Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

TenPoundHammer

[edit]

Voice your opinion (talk page) (50/33/3) final Andre (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) - Self-nomination, inspired by this comment left by User:Edison on my talk page. I was previously nominated in May by User:Whstchy, but my previous nomination was pretty much split between opposition and support, in part due to some comments towards a user who had attacked me. I feel that since then I have improved on my reaction to attack by other users, and I also think that I have improved overall in my editing skills (for instance, I now use the {{cite web}} tag when making references). Overall, I feel that I have sufficient experience as an editor to handle adminship.Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Primarily, I intend to work on fighting vandalism on Wikipedia pages. I recently installed WP:TW which makes my job much easier as a vandal-fighter. Sometimes, however, people keep on vandalising pages, which means that said vandalism has to be repeatedly reverted. Currently, I'm only able to put user-warning templates on user talk pages, or report that a certain user is being malicious, but as an admin, I would have the ability to block said malicious users -- but only if it's necessary. I would never use a block simply to gain control.
I often tag articles for speedy deletion if they meet any criteria for speedy deletion. (Just to be safe, I make sure to research an article's content first.) As an admin, I could actually delete said pages. I would also be able to more easily determine if a page has been deleted before; in addition, I could salt or undelete a page if either action is called for.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Some of my most major edits have been to the pages of country music artists. I took the time to completely overhaul the pages of Trace Adkins, Bellamy Brothers, Confederate Railroad, Diamond Rio, Joe Diffie, Clinton Gregory, Pirates of the Mississippi, Kevin Sharp (country music), and Sixwire. I rewrote each of those pages from scratch, adding as many references as I could. Sixwire had been tagged with {{notability}} for a long time before I rewrote it; also, Confederate Railroad, Bellamy Brothers, Kevin Sharp, and Pirates of the Mississippi were all copyvios before I rewrote them.
My other major contributions have been to several mall pages, including Ashtabula Mall, Dutchess Mall, Great Lakes Crossing, Indian Mall, Laurel Park Place, and Universal Mall. For each of those pages, I added substantial information and references to establish the notability of each mall. Prior to my edits, Ashtabula Mall looked like a six-year-old typed it, while the other mall pages (save for Universal) were all stub-class before my expansions of them.
User:TenPoundHammer/Pages_I_created contains a complete list of all the pages that I have created or made significant improvements to on Wikipedia. As the list indicates, I have been very busy creating new articles on notable country music artists, notable shopping centers, and whatever else. I emphasize the word notable here, as I am quite familiar with notability criteria and what Wikipedia is not -- I don't create articles just to create articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes. Recently, User:Nathaniel B. Heraniaos gave me some flak over this deletion discussion, which other users agreed was a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, although he insisted otherwise. Said user also made several attacks in the discussion of the deletion, in addition to undoing my non-admin closure of the discussion (it was an obvious snowball keep). I rationally discussed the matter on his talk page, and he seems to have calmed down now.
Also, User:Jfol2258 was repeatedly making malicious, possibly defamatory edits to Billy Ray Cyrus and Roberto Baggio. I reverted said edits, only for him to undo them all -- several times, in fact. (Note: I didn't do all the vandalism reverting myself; other users reverted too.) This particular user also left nasty comments in his edit summaries (see this edit and this edit). I reported this user, and he has been blocked for his constant disruption of Wikipedia.
Optional question from Wikihermit
4. Could you explain why you didn't include an edit summary or mark it as minor on this recent edit?
A: My mistake. I should have marked that as minor too. Sometimes, if I'm just correcting a typo, I leave the edit summary blank and mark the edit as minor. I was doing a lot of heavy editing on that page, and I guess I just forgot that one.
Optional question from DGG (talk)
5 If in a AfD the majority of established editors had supported a position you personally disagree with, but with arguments based on policy, how would you close?
A: If the editors' votes are based on policy, and my opinion contradicts theirs, I'll close it per the consensus, even if I don't agree with said consensus. A majority vote is a majority vote, and I have no problem accepting consensus contrary to my own personal opinion.
Optional from Navou banter
6. Is your password strong as defined by no dictionary words and "sufficiently long, random, or otherwise producible only by the user who chose it, such that successfully guessing it will require too long a time".
A: Not yet, as I've never had problems with passwords before... but if I gain adminship, changing to a better password might be a good idea! I've taken the time now to change my password to a much stronger one. Again, I've never had any problems with simple passwords before, but if I pass adminship here (or later on down the road), I'll surely want to have a hard to crack password.
7. While you say that your primary work will be "fighting vandalism", it seems to me that a significant portion of those commenting here know you through your work at AFD. Could you please elaborate on your role there, and how it might change if you receive adminship? Thank you VanTucky (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: In AfD, I plan to delete any article that other users think needs deletion, after carefully weighing their rationale for deletion (see question 5). In addition, I'll work to close discussions as necessary (primarily WP:SNOW cases). I will also continue to mark pages for AfD if I think they need a deletion, and mark for speedy if they need to be speedily deleted. Admittedly, I have been far too trigger happy with the AfD and speedies, and from now on I'll exercise more caution before even tagging an article, much less doing the deletion work myself. And yes, I will continue to research an article's topic before I click any of those wonderful Twinkle buttons...
Optional from Navou banter
8 Follow up on Q5 and some points in below discussion, somethings I'll need clarification on as I consider support.
8.1Could you briefly explain the relationship between voting and consensus generating discussion (or difference)?
This is somewhat confusing for me, but from the little bits I do understand, I see it as follows: If a page needs to be changed (edited, merged, deleted, etc.), then a simple vote would not be a good idea -- if 12 people vote for "A" and 4 vote for "B", then a majority rule would say go for option "A". However, if all the votes for option "A" have poor arguments (stuff like WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, etc.), whereas all the "B" votes have solid reasoning, then going with option "B" would probably be a better idea. This is probably a crappy answer, as the consensus thing is often over my head (unless it's really obvious consensus).
8.2 Would you close a deletion discussion that you have personally participated in, or have had strong feelings about, lacking objectivity?
Most likely not, unless a.) I started the discussion myself and withdrew, or b.) another user requests a closure. I don't really understand the "objectivity" part of your question.
8.3 Editors in the objection have raised concern about past hostility, wikt:levity in deletion discussion, and quickness to respond. Do you feel you can address these so that you will not be hostile, be more detailed in closing summery, and deletion/keep rationale, and measured responses during you interaction?
I feel that I can do that. I realize that my flurry of AfDs recently was a bit rash, and I will try to limit the number of deletions per day so that I don't end up shooting myself in the foot -- regardless of whether or not I pass adminship, I should go for quality over quantity.
8.4 Will you apply WP:SNOW as an extreme exception rather than a hard fast rule? Navou banter 12:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will. Other users have told me before that I'm too hasty with WP:SNOW, so I'll be more careful there from now on. I'll make sure to use WP:SNOW closures only when a snowball closure is requested, or if the discussion has been open for several days with an obvious consensus (again, consensus is kind of over my head, but if everybody is pretty much giving the same reason for their vote, then that would be a pretty obvious snowball).

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. I think you've improved enough since last time. Go for it! Giggy UCP 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support Already thought you were! this will just correct my oversight. I run into you a lot on AfD's and you are always rational and well spoken. Your edits appear to be well rounded, I can't see any issues myself. Trusilver 01:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Does great work with retail and country music related pages, would make a great admin --Caldorwards4 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. When I first started commenting on AfDs, I saw TenPoundHammer there so many times I thought he already was an admin until I checked List of Admininstrators. I have since seen him on AfD many, many times and his comments usually show that he has an excellent handle on policy. His edit summary usage is concerning, especially for an editor with that much experience. According to his first RfA he said he had set his preferences to warn him if he left the edit summary blank, and that was on May 21st. Still, 3000+ edits in one month shows a considerable amount of dedication. Only 8 reports to AIV isn't great for someone whose primary goal is fighting vandalism, but I only have 5 and I'm requesting adminship now also. Overall, I see a trustworthy editor who would make great use of the tools. Useight 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support Good editor, but needs to use edit summaries more! Otherwise, I have no problems. ~ Wikihermit 02:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Would make a very solid admin. CIreland 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems here. Would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support His answers to the questions might not have the best in Rfa history, but his work is really impressive. --Hirohisat Talk 04:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jaranda wat's sup 05:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no obligation to leave a rationale behind an RfA decision. Actually, if you look back at RfAs from a few years ago (2004-2005) it looks like this format (just a number and a sig) was the most common way of leaving a comment. WaltonOne 15:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support looks good to me, congrats on getting my first support vote :P Dureo 10:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC) changed to oppose, sorry Dureo 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Changed to moral support. Support, like before. This user combines workhorse qualities with a thoughtful general approach. His edit summary usage is still beyond the pale, so let me add once more that anyone who opposes based on something as stupid as that (removed personal attacks, possible OR). Good luck. —AldeBaer (c) 10:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not changing my support to abstention, neutral, or oppose - but I feel I have to change it to moral support at this point. It's not about any big deal-breaker, but about the abundance of smaller points made by various people. Zeibura's diff below was rather the occasion than the cause for this change of heart. Sorry for this, TPH, please don't feel discouraged. Keep up the good work, listen to the various concerns brought up in this RfA and definitely try again in 2 or 3 months. —AldeBaer (c) 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I have reviewed many of his recent edits with particular attention to talk pages. In my judgment, he has improved since his first RfA and should now be entrusted with the tools. JodyB 12:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I thought he was an admin already! Blueboy96 13:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support 'bout time he has the godly buttons. —Anas talk? 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WAIN :) — Rlest 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. No problems. WaltonOne 15:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support diffs in the past RFA just don't convince me the candidate is someone terribly likely to abuse admin tools. He may not be the most civil editor in the world, I'm not either, but he seems to comment on the content not the contributer... which is a good sign. --W.marsh 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I nominated him last time, feel he should still get it. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, effective editor who isn't likely to abuse the tools. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Per AFD interactions Corpx 22:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as I did last time. I'm pleased with the improvements. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per excellent contibutions to AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will be a great asset to AfD. --Dark Falls talk 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but the current opposes to the RFA, especially the concerns by DGG and Husond is giving me a twinge of worry. --Dark Falls talk 06:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. No reason not to, this user has proven they deserve the tools. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 03:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support We need hammers sometimes. Go for it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. No real concerns here (although please, use edit summaries!) Carom 05:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Input at AfD shows clear understanding of policy. Tonality since last RfA shows the user has taken editors' criticism and made strides towards improvement. the_undertow talk 05:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I've seen him around a lot and he comes across as competent and committed. I have no reason to distrust him. --ROGER TALK 13:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Very good work on music articles and at AfD - is obviously working to improve edit summary count and there's no reason to distrust TPH. And since when did a little bit of levity become a bad thing? Sheesh. - eo 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - as per NeoFreak, It doesn't really matter that his RfA was just over 2 months ago and it might look like it was too soon but then so many things can happen in just 2 months.. Immaturity is not a concern here..Thats the lamest excuse (in my POV) anyone can give for opposing someone..--Cometstyles 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - TPH is a hard worker for the improvement of Wikipedia, and I think being given the admin tools would only result in more good work being done. You might want to consider a script that forces an edit summary though. CitiCat ♫ 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Holy crap, hell yeah! ~ Infrangible 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support My oppose from last time is cited below. But I feel the user has really worked to address the concerns from before. The comments I reviewed at AfD were less hasty, and I've seen no evidence of any recent incivility. Be careful not to bash people with that 10 pound hammer (and to put that in perspective, your standard hammer is a mere 16 oz and can do a tremendous amount of damage when wielded against someone), spend some time at WP:AIV before jumping too heavily into vandalism work, and continue to be responsive to constructive criticism (as you were after your previous RfA) and I think you'll do fine. --JayHenry 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - might give the deletion process the streamlining it desperately needs. Will (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per JayHenry - overall I think you'll be ok - just be careful to fully review articles before using the delete button. Addhoc 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support (edit conflict) - I've rethought the comments I gave in your last RfA, and, after some thought, changed my mind - I think it would be helpful to have an admin to "give the deletion process the streamlining it desperately needs" - just use careful with the delete button - but other than that, no concerns. Good luck! Tim{speak} 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: A good, thoughtful editor. To be honest, I'd be very interested to see evidence that edit summary usage has any correlation to quality admins, or that there really are people who take a half hour or more over before remarking on individual AfDs.  RGTraynor  23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support -- I've never seen his comments in AfD seem out of place, or poorly considered. I would trust this user with the tools. --Haemo 01:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I view this self-nominated candidate as competent enough to be an administrator. Power to those who desire it! New England (C) (H) 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as I did in the previous request. TPH has closed a lot of AFDs per the guidelines for non-admins. It's time to give him the latitude to exercise his good judgment for "delete" as well as "keep" conclusions. Shalom Hello 12:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - seems qualified. I like what I've seen of his work. - Philippe | Talk 18:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. We sometimes disagree at WP:AfD, but I never feel slighted. Bearian 19:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support; I've had the pleasure to cross his path often in AfD and on new page patrol. We don't always agree, but even the most (to my eyes) brusque of his moves is made with careful deliberation. I've been overly curt with other editors at times myself (wikistress gets to everyone), and I know how much work and dedication it takes. He's got it. — Coren (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support as I did last time; a great editor who has only improved further since his previous RfA. Krimpet 06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support User does solid work at AFDs; I don't see his speedy closes as a problem as they are not problematic and help decrease the backlog. Recurring dreams 02:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support the above. Acalamari 16:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I'll support this editor for adminship. Q8.1 right on the nail. I feel confident the editor can address issues brought up in this RFA and will be trustworthy with the tools. I believe the editor will use common sense inline with Wikipedia policy and guidelines to close deletion discussions. Answer to Q8.1 indicates the user has a grasping of consensus, however states not fully understanding. Consensus is a difficult concept for some, however, I am happy seeing that this editor was able to explain that individual arguments should be weighed to generate consensus. So, The first half of 8.1 indicates understanding. Navou banter 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support This user seems like he would make a good admin. -Lemonflashtalk 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support (from neutral) While the issues brought up by users such as Paxse made me apprehensive about my decision, I have come to the conclusion that you deserve the admin tools you desire for one very important reason (which seems not to have been mentioned so far). The ability to admit when you're wrong is something precious, something that many many admins lack entirely. If you're so arrogant, how is possible that you have been so gracious and accepting of the constructive criticisms proposed by users such as Paxse? I find the accusation that you are self-centered or power hungry to be outright slander. I myself am one touchy, self-assured bastard, and I get along great with you in AFD. Unlike so many admins, you have patently demonstrated that you have the ability to learn from your mistakes and take constructive criticism to heart. This proves to me that while your previous actions may have been hasty in many instances, you will continue to improve by leaps and bounds, and thus deserve administrative powers. VanTucky (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I support 10 Pound Hammer's RFA. He is a tireless Wikignome in AFDs, even frequently noting, by a nonadmin closure, the speedy closing of AFDs by admins, such as in the case of [[1], where the admin speedied the article but did not close the AFD. It is past time to give him the mop. Attaboy! Edison 04:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - I'm supporting. Good AFD work, Major improvments since last RFA, Experienced, Good edit count. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. The numbers this time make this nomination look a bit iffy, but I believe that Wikipedia would benefit from this editor as an administrator. --Fire Star 火星 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support "Let the Pile On commence!" Knows his stuff, prompt and polite. His opinions are his own and I do not believe they would interfere with his use of the mop. LessHeard vanU 19:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support In my experience, he's quite helpful.Supernerd 10 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Your last RfA failed only two months ago. Alot of concerns were raised by JayHenry and Husond about your poor and even hostile comments and edit summaries in AfD. Your low edit summary usage is still a concern as well. While I'm not one to lecture anyone about biting others I don't feel that you've matured enough in your decision making over the two month period to be granted the admin tools yet. From what I've seen of your interaction with difficult editors (a key admin skill) I don't yet trust you to be a source of resolution. NeoFreak 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The fact that you !voted on several AfD's within minutes of each shows you are too "jump into the deep end" and act first think second, see [2], [3]. Here are two other examples: [4], [5]. This comment left me a little worried as you suggested it be salted, it had only been re-created once and WP:SALT is reserved for repeatedly re-created articles, not just to help prevent it. Sorry if this is totally negative. Also this comment shows a real lack of policy knowledge, if an article fails WP:BAND, WP:COMPANY, WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:PORNBIO, WP:SCHOOL it does not qualify for speedy deletion and Pedro's comments.. Rlest 18:56,, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    Isn't it possible he just reads the AFD page and loads a few he's interested in after reading the articles and thinking about it, then is able to write comments kind of quickly because he's already read the discussion/article? Or any number of possible explanations. It seems like an assumption of faith to say he must be acting impulsively just based on timestamps. --W.marsh 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    W. Marsh is right. If I hit a bunch of AfD's real fast, chances are I've already read the articles over a period of time, and then went back to add my votes on them. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, sorry, per the exact concerns for which I opposed you on your first RfA: edit summaries, levity on WP:AFD and virtually no vandalfight. I see no improvements. Again, sorry. :-/ Húsönd 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not doing any vandal fighting isn't a reason to oppose someone Jaranda wat's sup 02:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Jaranda, but I think that's not only a reason but a strong reason to oppose, if TPH states that he intends to, and I quote, "primarily (...) work on fighting vandalism (...) [and] have the ability to block said malicious users". This would be alright if he were an active vandalfighter, but the lack of experience in countervandalism is worrisome as it may result in maladministered blocks. TPH has a mere 8 reports to WP:AIV. I don't think that's enough to prove that he's well aware of the conditions under which should a vandal be blocked. I would be glad to support TPH, but I just can't see him prepared at this time for the further responsibilities brought by access to the admin tools.--Húsönd 12:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, because of concerns raised about articles nominated for deletion on user's talk page. I am afraid that you may be too inclined to delete rather than improve articles, although I of course hope I am wrong. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously Kurt, you are disrupting wikipedia to make a point, keep doing that prima facie nonsense to all self-noms, and I will block you. Jaranda wat's sup 02:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean that his vote gets thrown out? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, are you both serious? Does this mean his vote gets thrown out? Wow. As for threatening to block someone for voicing a legit opinion on admin nomination and his personal standards and indicators thereof is a bad call indeed. Is it an immature and shallow way to say it? Yeah. That doesn't mean that the idea behind it is malicious or bogus. NeoFreak 03:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) It does however (the edits), appear to be disruption. I have seen this comment on multiple RFA's. So I must ask, why oppose based on only the fact of a self nomination. Why does a self nomination equate power hunger? Perhaps Kurt could go into a little more detail to explain this comment, because, the comment has left me... scratching my head. Regards, Navou 03:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prima facie" pretty much means obvious or self evident. So I would guess that Kurt Weber means just what he says: that he think self noms are an obvious sign of power hungry ambition and he thinks that is a poor enough quality in a potential admin that it will cause him to oppose that canidate on those grounds alone. I can't speak for him on the matter but the entire thing seems rather...prima facie... :) NeoFreak 03:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am asking Kurt to connect, or lay out what about self nomination is self evident. What elements of a self nomination are power hunger. Prima facie is not the lowest level the comment can be explained in. I am asking for a more detailed explanation of what is self evident. It would appear to me, and others judging by past comments, that although it may be self evident to Kurt, it is not so prima facie to all concerned. I believe, if Kurt wants this edit to have weight, it should be explained more throughly. Otherwise, in its current form, it is subject to other interpretations. Currently, it appears the edit is being intrepeted as disruption to make a point. Regards, Navou 04:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a number of discussions on his talk page and one on the RFA talk page archive. Probably best to just accept that it's his opinion, and carry on. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I am not misunderstood. Please know that I understand I can not compel his participation, however, if he is willing to discuss / explain his comment, I am willing to listen. I am still asking for an explanation. Thanks, Navou 06:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt waits for self-noms and opposes them on this basis. It's not new, and he's not going to change. There's really nothing to discuss. Leebo T/C 13:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this kind of attitude very troubling. What if someone decide to oppose every RFA by an American because they thought there are too many American admins already? Or every RFA by someone who identifies with a religion because they thought it made them unable to have a NPOV? I know it's a wild idea, but maybe applicants for sysop should be judged on an individual basis. CitiCat ♫ 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't agree with Kurt's reasoning, I'm disturbed by Jaranda's threat to block him. Let Kurt have his say and don't threaten him for casting a valid vote. Majoreditor 03:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is no more disturbing -- and no more specious -- than any of the other dozen hobby horses people use to bullet-vote Oppose. Great editor, superb vandalfighter, thoughtful, considerate, thousands of edits, years of experience ... but no, someone can't be "trusted" with being an admin because he falls under 80% edit summary threshold or has too many/too few edits in mainspace/talk pages/XfD or disagrees with the voter on a single one of the several questions.  RGTraynor  02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely if self-nominations are within the rules it cannot be legitimate to oppose a nomination on the grounds that it is a self-nomination? BTLizard 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, You use WP:SNOW a bit to readily, and it has been only two months since your last RfA wait a bit longer. Whispering 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I've been told by others that I use WP:SNOW too fast; I'm making sure to exercise more caution there from now on. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I appreciate this editor's commitment to building the encyclopedia. However, some of their recent decisions in closing AfDs seem rather unconsidered and even hasty, and the poor edit summary use would be more of a problem in an admin. These concerns make me unable to support adminship at present. Espresso Addict 19:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. - And this is very reluctant, but I have to be honest to myself, yourself and the community. I'm really sorry TenPound, and I honestly expected I'd be supporting before my review. Your reply to Kurt (above) of even users in good standing? was not good as it implied means you judge yourself as in good standing (which I find arrogant a bit self centered), but I'd have let that go The Does this mean that his vote gets thrown out? was even more concerning for various reasons including the !vote thing but also implied you were keen to make sure you did not have opposes - that's just my opinion but I feel uneasy about it. Your use of WP:SNOW is very hasty and I'm not sure haste when not backed up by evidence of consideration or at the least re-consideration by an admin is good. Mostly however I've seen your good work at AFD but I am not convinced the hostile (not a good word, but used previously) attitude has changed. I'm really trying to define this - I guess the simple answer is I see you as being too unilateral in the way you work to take on adminship at this moment. I'm really sorry - as I say I wanted to support based on interaction but I'm afraid I can't trust you to use the tools wisely at this moment, and that is what RFA is about. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  20:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I didn't intend for "even users in good standing?" to state a sense of arrogance towards my own contributions to Wikipedia -- it was meant as a generalization of any good natured Wikipedian who thinks himself or herself fit for adminship. I'm sorry if that comment came off as arrogant. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply TenPound - arrogant is too strong a word, I've reviewed it as above. Please do not take this with any prejudice. I really did review expecting to support, and I promise that when I comment it is not light heartedly. My oppose stands, but I wish you well on this RFA and should / if / when it passes use the buttons wisely. Thank you for your considered and measured response, which is certainly of admin quality. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As Husond. -- Y not? 01:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're Husond? --W.marsh 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He knows too much... Guards! Take him! -- Y not? 04:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I had a vaguely favorable impression of this editor, so I was thinking about supporting him, but hadn't looked into the WP:SNOW issue. Just now, there was an AfD for a Malaysian actress called Abby Abadi. TPH not only !voted "delete," but tagged her for A7. My Googling convinced me that she was probably a major actress in Malaysia, and that at the least editors familiar with Malaysia should have a chance to comment. Unfortunately, by then it was already nuked. He also tagged her TV series/movies, Gerak Khas, for A1, even though the stub had basic context. This experience confirms for me that Hammer is too hasty, whether it's speedy keeps or speedy deletes, so I must oppose. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC) [Now that the articles are bluelinked again, I think it's only fair to note that I've worked on them since, so the quality of TPH's tagging should not be judged by their current state. I still find, on reviewing TPH's recent AfD comments, a discomforting tendency towards "speedy" and "strong" deletes; I'd prefer him to be less constantly emphatic. --Groggy Dice T | C 05:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    Read WP:CSD again. The two cases you mention are, IMO, clear speedy deletion candidates - if you disagree feel free to put them on WP:DRV, but I'm 99% sure they would be full of "speedy endorse deletion" votes. Anyway, it's up to the admin to read the CSD template and make a decision - these seemed to all be good faith CSD tags. ugen64 06:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like I will be taking it to DRV. It could be argued that technically the Abadi article qualified for A7, since it doesn't explicitly claim that she is a popular or significant actress, but why BITE contributors who aren't aware that they should throw in some notability boilerplate? And even if she wasn't a popular actress, unless TPH is an expert on Malaysian popular culture, I'd still consider his A7 too quick. If the article's already on AfD, why not let those more familiar with the subject have a chance to render their judgment? As for Gerak Khas, how could its claim to be a "long running Malaysian television series" that became the basis for three films not be considered an assertion of notability? Even TPH didn't tag it for A7, but for A1. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Changed from neutral. My concerns, especially over snow issues have forced me to change from neutral. Jmlk17 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per Husond and Pedro, too much concern here for me to cast my hat anywhere else. Daniel 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose My first oppose in fact. I've also seen you around AfD and while I agree with your closes, I share the concerns of Groggy Dice above. I think you are too fast on the deletion trigger and don't think you should have the ability to delete articles or block users without checks and balances. For example, in one of your many current AfD's here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of action films: 1970s you have nominated 6 film lists for deletion. These articles were being written by two excellent contributors in good standing from the Film Wikiproject. You nominated the article for AfD nine minutes after it was created and while it was tagged with the {{underconstruction}} template.[6] This template is designed specifically to avoid deletion tagging while an article is being written while encouraging helpful edits. The fact that you feel no need to respect the template request indicates to me that you feel you personally know what belongs and what does not belong in this encyclopedia - before it is written. This sort of judgement call does not inspire my confidence in your ability to make careful and well considered decisions as an administrator. Your reasons for nominating for deletion were "a disaster waiting to happen" "Action film is purely OR" and "will become horribly unmanageable" none of which are valid reasons for deletion. Incidentally, Abby Abadi is a famous Malay actress who began her career as a singer[7], moved into television and most recently has been the female lead in several feature films.[8] She won most popular TV actress in 2000, 2001 and 2002 at the ABP-BH awards [9] Yeah, that's definately a clear speedy candidate. We don't need that sort of non-notable garbage in our encyclopedia. Do you know how many thousands of articles there are in Category:American actors and it's 8 sub categories? Me neither. Do you know how many articles there are in Category:Malaysian actors? Thirty four - and no sub cats. But they probably should all be deleted, right? Cheers, Paxse 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose You make way too many AFD nominations that are quick off the trigger. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil marriage in Israel or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical Numerology (2nd nomination). You need to start using tools other than deletion to improve Wikipedia when the problem with an article ISN'T a deletion issue, but a clean-up one. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, keep working on it, and maybe in a few months you'll have demonstrated that you've learned from your mistakes, not just possess the good sense to recognize them after they've been pointed out. That's a great thing, it demonstrates the wisdom to know you're wrong, but I'd like a more conclusive demonstration of a willingness to improve articles rather than delete them. FrozenPurpleCube 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Another fine example of a good editor well on the way to making a good admin, but who needs a little more time. In reviewing the comments above, as well as going through many of your AFDs, it does look as though you are a bit hasty to pull the trigger. While you appear to be addressing this, I would simply like to see a larger sample period to make that determination myself. Likewise, your responses regarding Kurt Weber are a bit troubling in light of the fact your last RFA ran into trouble because of one of your responses in an edit conflict. I don't think you have said anything out of line above, but in light of the fact that some research would have demonstrated that Kurt is himself a self-nom a while back, perhaps simply letting his comments stand on his own record would have been a more suitable way to deal with an editor who has a strongly held position which is frustrating many (he voted against my own RFA with exactly the same phrase), but well within his right to express... a virtual equivalent of "turn the other cheek".Hiberniantears 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Too worried over the technical count in the support/oppose lists (it may be important, but I think you can put your trust in Bureaucrats unless there is a good reason not to do so). There is nothing controversial about Jaranda's signature above, and there's really no point in updating the tally after one comment here. Recently withdrew 2 AfDs; please do more research before nominating. Set arbitrary criterion for "cruft", when there are plenty of articles for other Simpsons characters to allow for such info if it is sourced. Other AfD concerns. –Pomte 21:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 'Oppose In the last 24 hours, has initiated over 15 separate AfDs-- a mix of some very good nominations, a few very bad ones, and some that are debatable. At least two of them have been speedy keeps. [10], [11] I was reluctant to comment earlier on this because of often being on the opposite side of AfD debates. But the nomination of so many while at RfA is pending is beginning to look like trying to make a wholly unnecessary point about the activity as a worker at AfD, and seems to have been so ill-advised as to cast doubt on the present suitability as an admin. DGG (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but this isn't exactly giving him a benefit of a doubt here at all. To be quite honest, this user would by no means need to do anything to show that he's a prolific contributor to AfD; his contributions attest to it. In fact, I would even go so far as to say this is not out of the ordinary for him, and given the fact what WP:AFD would be at the fore-front of his mind during his RfA, it stands to reason that he would show increased activity there. I can understand concerns about the quality of some, for truth, to the quantity, especially as some kind of point he's trying to make is, frankly, a little silly. --Haemo 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry if it wasn't clear, but I tried to say that I appreciated and commended the fact that he participated frequently at Afd. A little more judgement, and I hope to say yes next time in a few months. DGG (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for the misunderstanding; I definitely understand that point of view. --Haemo 07:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose He's a hard working and well meaning contributor but TPH is way too quick on the draw with nominations for deletion in my view and with admin powers might cause a lot of contributing editors a lot of grief. For someone without admin powers he also seems to close a lot of AfDs early which also gives me pause for thought. I wish he'd just slow down a bit. This [[12]] AfD was closed by TPH two minutes after it opened after no discussion at all. Nick mallory 04:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment On the AFD in question, the article was speedy deleted by an admin. TPH merely made note of the fact and closed the AFD. The AFD now reflects the fact. It is a strong endorsement of the work effort and Wikignome productivity of 10 Pound Hammer that he currently follows around behind administrators and cleans up after them when they forget to close the AFD of an article they have speedied. It is a miscarriage of justice in the extreme to castigate HIM for that. Give him the mop.Edison 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Fair enough, but I'm still opposed because there are many instances of him being too quick off the mark. Nick mallory 05:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per the concerns of others, above, with apologies. I can tell that you're a dedicated editor and that you've put a lot of time into Wikipedia, and I do appreciate that. I'm not sure that some of the concerns raised in your recent RfA have been addressed -- while general civility concerns have lessened, they're far from being gone. Browsing contributions linked in this and the prior RfA, I've noticed a bit much of two tendencies: (1) the "piranha effect" I've seen in a lot of AfD-heavy contributors, leaping at the sight of blood in ways that have frequently brought pointed and popular criticism to the project, and (2) at the risk of sounding like a political hack, flip-flopping when confronted with diverging opinions, and more in the sense of nearly complete about faces than in the sort of way that might give me a feeling you'd had a change of heart (even in this very RfA, the discussion below with DarkFalls and AldeBaer). A bit hasty on SNOW, which gives me concerns over what happens when/if you get the delete button. I'm not sure about your claim to be active on vandal patrolling, as I don't recognize your name from that, and the past few days of your contribs don't seem to show that tendency -- I could be missing some, however, in which case please do point it out. Finally, no email set, and I'm one of the fogies who thinks that's an important route for users to be able to contact admins. Perhaps I'd reconsider, with time. Either way, I hope you stick around, on the whole I do feel that you're an asset, despite this opposition to your candidacy. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per pretty consistent concerns of those above, which reflected my impression from my relatively few visits to AfD. Not ready yet; maybe next time. Johnbod 12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Looking at some of the recent AFD nominations, I don't want this user to have the delete button yet. Needs to spend more time considering the cleanup tools and other deletion tools, plus spend more time on considering which tool is appropriate to use. While new page patrol can be the "firehose of crap", when a good article topic is started with a bad article the right answers are cleanup, tagging, and communicating with the creator, not deleting the article. He says above that "the consensus thing is often over my head" and "consensus is kind of over my head" (answers to 8.1 and 8.4), so he isn't ready to be an admin. When he grok's consensus, or at least believes he does, then he'll be ready. GRBerry 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose The questionable deletion tagging is a concern for me. Other than increasing minor edit summaries, I have no other issues. Be more careful in tagging and I will likely support next time. Captain panda 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. I do not trust this user with the "delete" button at this time. Neil ╦ 09:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose This user will be too quick to delete things without researching them first. This comment Does this mean that his vote gets thrown out? also doesn't sit well with me. T Rex | talk 12:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the sheer weight of new material coming through every day (much of it completely inappropriate) there simply isn't the time to research everything thoroughly. All the deletion processes are imperfect and we all make judgments there that we might make differently another day. --ROGER TALK 21:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose; I do not trust this user with the delete button. In addition to all the above, this is not patent nonsense, this is a good faith contribution, and labelling good faith contributions as "nonsense", even if they are redundant or unreferenced, is a sure way to dissuade good faith contributors. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. OpposeStrong Oppose Although I do not consider self-noms as prima facie evidence of wanting power rather than helping the project, it adds to other evidence that I see and read. Why couldn't TPH get someone to nominate him? The responding to each comment adds to that impression, as if TPH just wants this worse than anything. I'm concerned about the maturity level of this applicant. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to very strongly opposed based on this comment. The applicant's maturity is not only suspect, but is somewhat lacking. I didn't like it in his first RfA when he was just this side of canvassing. I don't like his trying to counter every argument. This applicant shouldn't have control of any admin buttons. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose At the moment cannot support as per the above arguments which make me reluctant to trust this user with the delete button. Davewild 07:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Per Husond, et al. Not careful enough; not delberate enough; not familiar with not only policies but the reasoning behind said policies. In short, hasty. Not ready for trusting with the buttons, particularly the delete and block buttons. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per DGG, especially. I also have seen a general pattern of over-hasty action from the candidate. I worry that he would not apply deliberative judgment in applying the CSDs in particular. He certainly needs to slow down a bit, and think more thoroughly before acting. Xoloz 15:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose candidate just doesn't seem ready yet. •Jim62sch• 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per concerns raised above, but it's the user's readyness to speedy delete without proper research, and statement that: "consensus is kind of over my head", that bother me most. ornis (t) 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Sorry must change to oppose, problems brought up by Husond and some others above, seems to be a bit to deletionistic for me also. Dureo 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Very Strong Oppose There are too many bad signs here. A self nomination, only two months after a failed effort. His reasons for wanting to be an admin are somewhat suspect. I sense a very strong lack of maturity here. A very bad idea to have this person as an admin, at least for the forseeable future.--Filll 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Need an explanation for this edit before I can support... I just don't see how calling another user's edits atrocious will help. If anything, it'll just escalate the issue. --Dark Falls talk 12:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to "keeping out of this"[reply]
TPH called 414ronald's grammar and spelling atrocious, not the edits themselves and it was absolutely not "over the top" (it could have been put more politely, but it was not even uncivil). TPH, you don't need to be too apologetic with people who hesitate to support because they are incapable or unwilling to understand what precisely is being said in a post. DarkFalls, how could giving another user feedback with regard to his/her writing "escalate" the issue? Do you mean 414ronald will now make more language errors than he did before? TPH's note was not related to vandalism or lack of civility or any misconduct, only to 414ronald's grammar and spelling. And before anyone tells me to stay calm: I am. —AldeBaer (c) 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for defending me -- I guess maybe it's better to be overly apologetic than unapologetic... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that the user wouldn't like his grammar to be called atrocious, and might take offense about it. AldeBaer, as a matter of fact, I understand exactly what was being said on that post. I have not assumed "malice", as stated in your link,(or I would have opposed) but just want a suitable explanation. Seeing as I got the explanation, there's no reason to oppose. --Dark Falls talk 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I like what I see for the most part, but the opposing side brings up some concerns. Jmlk17 23:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Changing to oppose. Jmlk17 04:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC) #Neutral Most of the work of Hammer that I have seen has been in Afd's, and his statement that most of his work will be "on fighting vandalism on Wikipedia pages" seems disingenuous. But I must say that his closure of debates that I have seen has been an enacting of the will of the community, in the best sense of that phrase. VanTucky (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC) #Withholding consideration I will not consider support until Q6 is addressed / fixed sufficiently. More information on how to fix this is found on WP:ADMIN#Becoming_an_administrator under the security heading. Its just safe practices. Best regards, Navou banter 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral – Reviewing your contributions and the concerns of other contributors, I am slightly concerned with your practices regarding AfD. It seems you're doing AfD just to do AfD, just to get your name out there, and you're trying to do it as quickly as possible. None of the above are acceptable reasons to participate in the AfD process. I'm also slightly upset by your apparent (and self-admitted) nonunderstanding of consensus. I may be mistaken, but I am concerned, and I cannot support at this time. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I'm impressed by your contributions, and I'm sure that you'd use most of the tools responsibly, but the concerns of others that you are quick to delete is somewhat of a concern, and I can't shake it. I suggest that you work tagging things for CSD for a while - noting the concerns which new editors will bring to you once you tag something of theirs may give you some more experience with which to judge whether an occasion is worthy of a light tap, or a ten-pound hammer. ;) Nihiltres(t.l) 14:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I really wanted to support you when you popped up on RfA again, as I knew you'd show up. I supported you the first time around and I really, really regret not being able to do so again. I like you as an editor, I've run across you many, many times in AfD's and by and large I like what I see. However I was one of the editors who pointed out that you've become rather hasty with SNOW closures - and that was last week. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you plan to tone down the hasty decisions but unfortunately I require a bit more to show that you really will implement this change instead of just planning to implement the change. My best advise would be "Slow down, friend" - be a little more deliberate with your actions here on Wikipedia. Adminship is no big deal but I cannot support admins with itchy trigger fingers. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_2&oldid=1149967858"