test cases for the Full-date unlinking bot. That work seems to have prompted harej to nominate me here.

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: Other than cases of obvious vandalism, I do not recall being involved in any edit conflicts that I didn't promptly take to the discussion page. Everybody has an opinion, and mine doesn't count for more than anybody else's. Even on the discussion pages, my philosophy is to state my opinion in a non-provocative manner, back it up with evidence if possible, and then listen to others. Although I may expand on my opinion in follow-up posts, I believe it is counterproductive to continuously restate a position or to post an argument to every differing opinion. I suspect that, in most cases, all involved have likely made up their minds after the first few posts.

I aim to be courteous and responsive in all of my posts, regardless of the tone or actions of the editor to whom I am writing ([6], [7]). I think the closest I have come to going over the edge was this comment at the end of an exceeding frustrating discussion.

Questions from ArcAngel

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

A: A ban is an administrative ruling, possibly by the arbitration committee, that a user is prohibited from performing X activity for a designated period. The user remains active and is otherwise free to contribute. A block is a usually temporary, sometimes indefinite technological prohibition from editing typically imposed after a pattern of disruptive edits, policy violations, or incivility.

5. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: I started to assume that a cool down block was a short (i.e. 24 hour) block applied to an editor after a period of disruptive edits, but on checking WP:BP, I see that the term specifically refers to a short block to quiet an angry user - a use that is not allowed. In that context, the answer is never. It is better to continue discussion and work to achieve a resolution via the talk pages. A block would limit this avenue towards resolution and might further aggravate the editor. (I will note that specific actions such as 3RR violations or personal attacks may still warrant a temporary block.)

6. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

A: Hmmm. Not sure if you are looking for a specific correct answer here. Some possibilities might be "assume good faith", "don't abuse my privileges", "respect other opinions", or "remain civil". Other answers might involve protecting the integrity of Wikipedia and guarding against copyright violations and BLP libel issues. I expect that as I read the various pages listed in WP:ARL, I could come up with other good answers. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is worded such that there really is no correct answer, per se. It's really more of a gauge as to what YOU think the most important WP policy is. Think of it as a question that "gets inside your head".  :) ArcAngel (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

7. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: I'll be up front. I have two alternate accounts – Tcncv2 (talk · contribs) and Tcncvbot (talk · contribs). The first was to examine new user settings. The second was created in anticipation of creating and running some date related cleanup scripts, but was mostly superceded by my work on the Full-date unlinking bot. I do not anticipate ever having a need to create an alternate account without full disclosure, but if special circumstances warranted such an account, I expect I would ask permission from and disclose this fact to the bureaucrats group or other appropriate authorities.

Additional optional questions from Belinrahs

8. What is your view on Wikipedia Watch?

A: I was not previously familiar with that site. My first impression is that I'd take no offence and would treat it as pointing out opportunity for improvements. By its nature, Wikipedia is vulnerable to the introduction of misinformation, copyrighted material, and the like. Some of the patrolled edit proposals floating around might provide some mitigation, but I think it is most important to make sure the reader is aware of the possibility and to suggest that they check the references and/or check the history if there is any doubt to the accuracy of an article. (I may revise my answer when I have more time to look at this site.)

9. Choose a scenario from Filll's AGF Challenge 2 (directions), and try to answer it as best as you can.

A. I have prepared my answers to one of the AGF Challenge scenarios here.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

10. For what reason would files be uploaded to en.wikipedia? What problems would you expect that an administrator would have to take care of with them?

A: Are you referring to files other than media files? Are you referring to uploading files to en.wikipedia in contrast to commons? Please clarify and I will provide a proper response.

• any files including media files; probably mostly media files - and yes to the second question: uploading files to en.wikipedia in contrast to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A: I could not find a clear answer as to what should be uploaded to commons vs. en.wikipedia, but from what I read, my impression is that uploading of free media to commons is strongly encouraged to promote sharing, while non-free (fair-use) media should be uploaded to en.wikipedia so that its usage can be more easily monitored for conformance with fair use policies. Free media that is initially uploaded to en.wikipedia that is later moved to commons involves extra work to move the actual file, to copy the metadata, and to update any pages that reference the file. However, I also got the impression that uploading to commons may be more work for the novice user. Personnally, I have had minimal experience with uploading file, having uploaded only a single file (File:Sea salt-e-dp hg.svg), as far as I can recall.

Additional optional questions from Caspian blue

11. Have you ever had any account other than the current one, Tcncv? You showed profound knowledge of Wikipedia rules and familiarity with tools from the first day on English Wikipedia.

A: I had _no_ Wikipedia experience prior to my first edit of record. I discovered the recent changes list and Twinkle early on. Those were my primary tools for interacting with Wikipedia in my early days. I later started to build a watch list and picked up Huggle.

These[8] are the very first edits of yours to the English Wikipedia, which tell many things. You said you had prior experiences without mentioning your prior account(s), but changed the comment[9] after pointed out. Regretful to see that you do not seem to be honest about yourself.--Caspian blue 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Caspian, that seems like a genuine error, otherwise the sentences that followed would make little sense. —Dark 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Oppose.--Caspian blue 00:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You literally had no Wikipedia experience prior to your first edit of record? I assume you read Wikipedia for a while before you started editing it? Bwrs (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I should have stated that I had no prior Wikipedia editing experience prior to my first edit of record. I was using Wikipedia as an occasional go-to source for information some time prior to that, but I can't nail down how long prior that was. However, I was only a consumer during that time and did not look under the hood. As for my apparent quick startup, I have 30 years behind me as a computer programmer, and adapt to new technology easily. After creating an account making my first edit I found the recent changes page which happened to lead me to the Press-up article. The active discussion on that page was whether US Marines did press-ups or push-ups. That got me interested in WP:ENGVAR and probably led me to discover other policies and guidelines. Eventually I discovered and installed Twinkle (easy to use), set up a direct link to the recent changes page, and with those two tools quickly became addicted to chasing down and reverting vandalism. Occasionally I'd stumble across random articles whose content interested me and I'd do some reading. Sometimes I'd encounter an ongoing conflict or disagreement which furthered my interest in some of the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (Now that I look at the history, it surprises me how quickly I became immersed.) As possible evidence of my newbiness, I did have to ask advice on how to undo a not-latest edit [10] and got my first page protect request wrong [11] (Tan took exception to that one). Beyond that, I guess its up to your own good judgment. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Keepscases

12. What are the origins of your username?

A: It's a combination of my own initials and those of my home town.

13. How is your username pronounced?

A: Good question. I guess I'm due for a name change, or at least a signature line change. For now, call me "Tom".

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

14. What learning do you think a prospective admin. can gain from the sock puppet saga and the associated ArbCom proceedings at [12] and

[13]. {I’m not looking for a lengthy response and it’s not a question intended to trip you up in any way, but the case is highly relevant to the general user community and our confidence in those who are selected to manage it.)

A: That's a lot to absorb in a single read. I can see why others such as Caspian blue are particularly sensitive to the possibility of a banned user returning under a new name. (As for me - I can only assert that I am my edit history, with no prior accounts.) Second, the tone of the of the RfA support comments concerns me. With all those "Did you know..." leads, it almost appears that some inner circle of admins were acting in unison to bring a buddy into the club, without individually and impartially evaluating the candidate. In defense of the supporters, Law appeared to have an impressive record (I have not reviewed it myself) and I did not see where anyone actually asked if he or she had used a prior account. However, that other admins would knowingly conceal this fact during an RfA seems like a breach of responsibility to me. What can I (or another prospective admin) learn from this? I think it emphasizes the need for full disclosure during the review process by all involved and the need to ask probing questions even in cases where there are no little or no obvious evidence to suspect a problem. I also think any demonstrable withholding or falsifying of relevant information should be considered a serious breach of trust and ground to nullify or reverse a decision.

Supplementary follow-up Q

Thanks. A final question from me. Based on your reply I take it you would then voluntarily relinquish your position in such circumstances pending investigation?

A: Yes. If I (or another administrator) were under investigation for breach of policy, misconduct or the like, (or even a genuine allegation of such), I think it would be best for all involved if the subject of the allegations would temporarily relinquish administrator rights or at least voluntarly refrain from administrator activities until the issues are resolved.

General comments

• Links for Tcncv: Tcncv (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tcncv can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• General editing statistics are available on the talk page. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Report on speedy delete in deleted contribs: There were less than 10 speedy delete taggings. G10 G3 G2 G7 and R3 all looking close to good. Only one R3 tagging missed the mark by not being a recently created redirect (4 years old), but deleted anyway. There was also a successful prod. (well unsuccessful for the article creator) Any declined speedy delete taggings should be visible to all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Been around quite a while, great many contributions, seems to have need for the tools for AIV, no apparent red flags, seems to deal well with stress. And I think bonus points should be in order for this :) --Saalstin (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2. As nominator. @harej 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - I see nothing but good here. Crafty (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
4. The Strongest of Supports - ever. From looking at the stats and stuff on this user, and comparing to my own (from when I submitted my RfA), I can clearly see now why so many opposed my RfA. This user is outstanding - someone who has got me inspired. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support I want to oppose based on not recognizing your user name and not being totally convinced you're human. But I couldn't find anything to object to in your edit history or answers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support despite my strong belief that an admin should be well-rounded in writing and sourcing article content as well as vandal fighting and other important areas. Tcncv's straightforward manner in admitting shortcomings in that area (writing) wins me over. Answer to Q1 rings true, well said. Seems quite level-headed, vital for the job. All in all, a good choice for the post, and appears most unlikely to misuse the tools. Wish the candidate the best of good fortune. Jusdafax 07:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Looks fine to me. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong Support – Great demeanor, good knowledge of technical aspects, and researches before acting. Not a big contributor of new material, but has made plenty of constructive edits. Most importantly, one who focuses on the mission with absolutely no drama. I predict clear sailing for any such candidate this week who offers us a breath of fresh air. We need more people who don't see being an admin as a goal. User page is a good example of WP:OWB #5. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Support I see where Tan is coming from with his neutral, but the Q1 honesty also blances an "if in doubt - don't" attitude which I like. Further "Everybody has an opinion, and mine doesn't count for more than anybody else's" in Q3 was very impressive. Not much content work, to be true, but reference desk work is allways a plus. Net positive with the extra bits. Pedro :  Chat  09:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   As a further aside, the nomination from User:harej was very crisp and clean. Given my terrible propensity for verbose nominations filled with bulleted lists I have to say it was a pleasure to read such a succinct rationale! Pedro :  Chat  09:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

10. Support Agree with Pedro. Answer to Q1 shows willingness to be patient and to not do what one does not know how to do and thus is a sign of a candidate who probably will read up on anything they do not know before acting. I could not find anything particularly concerning with the candidate's contribution, only their somewhat fractured edit history is a bit concerning. But every good editor is better with the mop than without it, even if they do not wield the mop often. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Patient, great track. ceranthor 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Question 1's answer kind of gives me a bit of pause (you should really be quite knowledgable of the policies related to admins before undertaking an RfA) but we all learn along the way. I'd be lying if I said I knew all the policies pre-RfA. Good luck.  public GARDEN  11:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
13. We need more admins — badly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Support - Awesome editor, great attitude... Will make a great admin. Strong comes from Saalstin's diff above.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 12:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. I have a good feeling about this candidate. Q1 is a bit vague, and you did go over the edge with that comment in my opinion, but all in all it's a minor infraction. Seems to have above-average proficiency with the technological stuff, which is always a positive. decltype (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)The wiki-implementation of Vincenty's formulae is very impressive!
16. Support. The candidate is light in CSD work, but I'll take 1 correct, non-BITEy tagging over 10 iffy ones any day. Most good admins go easy in their first days and weeks, to make sure they have a handle on what's what - and I think this candidate would be well advised to do the same. But I like their candor and their attitude, and I concur that their adminship will be a net positive to the project. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Support looks fine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - the answer to question one and the first paragraph of q2 answer was enough for me. This editor will not cause havoc with the tools, and will probably do very much good. (I also want to know if "tekunkvuh" is correct pronunciation) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Support No concerns right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - While not all of the questions have been answered, the answers to the questions given look fine and Tcncv does seem to have plenty of experience. -- Atama頭 16:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
21. Support My concern have been alleviated, and based on A1, I do not believe the candidate will break anything. ArcAngel (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Support per harej, who knows how to find clueful and reasonable people. ;) In all seriousness, Tcncv looks like a good guy, competent, calm, "gets it", all of that. I'd much rather have somebody who has a head on their shoulders and respects others, who isn't familiar with all the policies, than somebody who can recite policy yet lacks standalone judgement. The answers are a plus, especially Q1 and Q3 as Pedro pointed out - no problems here. JamieS93 17:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Support I have no issue with the username. I was just curious. Keepscases (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Looks cautious, competant - plus we always need more admins. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - Good user. In the absence of evidence that Q11 is anything but (nearly forgot the preceding two words myself) an honest mistake, we assume that he is telling the truth. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong Support After reading the full set of questions and several links that were provided, I find it that Tcncv aka "Tom" would be a fine admin. His record is spotless and he seem to be a very good editor overall. While he has stated that he is clueless to several of the admin functions, I belive that he will quickally learn. PS: his comments are very civil and friendly as well. Not that that matters too much but still :)--Coldplay Expert 00:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. Bwrs (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
28. You seem a little inexperienced, but I'm sure you'll do fine. Nothing wrong with learning on the job. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Support I think the candidate wont break anything. -- Tinu Cherian - 06:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Per the “net benefit” theory of whether to ¬vote to promote or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbisgreif (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

    Terribly sorry for forgetting to sign. It's awfully late here. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

31. Support! in the strongest form possible. Good answers to my, and other's, questions. I like your answers on the AGF Challenge - I answered differently when challenged with it by Neuro, but you have a unique view that could prove an asset to this wiki as a sysop. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 11:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
32. The answers to the questions are just what I'm looking for, I'm impressed with the WP:HELPDESK experience, and I like that he's a self-starter, apparently since the first day he started editing. Welcome, Tom. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
33. I've read through this entire RfA several times and am hugely impressed by the candidates answers to questions and his calm and civil nature. I think these are fine qualities for an admin, and see little reason why he can't use the mop. Consider this a strong support. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
34. Support—Tom will make an excellent admin; he has a valuable skill-base. ("Tom" would indeed be a good signature.) Tony (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Support see no concerns that indicate he will cause any harm to the encyclopedia, all evidence says he will be a net benefit with the tools. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
36. Olympic Support - This is just the kind of people we need as admins; to block dummies. --A3RO (mailbox) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Looking through contributions and reading his answers I see nothing that would indicate that giving the tools to Tom would be anything other than positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
38. Weak support. Okay, to quote Pedro in my first (failed) RfA, "I'm buying this". I would have liked to see more evidence of collaboration and a bit more content work, but I can't deny that the demeanor of the candidate is impressive. Good answers, for the most part (although I disagree with one of the AGF answers - no need for detail, take somewhere else if the candidate is curious), and if the candidate just had stronger experience in administrative areas, I would have supported from the get-go. Lack of drama is a huge plus. Tan | 39 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Seems to approach all-things-Wikipedia using a common-sense approach. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Solid editor, and the Q1 answer doesn't bother me at all. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
41. Support per all of the above. Don't much care about content contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

    Comment. I like your attitude and your answers. I wish you had a bit more experience in content building and interaction with other users, but you seem to be a level-headed editor who is unlikely to abuse the tools. 76.111.37.103 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, but IP !votes aren't counted in RfA. ArcAngel (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

42. Support - Candidate's answers to questions 5 and 8 particularly impressed me. For 5, he demonstrated that he is ready and able to research policy questions and educate himself; Wikipedia's policies and procedures are endlessly expanding so that ability is critical to being an admin. For 8, the candidate demonstrates the ability to look at criticism in a dispassionate manner, a standard to which most of us can only aspire.--otherlleft 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
43. Support-Civility, common sense, and a lack of ignorance. You have my vote.Smallman12q (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
44. Support - the candidate is definitely ready to be an admin. Airplaneman ^talk 02:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
45. Couldn't agree more, would be a fine administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
46. Strong Support. (ec) I have seen nothing but good from Tcncv, and I expect no problems with the admin tools. I also do not find the issues raised in the oppose !votes to be convincing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
47. Support worth a run with the mop. Evidence suggests a better-than-even-chance of good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Good candidate. Nice to see an experienced vandal fighter, since AIV could always use a few more eyes. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
49.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Tcncv. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
50. Support-Tcncv appears to be a dedicated editor. While his experience isn't particularly broad, wikipedia will probably benefit from him being an admin. Shanata (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
51. Support seems to go about things in the right way, and does not blunder in making mistakes in areas unfamiliar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
52. Strong support. Per Saalstin and the rest of the comments above. Experience may be slightly lacking in a few areas, but I'm not sure how much closer you can get to "ideal admin candidate" in terms of attitude, candor and civility. This is the best diff I've read all year. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
53. Strong support - Plenty of experience, trustworthy. Good answers to questions, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
54. Support, cannot see a reason to oppose. --Taelus (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - I analyzed the edits of Tcncv, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
56. Strong Support per diff listed by Saalstin. Anything Tcncv needs to know that he doesn't know, he'll obviously learn pretty fast. SluggoOne (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. I haven't seen you around but your answers are good and your contribution history is good. I would suggest gaining a little more experience with the CSD department but it seems you will pick that up pretty quickly. Valley2city^‽ 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. Someone's got to pass RfA this month..! Seriously though, it looks like you'd know what to do in the relevant areas and a review of contributions shows nothing problematic. WJBscribe (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. I like your attitude and your answers. I wish you had a bit more experience in content building and interaction with other users, but you seem to be a level-headed editor who is unlikely to abuse the tools. Majoreditor (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
60. Wizardman 02:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
61. Support BrianY (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
62. Support - looks good. Tim Song (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
63. Looks OK to me, I like the question answers. ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
64. Support We need more admins working in WP:AIAV. BejinhanTalk 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. Looks good to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
66. Moderate support. I would like to see more content edits, and contributions in such places as XfD. But the editor's calm under personal attack (evidenced in many places on their talk page) is admirable, and that's a good quality. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
67. Weak support - I'd like to know more about this editor, but from everything else I've read here, he appears to pass my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
68. Should do well from what I can see. Malinaccier (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
69. Support: Your statement "I'm also a defender of the new contributor who might get unduly bitten by the Wikipedia establishment." won me over. At the very least you should be given an adminship, if not the Nobel Peace Prize! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
70. + Keegan (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
71. Support, per my criteria; Tcncv seems to be a great editor so far, no problem with an admin learning during the first few months, as you typically do anyways. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
72. Support per comments above, and to express the view that creating an admin often means losing a content creator, so it's an advantage if that's not so much the case here - as long as the editor recognises consequent weaknesses in understanding the nuances of content policy and practice. Rd232 ^talk 12:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Good luck. America69 (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
74. Support. You'll be fine so long as you steer clear of administrator cabals and remember that WP isn't a MMORPG or a social networking site. Don't let yourself get sucked in. Leaky Caldron 13:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
75. Support more so per WP:AGF than User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that while we have not had many memorable interactions and the candidate's userpage is rather barebones (I usually look for barnstars, GA credits, etc.), candidate does have over 10,000 edits (is experienced) and has never been blocked, even accidentally! Given that 74 of my colleagues, includings editors I am familiar with and respect/trust, believe in Tcncv, I also wish to give the candidate a chance as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The candidate seems civil, but I oppose him per the fact that the candidate is essentially unexperienced in most of fields that administrative attentions are required such as XfD, AN, AN/I, RFPP and others, and per the unsatisfactory answer to the Q1 as well as "too poor" article building. Only "one list article" and insufficient interactions for contents in one and half year does not convince me to believe that the candidate fully acknowledge core content policies. Plus, depending on what the candidate would answer my question or further answer to others' question raised, I would be sticking here or not.--Caspian blue 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   I'll just remain here per this.[14]--Caspian blue 22:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   I understand being sensitive about RfAs for people with prior accounts concerning the recent *ahem* controversies, but do you have any other reason to suspect him? I don't ask this as a challenge to your oppose, but because if you do I'd like to know because it would probably change my vote and others. -- Atama頭 22:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   Maybe he missed to type "no" or "not", but I somewhat expected classic answers on this sort of questions - even though those could sound disingenuous - had prior experiences as IP editors, or active on other "wiki" based web sites, or others. However, my primary oppose reason is his inexperience in many fields.--Caspian blue 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   Per the odd non-answer to Q11, in light of recent drama at WP:RFAR. Will reconsider if the nominee confirms that they never used any other account except those mentioned in Q7.  Sandstein  20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, that was an odd answer, which I have now corrected. Sorry for the confusion. For the record, I have never used any other account except those mentioned in Q7. -- Tcncv (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks. Oppose struck.  Sandstein  05:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm rather new, so perhaps someone will post about how I'm completely rong and sway my decision, but it seems odd to promote someone to admin who admittedly doesn't work on improving content beyond reverting vandalism, but he's also chiming in on policy. I guess I think it's a matter of "doing, not talking", as it were. Per the user in the top of this section, it would be better if we had evidence of policy following in actual contributions, i guess. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   That's not what Tcncv has said, however. As he said, he rewrote US Airline Pilots Association, see this which shows quite a bit of work on that article. In addition he has done content work on the 2008 Olympics articles. Opposing because you feel he hasn't contributed enough article work is understandable (and I've opposed other RfAs along similar lines myself) but doing so because he hasn't had any article improvement doesn't seem accurate. -- Atama頭 22:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   Well, Martin Raybourne didn't say that he was opposing because the candidate didn't have any contributions. Tan | 39 01:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

   I don't know how else to interpret "doesn't work on improving content beyond reverting vandalism". Maybe that was just hyperbole? I'm just pointing out that it's not entirely accurate. -- Atama頭 05:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

   I think what Martin means is, most of the edit contributions could based upon the vast amounts of fixes from he has done due to vandalism, and not so many edit contributions based upon article improvements in general. That is the way I interpreted it. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I've seen RfAs where the prospect had almost zero work improving articles and were only interested in fighting vandalism, and I've generally opposed those requests (I have a personal philosophy regarding admins and empathy). As I said before I understand opposing Tcncv for a lack of content work, because even he admits to it, but I wanted to be certain that Martin understood that Tcncv did have some actual content improvement under his belt. That's all. :) -- Atama頭 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

NeutralSwitching to support. Attitude and demeanor seem great. Neutral on Q1; something about this strikes me as "meh" but I can't put my finger on it. Not much actual content work, and not enough collaborative evidence for me. It probably wouldn't be a bad thing if the candidate was promoted, but I can't bring myself to support. Tan | 39 04:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral pending answers to questions and discovery of CSD work, if any. Moved to support. ArcAngel (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tcncv's CSD's; he seems to be averaging about 1 tagging per month, so I wouldn't let that be a deciding factor. There was a questionable G1 back in early February, otherwise nothing particularly worrying. decltype (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral - I agree on Q1; familiarity with policies is assumed as a criteria, but then maybe you're being exceptionally honest, and I wouldn't want to discourage honesty. I'll stand out for now, review some more maybe. Shadowjams (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - The answer to Q11 does not address the question. Concerned that this means something. Had a bad feeling before seeing that anyway. — neuro 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

   Candidate changed answer. Will review. — neuro 19:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)