Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 155.144.251.120 (talk) at 00:10, 20 March 2008 (→‎Support: another support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

TenPoundHammer

Voice your opinion (talk page) (85/5/4); 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A. Letterman? As in David?
That's the one. Dlohcierekim 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ditto, WTF? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  2. Nom support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Great experienced user. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Support Just like in his other RfAs, I am supporting. Captain panda 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. OK. Dlohcierekim 03:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otter have the mop! Dlohcierekim 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Never saw anyone ask for dif's on a support before. Not really needed. Dlohcierekim 04:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. Support - TenPoundHammer and his otters deserve the mop. Tiptoety talk 03:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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 TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. 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)[reply]
    I've said it before and I'll say it again... why does everyone copy Pedro's signature? WaltonOne 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Supported his last RFA, Still support.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Trustworthy for sure. VanTucky 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any diffs to support that claim? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When a candidate's 40787 contributions are overwhelmingly positive, here on Wikipedia we assume good faith. VanTucky 04:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you say 40787? That's Numberwang! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about you, or how seriously you take anyone's comments. VanTucky 04:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please avoid commenting about me in my oppose stance and stick to the candidate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 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)[reply]
  15. Support Seen him at WP:AFD many times ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 04:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - It's time. Soxred93 | talk bot 04:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Give 'im a ten pound mop. --jonny-mt 04:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Giggling uncontrollably. Dlohcierekim 04:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Made me smile when I read that...good one :P Tiptoety talk 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. My failed noms are 4 for 4 in subsequent RfAs. Let's make it 5 for 5. Wizardman 04:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, but I absolutly Oppose giving mops to his otters. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support It is time to give him the mop! --Siva1979Talk to me 04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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)[reply]
  22. 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
  23. 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)[reply]
  24. 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)[reply]
  25. Support - don't see there being any problems. Guest9999 (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 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)[reply]
  27. 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)[reply]
  28. 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)[reply]
  29. Support Experienced user who has learned from his past RFAs. Five should be the charm! -- Flyguy649 talk 06:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 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)[reply]
  31. Support MBisanz talk 07:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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)[reply]
  33. Strong Support Please, this tme. Pedro :  Chat  07:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 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)[reply]
  35. Per this. Please write a GA one day - it's fun! I'll help! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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).[reply]
  37. ...again. Avruch T 10:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Obligatory "I thought he already was one" support. Will (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. 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)[reply]
  41. Support I'm very happy to support an all round great wikipedian. Good luck! TheProf | Talk 12:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. 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)[reply]
  43. Strongest Possible Support We need more like him. An invaluable asset to the project. Eusebeus (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, logical, valuable contributor to XfD discussions, grasps wiki-policy and good answers to the Qs. Mrprada911 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 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)[reply]
  46. Support At this point, I feel this user couldn't be more aware of how Wikipedia works. I'd trust him as an admin. κaτaʟavenoTC 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support — an asset and I'm sorry I missed the last RFA. More framing hammers needed. Cheers, Jack Merridew
  48. 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)[reply]
  49. 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)[reply]
  50. Support again - long overdue :) krimpet✽ 15:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 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)[reply]
  52. Support. Doesn't hesitate to acknowledge and remedy occasional lapses in judgment. Knowledgeable about malls. Deor (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 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)[reply]
  54. 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)[reply]
  55. 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)[reply]
  56. Support Good User.can handle the admin tools.--5faizan(talk) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose the Hammer, but Otters rule! :) Editorofthewiki 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - the fifth's the charm! Bearian (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. 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)[reply]
  60. See, recognise, trust, respect, support. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. 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)[reply]
  62. 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)[reply]
  63. 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)[reply]
  64. Support. No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 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)[reply]
  66. 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)[reply]
  67. Support - Will not abuse the tools. iMatthew 2008 20:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Outstanding AfD work. I trust him to use the extra tools well. – sgeureka t•c 20:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Like last time. Great contribs at AFD. SpencerT♦C 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. The number of RfAs is a slight concern, but it's not really serious. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per the otters. WaltonOne 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Has improved since last RFA (in which I did not support). Ready for the tools. --Sharkface217 20:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. 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)[reply]
  74. Strong Support. I agree with the above statement. Keep those otters working!!!-- Barkjon  21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Haemo (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. 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)[reply]
    Strong Support: Having frequently encountered TPH patrolling vandals, I have no hesitations. 24.4.98.230 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  77. His participation in AfD's is worthy of merits it has no doubt already received, but above and beyond, this is an outstanding contributor in every possible category you could think of. And besides, there were some administrators who've had more RfA's which eventually passed. Valtoras (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Administrator TPH? sounds good to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. 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)[reply]
  80. 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)[reply]
  81. 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)[reply]
    Eagerness isn't, but over-eagerness may be. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. 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)[reply]
  83. Support, in spite of the shopping mall articles. Clampuppet indeed. Risker (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Very informative comments in AfD. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. (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)[reply]
  86. Support Hard worker and valuable contributor.--155.144.251.120 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Amen. Dlohcierekim 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    to know. to desire. to dare. Ok, 3 outta 4 ain't bad. Dlohcierekim 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Comment - Of course he wants it! If he didnt, he would have declined the nomination. TheProf | Talk 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt has a right to his opinions. Dlohcierekim 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No ones suggesting otherwise. I'm just stating mine! TheProf | Talk 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    eeeewwww.Otter be a good idea. Dlohcierekim 17:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_4. Friday (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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. --Alisyntalk 02:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Switching to neutral for now per TPH's respectable answers to my questions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_5&oldid=199475517"