Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TCN7JM

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

TCN7JM

Final (32/29/8). Withdrawn by candidate's request AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (non-crat closure)

Nomination

TCN7JM (talk · contribs) – Today I am pleased to co-nominate TCN7JM for adminship. I have become familiar with TCN7JM through our work on highway articles, and he has always struck me as an editor with good judgement and quality contributions. TCN7JM is a baseball and travel enthusiast who has been on Wikipedia since May 2011. During that time, he has amassed over 11,000 edits and a clean block log. He is an experienced content contributor, and contributes content primarily to geography- and baseball-related topics. He has 7 GAs (including K-34 (Kansas highway), K-17 (Kansas highway), and K-43 (Kansas highway)) and is an active reviewer at GAN and Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review. TCN7JM is well-versed in deletion processes, being an active contributor to both speedy deletion and AfD, and he has also participated at AIV, UAA, and ANI. He has been an administrator on Wikidata since May of 2013. All in all, I feel that TCN7JM would make a fine addition to the admin corps and feel honored to nominate him for your consideration. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I am also pleased to co-nominate TCN7JM for adminship. I first met TCN7JM on one of the Wikimedia Foundations sister projects, Wikidata. As Ks0stm mentioned, TCN received administrator rights this May and since that he has always been an active user of those rights in a variety of administrative areas. Ks0stm mentioned all the statistical data around the user on this wiki and there is not much I can add to that really. So, TCN really is an incredibly constructive user, I fail to see any issues with the user on any Wikimedia project he contributes to and is well tempered and mannered. He will be a great addition to the admin corps because of this. While this co-nom may not add too much to the current nomination plate, I just wanted to co-nom this incredibly constructive user. I hope you all allow TCN to join the corps as it will be net-positive to Wikipedia and more. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both. I accept the nomination. TCN7JM 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have gathered the comments I need. It is at this time that I would like to withdraw this request for adminship. Thanks to all, no matter what section you left your comment in, for your comments and advice for a future RfA.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: The areas of adminship I feel I would be greatest at helping with are blocking vandals, clearing out the speedy deletion backlog, and closing AfDs. I feel that these are the areas I have the most experience in, so these are the areas in which I would use the tools the majority of the time.

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

A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia are the seven articles I have improved to GA status. When I'm not working on content, I'm often on the flipside reviewing a variety of aspects of articles both at GAN and at WP:HWY/ACR. Other than this, I perform various gnomish edits of which I believe the most helpful are my various created {{Attached KML}} subtemplates, which utilize KML data for use on highway articles. Lastly, I spend a lot of time with NPP and RC patrolling, which I think is of high importance as well.

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: The last time I got into a dispute while editing was when an article I tagged for proposed deletion was de-PRODed ten days after I placed the tag with what I felt was not a valid reason for removing the PROD tag. I discussed it a little while with him on his talk page before sending the matter to AN/I, where it was resolved without much drama. I think the last time my stress levels showed onwiki was at the April Fools' Day RfC, in which another editor and I disagreed on whether or not replying to every oppose for his proposal was acceptable. I came off as pretty angry and stressed, and since then I've told myself to take a small break whenever something like this happens to avoid future situations like this.

Additional questions from Wifione ^Message

4. Thank you for offering for administrating. Could you give five discrete reasons why a user may be blocked without a warning?

A: The most obvious times to block without warning are when a user has been confirmed to be abusing multiple accounts or when a user is obviously attempting to evade a block. I personally am not a fan of blocking without warning for clear VOAs, but I can see where it would be useful (say, if the user was hitting a large amount of pages in a short amount of time, and warning the user was clearly futile). A fourth time to block without warning would be when the user has a username that clearly violates the username policy, such as one that is disruptive or offensive. Finally, going hand in hand with reason four, a user may be blocked without warning if he is using Wikipedia for advertising and/or if his username is obviously promotional.

5. An ip, that seems to have freshly started editing, keeps deleting a particular line in the BLP Miley Cyrus; a line that alludes that Miley Cyrus has had no particular further education. You've warned the ip four times, and the ip has reverted you four times, neither engaging in any discussion, nor stopping reverting, and is bent on deleting the line again and again. What would be your next course of action?

A: This is a tough one. If this were an actual situation, I don't think I would revert at all here because it's a bit hard to tell who would be at fault in reverting the other. The line the IP is removing does not have a source, and it would depend on whether or not the wording of "no indication" needs to be sourced. I personally don't think it does because if there was an indication, there would most likely be a source for it, therefore the lack of sources is the lack of indication. For the sake of the question, though, I personally shouldn't block here because I am not 100% sure of whether or not what I am doing is correct. Therefore, I would probably take this to WP:BLPN so more eyes could see it and consensus could be gathered upon whether or not the info should remain in the article.

Again, thanks for the answer. What would be your personal stand if you were to take a stand? Would you delete the line from the Miley Cyrus BLP that has no source? Or would you not? Would you block the IP for 3RR? I do appreciate your Plan B to take the issue to BLPN but I want to have an idea of your personal viewpoint in this if you were to take a stand. Regards. Wifione ^Message

As I said, I personally don't think the line needs a source the way it's worded. If there was an indication that she'd had further education, there would probably be a source out there for it. Therefore, I think the dearth of sources is enough to say that there is, in fact, no indication that she has had further education. Since this is not an obvious BLP vio, I am not reverting in an administrative sense, but because I have a differing point of view from the IP removing the line. Because of this, by reverting four times, I too have broken 3RR and cannot block because that would violate WP:INVOLVED.

Suppose the IP (who repeatedly removed the line about no particular further education) was reported to AIV by someone who reverted him five times and warned four times using the standard vandalism warnings, with the report having "vandalism after final warning" as the reason. Would you block the IP then? If so, for what reason and how long? What about the reporter, for possible violation of the 3RR? Ginsuloft (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, obviously I'm not going to block the IP solely based on the report because it isn't obvious vandalism or, for that matter, vandalism at all. Both users, however, are in violation of the 3RR and should probably be blocked for at least 24 hours depending on whether or not this is the first incident for them.

Additional questions from Carrite

6. So who is Danny Frankel and does he still rock? Why did you apparently vandalize the Rasheed Wallace article less than 2 years ago?

A: I had a feeling this would come up. As it turns out, that was in fact me a couple years ago. I did vandalize an article or two, but then I realized, "hey, this is stupid," and turned myself around. I believe my accomplishments since then can more than make up for those couple of little blips in 2011.

Yeah, that would tend to come up at RFA, wouldn't it? Are there any other transgressions of this nature you wish to declare, and what did you learn from them? Carrite (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, and as I said, I'm confident that the community will look past this, and I apologize.

General comments

• Links for TCN7JM: TCN7JM (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for TCN7JM can be found here.
• Editing statistics on talk page. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

For what it's worth in response to the comments I'm getting regarding the answer to Q5, note that I clearly wouldn't have reverted in the first place and instead would have taken it to the BLP noticeboard. I only answered further because I was asked to do so and do not think my misconstruing of that policy should count against me, as it has nothing to do with anything I would touch on the site, whether or not I am given the mop. I don't plan on touching BLPs whether or not I pass. TCN7JM 20:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support My interactions with him have been nothing but positive. I think he has the maturity and temperament suitable for being an admin.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. Good luck! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support as co-nom. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. You know it's an easy vote when you thought the person in question was already an admin. buffbills7701 01:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Strong Support -- A superb admin at Wikidata, a cross-wiki vandal fighter and asset all are reasons to strongly support, as well as a really strong nomination by two respected contributors. Good job! Sportsguy17 01:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   Support - Decent content and countervandal work demonstrate that this user will be a net positive. Article-blanking / page-move vandalism is almost two years ago. While concerning, he's demonstrated maturity and article-building ability since then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Per A5. Ouch. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

6. Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - I love being able to support candidacies simply based on knowing the name, reputation, and work of a user. Excellent choice based on my personal interactions, (though could pick some better baseball and football teams ... Vikings and Twins are terrible ) Go Phightins! 02:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   Just go for the Red Sox, they could win the World Series Sportsguy17 02:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   The series is tied 2-2. Zordonsux (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

8. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
9. Support - Great editor with many work including good articles, content creating, maintenance work and joining in discussions! He also like roads an baseball which I like too! ///EuroCarGT 03:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Already an administrator at wikidata. Experienced in both content creation and several administrative areas. Appears to have good interactions with others and good temperament and demeanor. Great candidate. Donner60 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - producing GAs is good - folks who make content are a plus in admin circles....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
12. Support no concerns. --Rschen7754 04:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
13. No problems here.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
14. Support Why not?--SKATER ^{T a l k} 04:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
15. Support Happy to oblige and support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
16. Support per above. Trustworthy user and no issues. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 11:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
17. Support Tolly4bolly 11:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
18. Support --DangSunM (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
19. Support - not 100% convinced, but believe user has enough clue not to rush around blocking and deleting everything in sight. GiantSnowman 13:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
20. Support Nice and competent person. Good luck! Vogone (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
21. Support I believe TCN will be a net positive for the project. An indiscretion-or-two years ago doesn't affect my judgement as the edits since far outweigh them. Best of luck! —  dainomite   15:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
22. Support per Dainomite. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
23. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Regarding the answer to question 6, I am a little disappointed that TCN7JM did not declare this up front. However the infractions were a long time ago, and more recent contributions have been good. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
24. Support I think it incredibly unfair to consider a users action that took place 2 years ago when considering whether they are admin material or not. If said disputes had taken place say January this year then naturally I would not be in support of this nomination, but 2011? Ancient history is not at all a reflection of what kind of editor this candidate is now and it's blatantly unfair to think that it is. --LemonTwinkle 00:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
25. Support - Good job as an admin on Wikidata, and seems to have the relevant experience here to use the tools effectively here as well. Some of the opposes below are quite ridiculous - an edit of immature vandalism two years ago has little bearing on his ability to hold the mop now. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
26. Support because the opposes are WTF: saying you wish to help out by blocking vandals is a power trip?? Wincent77 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

    You do realize only 1 person said that, right? The rest raise some serious questions about maturity and core policy knowledge. Mr.Z-man 02:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

27. Support. I have worked closely with this user in the past few months, and he's the real deal. With a little help he was able to learn advance his editing skills very quickly, and he has proven to be an excellent admin on Wikidata. I am confident that with my past experiences with him and with his experience on Wikidata he would be able to become one of Wikipedia's best admins if promoted. He's put in enough effort since his early days to unquestionably illustrate that he's no vandal anymore. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
28. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
29. Support Rzuwig^► 09:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
30. Support You look quite capable, especially because admin rights at Wikidata show that you're more experienced with Mediawiki sysop userrights than most RFA candidates. Opposes aren't helpful, especially because vandalism from a new account is completely irrelevant unless the account's still new when it's at RFA, and because it look like you (gasp!) aren't someone who's going to abuse the BLP policy by placing it above everything else. We need admins who realise that it's not a trump card. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
31. Support - a difficult one given some of the issues raised, but given your experience on Wikidata I am moved to support you. James^x12345 16:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - one mistake years ago is not a reason IMO to torpedo someone. A quick audit of edit history warrants this support. -- Tawker (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Using a baseball analogy for the candidate: first ballot admissions to the Hall of Fame are rare. Keep up the good work and give it another try down the road in the event this first effort crashes. That said: grave misgivings about the maturity level of the candidate. Junior High School-caliber blanking-and-vandalism, followed by repeat vandalism to Rasheed Wallace less than two years ago. Yeah, we all make mistakes and every one of us have probably made poorly considered edits. But still: this is neither witty nor clever nor intelligent vandalism, this is 8th Grader With a Computer level stuff... Moreover, barely a year of Very Active Wikipedian status, per THIS, which strikes me as insufficient tenure in this particular instance. I'm myself saying WP:NOTYET and will be looking for about two more years of serious, unproblematic editing behavior. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - per Carrite; serious indications of lack of maturity for adminship. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Maturity & judgement concerns. Following the answer to Q3, a little more digging reveals a tendency to become involved in fairly petty, tit-for-tat disputes that really have no place in an Administrator's mindset. In this failed reference to ANI [1] the candidate was following up on a series of edits aimed at user HiLo48. In this WP:RFA page from mid-May [2] as well as the HiLo48 dispute there is another discussion where the candidate has entered into a personalised dispute with another editor who holds a view with which the candidate does not agree. One choice remark they make is: "Those who do not write content and are only here to comment on boards should not be here at all. Most sysops, (name redacted), are content writers, mind you." The first part of that statement is illegitimate. Any good-faith editor may comment on boards and an Admin. holding a view that a particular type of editor should not be allowed to offer their views anywhere they wish is intolerable. The second part is factually debatable. For these reasons and with the benefit of the evidence available, the candidate is not ready to be trusted. Leaky Caldron 15:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   The statement is legitimate per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. The purpose of the comment boards is providing a foundation for effective collaboration, not for soapboxing, personal amusement or social networking. It is the same as your own statement about "any good-faith editor" in which you excluded such people yourself! We assume good faith; that an editor is not here just to comment on boards. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose The response to Q3 worries me as evidence that the candidate does not understand a central Wikipedia policy. There is no such thing as an "invalid" reason to remove a non-BLP PROD tag. Anyone may contest a PROD, with or without comment, for any reason or lack thereof. The policy is clear on that. That it somehow ended up on ANI is doubly worrying. It should have ended up in AFD, if anywhere. I see in the exchange here that the candidate continued to argue with the editor that contested the PROD, incorrectly demanding that they must provide a "valid" reason when the policy explicitly states they have no obligation to do so. Had TCN7JM ended his response here with "...but of course now I know that I was thoroughly wrong and I've learned how PROD works" it would be an entirely different thing. I'm sure I made the same mistake at some point before I "got it" as well. But the escalation of a dispute over the lack of knowledge of important policies doesn't bode well for their ability to enforce those policies as a sysop. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - per Carrite and Leaky Caldron, serious concerns of lack of maturity. In addition, like FreeRangeFrog I find the answer to Q3 very worrisome. --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC) PS: Re Q5: I was baffled to actually see that remark in the Miley Cyrus article. The reference at the end of the sentence did not support the statement at all, so I have removed it. Whomever inserted it was violating our BLP guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I am worried about the maturity of this candidate and their ability to act neutrally, per concerns raised by Carrite, Leaky Caldron, FreeRangeFrog & Miniapolis. ETA: And the answers to Q5 suggest a serious lack of understanding of the BLP policy. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I'm concerned with some of the answers. In the case of Q3, while the user who de-prodded it was making some questionable de-prods, this one in particular seems fine and as the user suggested, it was merged instead of deleted. The answer to Q5 is more concerning though. Wikipedia policy is clear that any material needs a source if challenged, especially contentious material in BLPs. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is an obvious BLP vio. BLP clearly states "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" Mr.Z-man 17:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   I would also add, based on further answers, that the removal of BLP violations is specifically exempt from 3RR. Regardless of whether you intend to work in the area or not, this isn't really a difficult situation. Even if it wasn't a BLP, using a lack of sources as proof of something basically flies in the face of core content policies. WP:V is pretty clear on that. Mr.Z-man 23:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   • sigh*...yeah. I was right the first time before I made the switcharoo, eh. I dun goofed. Oh well. I'd still like to see how this plays out. I'm eager to see what other advice others have for me as an editor so that a further request could possibly pass. TCN7JM 02:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

8. Oppose Per Answer 5. Will communicate to you directly TCN7J on this. Do also read BLPEDIT to understand one perspective you might have missed. Regards. Wifione ^Message 18:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
9. Oppose He wasn't 100% wrong on those two things in Q3, but it's extraordinary how long he kept on, especially in the April Fools RfA. When two people need to have the last word, it's going to run and run. The tone was too confrontational, too, imo. (Minor detail: I might have been more willing to go hunting for mitigating circumstances if you didn't use a form of signature that thwarts attemps to locate your postings on talk pages by doing ^F searches on your username.) --Stfg (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   Which signature do you mean? At least the current one doesn't thwart anything. Vogone (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   ^F for TCN7JM doesn't locate his signature for his acceptance of the nomination, nor anything at all on the April Fool RfA. At least, not on IE8. I wonder if it's browser-dependent? --Stfg (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   It works for me here using a recent version of Firefox. I don't think it's fair to use that as an oppose reason at all, since it says nothing about his character, especially given that this wasn't deliberate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   It isn't an oppose reason, it's advice. That's why I put it small and commented "minor detail". But to avoid doubt, I've put a line through it. My oppose reason is the one in normal size. --Stfg (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

10. Oppose - I'm not real happy with how things were handled at User talk:TCN7JM/Archive 5#Please slow down. I read a minor issue getting escalated to the point of conflict. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
11. I like the idea of recruiting a former vandal into the admin corps, we haven't done that in a long while (we rarely ever turn vandals into good editors). Kudos for turning this account round rather than going through cleanstart. But I am uncomfortable with you having the deletion buttons yet, and per the examples above a bit more diplomacy wouldn't go amiss. I don't see the point of asking questions about policy knowledge in an RFA, what really matters is whether the candidate's edits and unprompted answers show that understanding, per the examples above I'm seeing someone who doesn't fully appreciate BLP and would be too heavy on the deletion button. I'd add this overhasty A3 tag (admins only I'm afraid). There is a reason why the instructions at newpage patrol are not to tag new articles as A1 or A3 in their first few minutes, the newbies who create them need time for a second edit. My advice would be a little more caution re deletion tagging, I recommend a philosophy of "if in doubt - categorise!". Also when you get into disputes with people, take a few minutes to reread the relevant policy and make sure you are in line with it. Then try to come up with a solution that meets both your concerns and theirs. Thanks for volunteering and hope to see you here again in a few months. ϢereSpielChequers 06:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I have the same maturity concerns as Carrite et al. That said, it's an impressive turnaround to go from ex-vandal to serious admin candidacy - well done, and keep up the good work! Hope to support in the future, but I can't this time around. — sparklism ^hey! 09:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose. We need admins who can remain calm even when provoked, and are willing to patiently explain things in a friendly even when interactions get frustrating. If you consistently exhibit these qualities, I might support in 6 months. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Not so much for the vandalism, but for not having the good sense to mention it up front. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

    I find it unreasonable to oppose a candidate because they don't mention a single vandalism edit. Also this is one thing is dislike about the RfA process, how does not mentioning one edit show the candidate will be a bad administrator who will mess up at every turn and misuse their access? John F. Lewis (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

15. Oppose Frankly the two-year old vandalism doesn't concern me, but the answer to Q5 and some of TCN7JM's discussions with other editors that went a bit too long/were unnecessarily confrontational (eg, here and here) make me believe that some more experience would be helpful. Abecedare (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
16. Oppose Mostly per Carrite. Maturity issues. Widr (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
17. Oppose - First I want to commend TCN7JM for all his good work at WP. I also commend him for progressing from a vandal to a highly productive contributor. That's not a transition a lot of vandals make. So as someone who patrols vandalism, I highly commend TCN for that. At the same time, I agree with others who have stated concerns regarding maturity and consistency in TCN's demeanor and judgement. Also, as others have mentioned, TCN's answers to some of the questions, such as the ones relevant to 3RR and the Miley Cyrus BLP, show that TCN has yet to fully assimilate the policies and procedures. I also think that TCN has the potential to be an acceptable candidate at some future time if they continue with their good work on WP. I hope that if this application is not successful that TCN will use it as a springboard for further accomplishments. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Carrite. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC).

    Answer to Q#1 "The areas of adminship I feel I would be greatest at helping with are blocking vandals...". Sounds like a power trip. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC).

    Explain how it sounds like one and also how this relates to the candidates competency. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

19. Oppose Relatively short period of activity and I share the aforementioned maturity concerns Jebus989^✰ 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
20. Oppose I agree with all of the comments about maturity. This, for me, is exemplified by the tone and language used in this reply to an earlier oppose. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

    I see my attempt to alleviate my own mood was misconstrued as immaturity. TCN7JM 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

    This is another perfect example of what I mean. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

    I do not understand. How was my reply to your oppose comment immature in tone? TCN7JM 19:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

    I would also like to know how TCN's responses so far show a lack of maturity. So far, all I can see are people trying to make reasons to oppose the candidate because of a point brought up. Which so far seems to be getting responses and making them sound immature with no real reasoning. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

    Hi John. I linked to a specific example of a reply that the candidate made which I found to have an immature tone and nature. After raising that point, instead of asking me to elaborate on my !vote, the candidate made a sharp, sarcastic comment accusing me of not understanding the situation. To be a successful admin, someone needs to be able to discuss disagreements in an open and diplomatic may. All the candidate did was – to paraphrase – say "you're wrong!" and to get my back up. If the candidate behaves like this during his own RFA, under such intense scrutiny, what will he behave like when he's out on the expanses of the Wikipedian planes? — Fly by Night (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

    Both of your examples were absurd and the candidate was quite correct in identifying them as such. I can't detect any sarcasm in what the candidate said. You certainly should not, to use your own words, get your back up because someone tells you that you are wrong. James500 (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

    Hi James. It seems that you do not agree with my opinion. That does not make my example absurd, it does not mean I am wrong. It simply means that you do not agree. Remember that an admin has to deal with people other than you and with people who have different opinion to you. This is a discussion. I've made my point. I'm sorry you disagree, but that's life. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

    Your point that admins have to deal with differing opinions is well stated and well taken. However, I think it is unfair for you to classify the candidate as immature based on the examples you have provided so far. I see nothing immature about the first quote and it is not hard to imagine why the candidate might have been a little exasperated by your using it as an example in your oppose. Of course, that is just my opinion and you are free to disagree with it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

21. Oppose per Carrite and Leaky Cauldron. I would like to see a good year of solid, level headed editing before another RFA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Carrite and Leaky Cauldron. As someone who has reverted a vandal or two, I find it sticks in my craw a bit to make an admitted former vandal an admin. Had the candidate 'fessed up at the start of this Rfa, well maybe, but the past had to be dug up and presented here. I will go so far as to thank the candidate for the subsequent editing. At least a year more of active and clean work and I could well reconsider. Jusdafax 00:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
23. Oppose - There are maturity and judgment issues that force me to oppose for now. The fact that the user knew he had vandalized in the not-so-distant past and knew that this would likely come up here, yet he did not declare this outright makes me question his judgment. It seems that at times the user overreacts, and I would be more comfortable if the user waited another year or two before seeking the tools. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
24. Oppose - Per Carrite and LC, et.al. A good year of level-headed experience would be a plus for another run. Intothatdarkness 18:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
25. Oppose I am not deeply concerned about a brief period of admitted and repented vandalism two years ago. And I am not concerned about the alleged immaturity; we all start out immature, and all attain maturity. Hopefully. But I am deeply concerned about an apparent lack of understanding as shown in A5, which I feel precludes consideration for the admin responsibility at this time. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
26. Oppose - I agree with ϢereSpielChequers. However, I would like to encourage you to try again in 6-12 months and wish you congratulations on your good job as an admin on Wikidata. - tucoxn\^talk 02:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
27. Sigh. Events in the distant past give me pause but can be forgiven. Some answers read a bit wrong. I need to see more deliberation and caution. Glrx (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
28. Oppose Though I believe that some experience will go a long way should you try again in the future. m.o.p 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
29. I have to Oppose, sorry (but with moral support for adminship sometime in the future) because of the same concerns that a number of people have voiced. I'm seeing the same touches of immaturity and a bit too much confrontation and belligerence in discussions - it's only occasional, but it's too much for an admin, and it's enough to make me think some more time and experience, and a bit more of the mellowing that comes with it, is needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

    Oh, and a suggestion for next time - I think it would be to your advantage to own up to your early vandalism episode right up-front, rather than waiting for someone to call you out on it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now I can overlook inexperience (since I didn't realize until I had the mop how much I could do without it), but the candidate's maturity and ability to be impartial (evidenced by this in June, when they defended interference to a requested copyedit by a fellow WP:HWY member) are concerns. Newbie mistakes are one thing; we all make 'em. Vandalism in the (recent-enough) editing history of a candidate is something else again. Miniapolis 13:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   I don't understand this one. He was supposed to be impartial when he believed that a copyedit of the article was introducing errors into it? --Rschen7754 17:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   No. The lack of impartiality was in defending a fellow WP:HWY member for removing alt text from images. I'm not vision-impaired (not yet, anyway), but it seemed strange to revert improvements to an article and even stranger to defend those reversions. Miniapolis 21:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

2. Moral support From scanning through the comments on this page, the candidate has acknowledged the need to to brush up (no admin pun intended) on things in a few areas before next time. Keep at it! -- Trevj (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
3. I believe that TCN7JM would be a fantastic candidate for adminship in another 6-12 months. For now, my advice to him is to keep up the good work. After all the concerns have been alleviated, I can almost guarantee a support on his second go. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 05:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Two years is a long time. That being said, there are some concerns which the opposers have brought up which are still relevant. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 16:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Neutral. This RfA has shown that TCN still has some to learn, but he means well and is a good editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I'm not going to pile on with an oppose here, but some of the answers to the questions give me pause, and I'm particularly concerned with the issues mentioned by WereSpielChequers. I'm heartened by the admission of earlier vandalism (once mentioned by Carrite) but this may demonstrate some unresolved issues of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
7. I cannot quite support, but I want to offer you moral support, because I really believe that you can work to establish the trust of the community going forward, and I have every reason to believe that you are becoming a valuable editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
8. I think that Q5 is a little bit of a trap, but he still mostly got it right (at least at first), it really depends on if the line was well sourced or not. Since it clearly turned into a contentious claim during the scenario (if it wasn't already), it would require a source despite his later assertion otherwise, and his reliance of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" logic isn't such a great call. This may be a consequence of the main topic areas that he's edited in, both baseball and gazetteer type articles are firmly in the realm of "inherent notability" which means that most of the articles are short and uncontroversial, with almost no sourcing requirements, and with a high level of technical data. A tour of duty in dispute resolution or in a more controversial topic area might be some good experience. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.