Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 6

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

TenPoundHammer

Final (102/54/18); ended at 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (withdrawn by candidate). PeterSymonds (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) - TenPoundHammer is one of the most productive editors on Wikipedia who is not currently an admin. With over 20,000 edits and over two and a half years' participation in the project, many have mistaken him (and his otters) for being an admin already, as he works in a number of different fields with competence and seems to have a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For a long time he has been one of the most regular participants in WP:AFD and other WP:XFD discussions, and I find that he makes good judgements about what to do in these (and has a good balance between deletionism and inclusionism with the confidence to make plausible arguments). He is also a major article contributor, and has created a huge number of articles about notable subjects that were previously missing, and really does well in his major field of interest, country music (in general TenPoundHammer does a lot for Wikipedia's music-related articles of all kinds). Not only that, but he has made major improvements to existing articles, and has contributed fifteen WP:DYK entries as well as two WP:GA passes. I've only ever seen him be civil, rational, calm and collected in discussions, and he appears to be a good communicator with other users. I can only see him excelling in any area of Wikipedia he chooses to use the admin tools on, including deletion of all kinds, intervention against vandalism, protecting pages when necessary, tackling issues at the administrators' noticeboard and updating the Did You Know section. I have confidence that he'd be a net benefit to Wikipedia as an admin, and it's been over four months since his last RfA, which did not succeed by just a narrow margin. I believe it's time to give him the tools. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ~~The otters and I accept. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)~~ The otters and I withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The work I plan to participate in the most is deletion work. I hang around most of the XfDs daily (primarily AfD), so I tend to catch just about everything that goes on there. Also, by surfing around at random, I tend to run into things that look like they might be deletion-worthy. I also try to help cut down the backlog as best I can by a.) tagging AfD'd articles for speedy if they fit (for instance, if something's an obvious hoax, I tag it as G3), b.) closing snowball keeps and withdrawn nominations, and c.) closing other discussions where an admin has deleted the page but forgotten to close. I feel that overall, I am more than familiar enough with the deletion process to know when to prod, when to AfD, and when to speedy. Occasionally I might misfire, but I've seen even established admins make mistakes before, so I'm not too worried there.

I also plan to do some vandal fighting. Although I'm not as experienced there as I am in deletion discussions, I have made several reports to AIV and UAA, and I watch the process closely, to see when a temporary or indefinite block is called for, or if someone else is unfairly getting reported for good-faith edits (for instance, just adding trivia isn't per se vandalism, and doesn't call for a block). Furthermore, I feel that I'm experienced enough to know when to call for a block or just a discussion.

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

A: Probably my best contributions are Diamond Rio and Walden Galleria, both of which I promoted to GA. I am especially proud of these because I did 99.9% of the prose myself. Both of these articles were so bad that I literally rewrote them from scratch.

Also, I have saved several articles from deletion by doing some Heymann work; specifically, Sibley's Shoes, Don't You Know You're Beautiful, Mark Germino, Lil' Wil, Povertyneck Hillbillies, Dutchess Mall, Indian Mall, Mall of Georgia, Northway Mall, and Wenatchee Valley Mall. Furthermore, I have done major expansion work on Doug Stone (singer), Collin Raye, Ricochet (band), Jeffrey Steele and many others. Most of these latter pages were stubs and/or copyvios until I fixed them.

This page also has a list of the literally hundreds and hundreds of pages that I have created, and this page is a list of my other significant improvements. As of this writing, I have 14 DYKs and a 15th currently in the queue. Although my areas of expertise are country music and shopping malls (as evidenced by my two GAs), but I have been trying to expand my repertoire a bit.

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: Just last week, I got attacked by an editor for calling for a "strong delete" on a vanity page (see here). I calmly informed the user of WP:N and WP:V, and politely asked them to calm down instead of attacking me. Also, another user accused me of bad faith for removing some info from Mad (magazine) and Al Jaffee until I informed him (politely) that I was simply removing unsourced original research. There have been a few other very minor disputes (such as a possibly POINTy nomination for "R" Is for Ricochet), but I always try to assume good faith, even if someone attacks me, and I never attack back. Whenever possible, I try to talk problems over with the user and come up with a compromise; if unable to compromise, I usually ask the opinion of another editor to help me mediate.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: That's a tough one. I have seen some ex-vandals become helpful contributors before, but never so extreme as that. Depending on the signal-to-noise ratio, I might give a good-faith unblock and see if they really do live up to their word and start contributing positively (and re-block if they return to vandalism). If they've made a ton of vandalism and only one good edit, though, I'd probably let the block stay.

Optional might-as-well-ask-you question from CountyLemonade

5. Cool-down blocks - what's your stand?

A: WP:CDB says "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should never be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." Despite having never been on either end of a cool-down block, I think I would have to agree. I know I'd only get ticked if I were blocked just for "cooling down" purposes.

Optional question from Townlake:

6. Do you believe "speedy delete per IAR" is an appropriate argument for speedy deletion? Or was this just a funny? Would you ever invoke IAR in AfD discussions as an administrator?

A. I have seen other admins use IAR as a speedy criterion before, but only in special cases like that one right there. In that case, it was a song by a red linked act, and I saw no reason to spend five whole days dragging it through AfD. I couldn't imagine any editor calling for a "keep" for that song, so I suggested that it be speedily deleted. Should I become admin, I would only use IAR on very rare occasions. (For instance, if there's a page on an artist and their album, and the artist meets A7 and gets zapped, wouldn't it then make sense to speedily delete the album as well, even though there technically isn't a speedy criterion for albums?)

another optional question from xenocidic

7. Have you ever come across an article you knew would qualify for speedy, but instead decided to improve it?

A: Sometimes. Randy Houser and David Nail were one-sentence sub-stubs when I first saw them, and they just barely asserted notability with charted singles. I expanded both and sourced them up. As for Justin Moore (singer), it was a sub-stub that I feared might get speedied. I tried to improve it but came up empty, so I went ahead and tagged it for A7.

Optional question from Gazimoff:

8. WP:CLUE is an oft-mentioned essay for one that is so short. What do you think it means and how would you expand upon it in your own words?

A. Basically I see it as a means of logic. "Merge, there's nothing to say besides just one sentence on this song, as evidenced by the utter lack of sources" should probably be weighed more than "Keep, I think every single released by a notable artist should have a page"; most would probably agree that keeping a bunch of sub-stubs on songs around is pointless. Having never seen the essay before just now, I can't say that I have any ideas on how to expand it, except maybe by giving examples like the one above.

Optional question from TravellingCari

9. Apart from the work raised in Q1, how do you think having the tools will change your on wiki work? Not necessarily the areas you want to work on, but you've done well on wiki without those tools and seem to enjoy yourself. Apart from clearing backlogs, etc. why do you think the tools will help you bring more to the project? Ack, that sounded so much clearer in my head than in words.

A. I think that it will help me to be more careful, for one. Admins are expected to be especially trustworthy editors, and I would hate to screw up as an admin even worse than I hate screwing up as a non-admin, because I'd most likely have other users turning to me when they need something deleted/undeleted or something. That, and the fact that I tend to do my work pretty fast on Wikipedia. Sometimes I get a little impatient when something sits around for hours without an admin around to act on it (such as a "speedy" deletion sitting in the queue for hours on end), and if I were an admin, I'd be able to rid myself of that frustation by simply doing it myself within reason.

Optional question from Hellboy2hell (talk · contribs)

10. Are you completely aware that adminship is not a trophy?

A. Yes. While it would be "cool" to be an admin, that's not my only motivation by a long shot.

11. Explain Wikipedia:RTV in your own words.

A. My own words? Ralendiff apoiuquy Smyref dinooga. No, seriously, I see it as a right for good-faith editors who wish to dissociate themselves from the project. Maybe they've gotten frustrated with the project, or they just don't have the time to edit Wikipedia anymore.

Optional question from NuclearWarfare

12 In your opinion, why did your past RfAs fail? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Probably because I sometimes rush into things and make careless mistakes. I think I'm making fewer than before, but as the opposers have (rightly) pointed out, I still mess up now and then.

Optional questions from Winger84

13 If your RfA is successful, will you add yourself to the list of administrators open to recall?

A. It wouldn't hurt. I don't see why not.

14 Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

A. I think that trust can indeed be regained after a few months, depending on how bad the user misbehaved — if it was a former vandal come clean, or an ex-sockpuppetteer, etc. I won't name names, but I know a couple users who were once indef blocked and have been back in the trust of others again. I've even seen formerly-banned users regain the trust of others, within less than a half-year or so of their being banned.

Question from User:TaborL

15. Do you plan on RFA'ing until you succeed?

A. I'm not sure. I don't see repeated RfAs as disruptive (and have never been accused of such), but at the same time I'm probably bound to give up eventually. If this one fails there'll most likely be a #7 but I'm not sure beyond that. It took Jaranda about 8 or 9 tries, so you never know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours}

16. How would you handle a rather established user vandalizing (sockpuppeting, attacking a user, etc.) once or twice? Would you let him/her have any rights from there on out?

A: If it were an established user, I'd probably have a more detailed discussion, and ask them why they had gone from good edits to socking or something, just the same.

Optional question from —Animum (talk)

17. Do you find this question funny?

A: That's Numberwang! I mean, yes.

General comments

See TenPoundHammer's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for TenPoundHammer: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

I'm surprised to see so many replies towards the opposition and neutrals. Remember, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and while requests for constructive feedback should be encouraged, there is no need for so many responses. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. In the words of a wise man, a great way to kill an RFA is an over-vigorous defense of the candidate that forces the opposition to dig in their heels. –xeno (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I echo those sentiments -- it is one thing to be supportive of a candidate, but picking apart every opinion that you dislike is obnoxious. C'mon, knock it off. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a vote. Everyone should be justifying their position; we should be debating the merits and flaws of this candidate, not just "Per nom"ing. Wily D 14:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short of wading through deleted contributions and whatnot, is there any way to judge how many Speedy Deletions an editor has triggered by tagging? I ask because I am hard-pressed to think of another editor off the top of my head who works so prolifically in the deletion areas, XfD and Speedy both. I think that there may be a number of bad tags, as noted, but I'm curious to see if the percentage of bad tags is comparable to other editors, and if the high number of them is simply a function of the ungodly amount of articles that this editor is involved in tagging. Having worked with TPH before, I think that he's actually right more often than a lot of us are - that's my impression, at least, and most of why I supported. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can look at "deleted contribs", I don't know of an easy way for non-admins to look. Keeper ǀ 76 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SQL's tool will show the number of deleted contribs, which gives a rough guide to the level of activity (appr 3500 in TPH's case), but there's no way for a non-sysop to judge whether he made 3500 valid deletion taggings, or 3500 edits to an article which was then deleted. No way round that that I'm aware of. – iride scent 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should develop a counter tool similar to Interiot's that examines deleted edits. Unfortunately, this wouldn't be foolproof; at least for me, when I used to tag, I'd always write "db" or later the code number (A7); Twinkle users will be easier to examine; and this wouldn't account for the taggings that were invalid, since those will be buried in the undeleted edits. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how thrilled people would be about this but it would be a trivial bot task to create a temp page during the RfA with, say, the last 20 diffs on deleted articles with time stamps to judge level of activity. The only problem I see is avoiding the recreation, even temporarily, of "Jane Doe is a big fat slut". One solution (again, trivial for a bot) is recreating the last 20 articles a candidate tagged with db tags on the grounds of notability: in my experience, 90% of the incorrect tagging occurs with db-nn. But then again, (in theory) bad tagging results in the article surviving so the occurrences of incorrect tagging should be accessible to everyone. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

~~Beat the nom Support~~ ~~per reason in past RfA's... although I wish you had waited a little longer before running again.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support both Ten and his otters per Wikipedia:Numberwang. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WilyD's sentiments above, and the fact that this is not a clear run, I feel obliged to make my opinion more relevant to the candidate's merits. As someone who spends a reasonable amount of time at AfD, I've seen TPH express views relevant to the deletion discussion. Of course he's made mistakes, but he's had more time there to make them. The occasional mistake is less noticeable when spread over a wide area, so naturally when mistakes are focussed in one area, they appear to be signs of bad judgement. I don't believe this is the case with TenPoundHammer. In fact, his judgement has generally been spot on most of the time. The opposes and neutrals raise some valid points: The G3 tagging is concerning, for example. Nonetheless, the good points about TPH+sysop far outweigh the bad, and therefore it would be unfortunate for this request not to succeed. If it does succeed, I hope TenPoundHammer will take note that, unless hoaxes are absolutely blatant, they should be dealt with through regular channels. Having said that, the work at AfD is nothing short of astonishing, and the place will be a lot tidier with TPH's ability to delete/keep articles in an admin capacity. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (ec) Great editor. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Bstone (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's high time this got carried through. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've supported him in a previous RFA, and I see no reason to change my opinions. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kurt Maxwell Weber (even though he hasn't !voted yet) and Naerii. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gold star for scarian... and I usually object to these attacks on kurt ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see attacks on Kmweber as prima facie evidence… oh, never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good guy, trustworthy. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support great editor. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thought you were an admin already-Support — I view times such as these prime face evidence when I should support. C L — 22:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ecSupport yet again; knows his stuff when it comes to deletion discussions, manages disputes well and doesn't have a problem looking for second opinions when it's necessary, has done a nice job of editing in all kinds of areas, experienced all around far as I'm concerned. This time. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I supported his 2nd, 4th, and 5th RFAs (I don't know where I was on that third one). Again, for the same type of reasons as before: hard-working, knowledgeable, experienced, works in the mainspace, understands policy, civil. Useight (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Moving to neutral.[reply]
Support- I see this candidate around quite a bit, but mostly on AfD. He knows what makes for good content in an encyclopedia, has a firm understanding of policy, and handles disputes with good humour. Prime admin material. To be honest, I'm surprised his previous nom fell through. Reyk _YO! 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I constantly see this candidate doing useful work around the 'pedia and he has developed a fine degree of discrimination in the application of standards to deletion discussions. He understands policy, plays well with others, doesn't bite newbies and, yes, I'm also surprised a previous nomination did not succeed. Considering the amount of work he does without the mop, I'd have no hesitation in handing it to him and letting him get on with even more of it. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer again? Good God. Why don't we just give him the tools so we don't need to go through a 7th request? ;) Valtoras (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - coincidentally I found myself wondering "Huh, wonder if TPH is gonna try for admin again" after spotting his name while perusing AfD earlier today. Anyway, I trust TPH and feel he's ready for the mop. Shereth 23:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So famous around AFD that he has his own law. Gets my vote. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This editor is reflective, humble, smart and bold. He is an asset to AfD and to any project he brings his work to. I have every reason to believe that this editor will use the tools properly and helpfully. He should have been an admin a long time ago. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An extremely good editor who really needs the tools. Yup, he's had 6 RfA's, but that's because TPH really needs the tools for the work he carries out here - it'll make life easier all round to give him them to someone we can trust. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter}
Support - Supported last time, and will support this time around. User's work at WP:XFD is great. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC) I have to abstain. While I still feel TPH does a great deal of outstanding work at AFD, the opposition has brought to light too many issues (CSD in particular) that now make me feel uncomfortable. I will not oppose though. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Like others, I assumed TenPoundHammer was already an admin. I've always found his contributions to AfDs that I have seen/participated in to be valuable, and typically right to the point. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Change to neutral based on some of the diffs I have seen, and the MFD from today of the subpage of Kurt. I'd like to support, but just can't at this point. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen you around, noticed your work on AFD, seen you participating. All discussion seemed civil, intelligent, and thoughtful. Also, it is admirable that you continue your dedication to the project despite the past RfA failures. I could not see you maliciously causing any harm to the project. Good luck. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Can't say I had it bookmarked, but...I've been waiting for this one. TPH knows what's going on around here and is a positive influence to the project. Frank | talk 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a clear need for the tools and a look through his contribs shows no major issues. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 23:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slam dunk support Has a clue, is very knowledgeable, knows when to IAR. One of the easiest support decisions I've made in a LONG time. --Winger84 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll admit I was one of the many that thought TPH was an admin. He'll make an excellent janitor. Have fun! Paragon12321 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom and other great reasons above. aside from not believing that you can want to be an admin too much, and that that's not grounds for oppose, TPH has tons of experience, has been working in admin related areas and has my full confidence. Dloh cierekim 00:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - TenPoundHammer has demostrated that he needs the tools and I strongly support him. doña macy [talk] 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — 6th time's a charm? –xeno (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bizarre indeed that this will end within days of the anniversary of your third RFA. But TPH is a good candidate, an excellent editor, and an asset to the project. No reservations whatsoever about granting the tools. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Heh, Numberwang.[reply]
I continue to believe that TPH will be not just a good, but an excellent administrator. I've always felt we were missing something important with TPH, so I'll say it again: He's tagged some articles that I'm not thrilled were tagged, but the important thing is he's always been so open-minded about feedback. If everyone responded as positively to a "hey, you shouldn't have tagged that," an occasional error wouldn't be a big deal. Too many admins, when they are questioned, dig in, get defensive, stubborn and stupid, and refuse to admit error. TPH is the opposite. You have two newspapers. All newspapers make mistakes, but one is diligent about running corrections. Which is the better paper? TPH is like that better newspaper. --JayHenry (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. LittleMountain5 ^review! 01:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I wished this user was an admin a long time ago. Good luck, TPH. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC) (struck my own support - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) )[reply]
Support: I clicked on the link for the RfA and saw the number 6 and thought someone was being funny. TenPoundHammer seems to be a rational editor and will benefit the encylopedia by having admin tools. -- Natalya 01:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just a very helpful editor over at AfD. I've supported (I think) his last two RfAs. In the meantime, I've tapped him for a couple of AfD-related questions and problems that needed solving, he's always quick and knowledgeable. TPH + tools is a great idea. Darkspots (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I had promised at RfA V (this diff), I thought that TPH was trending towards a support vote on my part by RfA VI or VII. With number six here, a review of TPH's edit history over the past few months shows a broader range of expanding and improving articles, a sea change from an earlier focus on deletions, some of which were a bit questionable. I think TenPoundHammer has earned worthy consideration as an admin. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I wish you were around as an administrator a long time ago TPH. Your work for the project has been invaluable. seicer | talk | contribs 02:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have had nothing but positive experiences with this editor, and I am surprised that he hasn't gotten the tools yet. That he's stuck with this this many times, an experience which has turned some other quality editors into banned users, and continued editing away only reflects well on him. I attribute the failure of the other ones to vendettas. If we had unearthed serious problems in past RFAs, we and he wouldn't be here right now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support RMHED (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I have some reservations, I can't really explain what they are... maturity? Capriciousness? Anyhow, TPH has had too many positive contributions for me to wallow about in the neutral section. Just be careful, as I am sometimes not ;-) Tan ǀ 39 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wish you could have waited longer and been more patient, but I think that you are an able user. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe the editor can be trusted to work for the better of the community with the administrative tools. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good-God-Give-Him-The-Buttons Support. --jonny-m t 02:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I never thought I would say this in an RFA, but I actually did think this user was already an admin. Maybe I was confusing the sheer number of RfAs with actual adminship :) Plenty of experience, good attitude — good enough for me. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of hard work at AFD - actually researches subjects before !voting, and has improved and saved numerous articles. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should do fine, though I think TPH should be extra careful with the delete button, if only to reassure those who see him as potentially too trigger-happy. In particular, it's good to remember that in doubt a) admins can still tag articles for speedy deletion and let another admin do the actual deletion and b) PROD and AfD are still available options to admins. Oh and we have to find some way of avoiding the "once you've failed an RfA, you don't get a second chance because you're over-eager". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. I thought you already were...? SQL ^{Query me!} 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But be careful with the delete button. Admins can still nominate for AFD, PROD and nominate for speedy deletion. TPH is a bit reckless with AFD. If he isn't reckless with the delete button, he should be a good admin. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 04:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's been around enough, seems to make good decisions most of the time, admits mistakes. I think that he would make things better, not worse. <joke style="pun" quality="bad">He otter be an admin.</joke> WODUP 04:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine by me, though I do caution TPH again to take the advice of the participants here, and go easy on the delete button, especially at first. GlassCobra 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have seen TPH around a lot, and trust him with the tools Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 04:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am often under the impression he is an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkleheimer (talk • contribs)
Support I have seen this user around quite often in AfDs and I see no reason not to trust this candidate with the tools. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long overdue. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely excellent editor who should have been made an admin at his very first RfA. CIreland (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's about time. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why aren't you an admin yet ?! :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As at RFA's 4 and 5. Whilst multiple RFA's are often a warning flag to me (and I acknowledge the comments in oppose to this effect) in this instance I'm more than happy to ignore them when the greater good to the encyclopedia will be in granting TPH +sysop. Pedro : Chat 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biruitorul ^Talk 07:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per sterling work at AfD. nancy ^talk 08:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good user, knows what to do, Wont break stuff. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support TenPoundHammer is an overall great user, who shows he is ready and would do just fine with the tools. He has done just most impressive in adminly areas as a non-administrator. I'm most impressed in his WP:AfD work he has been doing for a significant amount of time. He shows he knows Wikipedia policies by how he !votes in AfD debates, always pointing to policy. He does WP:NACs on AfD debates just fine, showing he has just fine judgement. TenPoundHammer has the qualities an administrator should have, and he has shown just that in his areas of editing Wikipedia. TenPoundHammer shows he can be a good article writer also by looking at his fifteen WP:DYK entries and his two WP:GAs. I've also seen him around WP:AIV, some WP:XFDs, significantly at AfD, WP:RFPP, and a few times at WP:UAA which shows he will be good as an administrator in adminly areas to take care of most of the problems lurking about. Many of these subjects I've brought up can easily be seen by looking at TenPoundHammer's contributions. TenPoundHammer can even clear the AfD back logs with his experience. I'm sure TenPoundHammer will be able to help update T:DYK. DYK is sometimes late on updating, and I'm sure TenPoundHammer will be around to update DYK on time. He probably knows how to update DYK by watching other administrators do it, and I'm sure he can do it himself and having access past that protected DYK template. He has had seven RfAs I believe? In his last RfA, I believe he has cleared all the problems brought up by the opposers and has certainly improved on them now. I have every confidence in this candidate, and he certainly has my trust, and hopefully the community agrees also. :-) Best, RyRy (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just give him the tools. He is already doing excellent without them. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per his impressive record at XfD, which can only improve by possession of the tools. Huon (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suh-trawng Suh-pawt - This-a guy-a would-a make a good-a admin! Asenine 10:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Numberwang, er, Support Sorry to break up the gang, £10 Hammer, but if you become an admin, the otters will have to go. They don't even have opposable thumbs! Universal Cereal Bus ♫♪ 10:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support On balance, he will benefit the project with the tools. The vast majority of his contributions are fantastic; just be careful with the G3 tagging. Keep up the good work. EJF (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per this album's first track, dedicated to you. -iaN LOPEZ 1115 11:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because he deserves it and per all the dumb reasons in the Oppose section. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dismissing our reasonable objections as "dumb". Charming Fritzpoll (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant. SashaNein (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, "he started it" is no reason to sink to name-calling, Sasha. Let's keep it civil, OK? Additionally, while you may not agree with the people in the oppose section, Jauerback, it's really not helpful to call their reasoning dumb. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm more than happy to add my support for TPH. An always reasonable editor and dedicated contributor. He and his otters have set a good example for me since I've been here. TN‑X-Man 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, already. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. My interactions with the Hammer (and his otters) have been nothing but positive. As an admin he will be an invaluable asset to the project. – ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support, you are astoundingly prolific at XfDs. You have a strong interest in voicing your opinion in the process, you are very comfortable with it and understand the process thoroughly. It's no wonder that others are able to pick out the errors, they have a large field of contributions to dig through. After reviewing your contribs, I feel that, percentage wise, your "error rate" (and there are definitely errors) is extremely low, and your "rescuse rate" (as evidenced in your answer to Question #2) far outweighs your "accidents" in adding a speedy G3 to an open AFD (it's one of my pet peeves actually, because it means the article will get speedied, instead of AFd-deleted. Someone asked "what's the difference?" The difference is, if the community decides it's supposed to be a redlink, if/when it gets recreated, it can be speedy G4'd without significant improvements. When the redlink of a previous speedy goes blue again, it can't be re-speedied - let the AFDs run!). Anywho, yes, you've made some errors. Tyere are lots of diffs down there in the next session, some old, some recent, some personal grudges, all legitimate. I agree with most of them that they are true errors. The only thing I can say you are "guilty" of though is that you are prolific and passionate in that area of the wiki. I strongly believe your "error rate" is likely below 5%, if not below 1% and will be even lower once you are "more careful" as an admin. For every bad diff, I could probably find 95-99 good ones, in other words. If you become an admin, you will still make errors, don't let anyone tell you that an "admin error" is "harder to reverse" or "more damaging" or whatnot. It isn't more difficult if you don't let it be. (meaning, be as flexible post-rfa as you have been pre-rfa). Keep yer damn otters away from the new buttons, or I'll find a 10 pound trout...Keeper ǀ 76 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a constant and sensible presence at AfD, TPH is both mature and trustworthy. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good editor, he does mostly good things. Tovian (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is an AFD machine. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, after some consideration. Extremely prolific AfD person who really does know what he's doing. I am a little worried by some of the slightly overzealous applications of CSD tagging, but the AfD work is plenty good enough for me. As long as he is a little more careful with "IAR speedying" and/or overuse of G1, I'm not worried. Given your past contributions I'd probably expect to see a couple of your deletes appear at WP:DRV every now and then, but that happens to most admins that do much deletion work, and that's what DRV is there for. But overall, what I'm seeing here is a dedicated and enthusiastic user who does know Wikipedia policies very well, and who deserves and could make good use of the admin tools. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC) _{Can I also just go on record here as saying the whole otter-based signature, while cute the first time, rapidly gets very annoying. ~ mazca ^{t | c}}[reply]
Support Per all above! Will be an asset as an admin. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments in the past RFAs,; enough said Bearian (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I concur with PeterSymonds's analysis (#1 above). Deor (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nothing shows me that I shouldn't...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wanted to nominate TPH for adminship. TPH has worked hard at AFDs. He has made some mistakes, but he is a human. We have to look at his overall contributions. TPH has made more than 28000 mainspace edits and also contributed to several DYKs. I believe he has what it takes to become a good admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I've already encountered this user in the first week i've been on here reverting vandalism. A little unsettled the two por choices of AfD's pointed out in the opposes, but everyone makes mistake. MattWT (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find TPH's reasoning and contributions at AfD spot-on the vast majority of the time. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support :D -- Freakatone ^Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see you're delighted in supporting him... but just out of curiosity, why? C L — 02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Peter Symonds. -- Freakatone ^Talk 02:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, rationales are not required. Asenine 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, I was just wondering what made him so happy about supporting was all - C L — 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly, this many supports already. I predict numerwang drama. —Giggy 05:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dedicted editor who needs the bits to work more effectively. Thats good enough for me. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 10:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Please, though, be careful not to WP:CSD when WP:AFD might be more appropriate (not that I haven't made that mistake myself). Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Strong support for the otters, though. :-P Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have faith he won't abuse the bit. JACO PLANE • 2008-08-9 16:19
Support the otters, and TPH too :P My contact with this user has mainly been on IRC, helping newcomers to Wikipedia in the help channel, and I have seen no bitey behaviour at all. Yes, he is 'enthusiastic' about deletion, but I feel that as long as he takes a deep breath, and reads through the AfDs etc. before hitting the button, he'll be OK. Good luck TPH! :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Granted, I'm a deletionist, but still. Wizardman 17:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust the thoughts of SQL and PeterSymonds (among many others) on this and I trust TPH. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyday. --Cameron * 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Support Great commitment,friendly user ,helpful,civil.Not one oppose states the user will misuse the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the opposes? I say exactly that, and so do most of the others. – iride scent 19:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Radda radda radda Radda~~ Lead Farfel-sized Support Six noms, six! Still very surprised to see he doesn't yet have the mop, most of the opposes give undue weight to his XfD contributions which doesn't take into account the other great things the otters and occasionally him do. I can't forsee the misuse of the tools and he seems like the reluctant admin sort anyway so there you go. You have my support, bunny cat kid. treelo _radda 19:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I knew your vote would be rife with Chowder references. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otterly firm support </lame> Anyway, yeah, he makes a lot of contributions to CSDs and the like. He may make mistakes, but if being perfect were an RfA requirement, we would be lacking in the {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} department. —Animum (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was confused to realize a few weeks ago that this user wasn't an admin. This has to be corrected, quickly. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support Sorry this isn't working out Hammer :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support... I think again. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I strongly considered going neutral on this one in light of some of the CSD mistakes pointed out here, but in relation to the total volume of deletion-related work he does, it seems like a fairly minor issue. I'm not saying it doesn't worry me, I'm saying that I think the sysop bit would help here more than it would hurt. Furthermore, the number of RfA's here doesn't really worry me - if someone didn't really want to be an admin, they wouldn't throw themselves into the mess that is RfA - he's not "power hungry"... CCG _(T-C) 02:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Is 99 Numberwang? Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Sexy Support He's muy muy sexy! --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 03:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This support appears to be vandalism. Schuym1 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Cream's just quirky. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not considered vandalism if you consider multicolored and blinking text as vandalism. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 03:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made my monitor cry. —Animum (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough already, give him the tools. --Charitwo ^talk 06:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"WTH, he wasn't an admin???" support - Definitely! Jonathan speak out 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. I think this number of RfA's in rather too short period of time demonstrates that this editor want to be an administrator too much. Why? What's so special about being an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect because he wants to make the tasks he currently does easier - TPH does numerous admin related tasks and it must get extremely difficult doing them without the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that we each have our suspicions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten has unique abilities and insight into the administrative process. His ability to calmly and objectively employ police and process is an asset to this project. It has been five months since his last RfA, which is forever in wiki-time. Some editors who are brand new stand for RfA in just three months of editing. I feel that Ten will be a valuable admin, approachable and worthy of your support. Bstone (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are deceiving yourself if you believe that my mind can be changed over what I perceive to be an undue haste to be granted a few extra buttons. Neither am I likely to be swayed by hyperbole like "unique abilities". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to strong oppose ~~Oppose~~ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lady in My Life then this, arrogant, snappy and belittling. Not the nicest way to lecture someone who is new to the AfD process. He also made a laughable report against me to AN/ANI because I didn't reply to his messages on my talk page. Also how many requests is he on now? Seem like his tactic is to wear us down until we give in and say OK,OK. — Realist² 00:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with the edit to your talk page that you have provided. I read that as "Hey, you know you could have done this to accomplish this, rather than making more effort than you needed to?" --Winger84 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. How is that arrogant, snappy (?) or belittling? Avruch^T 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Realist2, sorry if you took offense to my actions. I was just a bit shocked that you simply removed my comments from your talk page (using the undo button) without saying anything back to me. I took that to mean (falsely) that you were ignoring me, as I'd never had anyone do that kind of thing to me before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that "shocks" you then you really aren't suited for admin ship at all. — Realist² 00:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed you for a severe lack of judgment, but bringing a matter such as, "User blanks his own talk page," to the admin noticeboard of all places is only leading me to believe you are also prone to drama. If you're 'shocked' over someone not wanting to deal with your theatrics, perhaps it's time to stop requesting adminship every few months. We don't need more actors for the soap opera. SashaNein (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked that anyone would be shocked that someone was shocked at seeing their comments blanked like that. 00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Dloh cierekim
Realist, it's not conventional for established users to go around undoing talk page messages without replying. I would have taken it to mean the exact same thing. That someone was ignoring me. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, even if I was "ignoring" him, which isn't true, a report to ANI? Please? You need thick skin to be an admin, not a security blanket. Don't expect any further replies regarding this. — Realist² 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to strong oppose:This article is currently 27.9KB readable pros (41.4 KB full wiki text). When it was smaller 40.2 KB full wiki text (approx 27.0 KB readable pros), he tagged it as too long. I then reverted him, he then reverted me, then he realized he was being a clown and reverted himself. Don't trust the guy. — Realist² 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The large number of RFAs suggests an over-eagerness that makes me uncomfortable. Is there any evidence that anything has changed since those? I don't see it. Someone mentioned this report to the admin noticeboard. Someone is removing talk page messages- OK, so what is an admin expected to do about it? This indicates a lack of understanding of the role of admins. He's been around 2 years, wants adminship a lot, but apparently doesn't know what it's about? That's not good. Friday (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you Oppose? Your post doesn't seem to include a specified vote.Lajolla2009 (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Friday posted it in the Oppose section and had a rationale about the negative things about the candidate. What do you think? Adding Oppose or Support isn't really necessary I think. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I want RFA to be more talking and less voting. The little thing I can personally do to encourage this is to not make my own participation here look like I vote. I can't help what other people do, but this is what I do. Friday (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He knew full well that there was nothing an admin would/could do about it. It was more a case of drawing peoples attention to it, making a scene, trying to embarrass me. — Realist² 03:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I concur with the first post, user should add more edit credits prior to submit for reconsideration. Lajolla2009 (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are edit credits? Avruch^T 02:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I get some? Dloh cierekim 03:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume s/he is saying the user need to make more edits, although I would heartily disagree. - Icewedge (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Nominee continues to misuse CSD tags, which was a common reason for opposition in their last RFA, including this recent tagging. Just as worrying is the nominee's comment on the eventual AFD, with a range of inaccurate or non-valid deletion reasons. At the moment his actions are being reviewed by others because he doesn't have the delete button, I think it needs to stay this way until he has shown that he understands deletion policy and is not likely to circumvent it to such an large extent. TigerShark (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I really enjoy reading the candidate's contributions to AfD, and I really wanted to !vote 'support'. However, I think that he can't be given the delete button. See [1], [2] and [3], for example. I know that the candidate acts in good faith, but a user who does not have a 'delete' button of his own still has his participation in AfD/CSD 'supervised' by administrators, since he cannot delete articles himself. I ought to say that I've made mistakes with AfD/CSD before, and I've disagreed with other editors on XfD before. But I think this candidate is too deletionist, and too sloppy with the CSD criteria. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, even as the nominator, I hadn't noticed those, and those do concern me a bit (particularly the one about the fashion model and the school tagged as vandalism). But, overall, I think with the amount of work he does, these things are definitely the exception rather the rule.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, looking at the way things were, those were as a result of AfDs where they were believed to be hoaxes. He was genuinely acting in good faith, but just needs to take a little more thought before instantly declaring something as a hoax and speedyable - if there's any doubt that it's not a hoax, it should stay on AfD.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I've seen the Hammer around, and want to be supportive, but deletion-trigger-happy admins need to be avoided, and it is overall for the best if they are stillborn.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per this AN report, I'm not sure TPH understands what administrators should and shouldn't do. While Realist's removal of the comments may not have been the nicest way to handle the situation, reporting the incident as if it were a serious issue is completely out of line. Ral315 (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had already asked two other editors (including an admin, if I recall) to ask Realist why they were removing my comments, and Realist just removed their comments without replying too. I really did think that was pretty serious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 06:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you thought that was serious is what worries me the most. I don't think you have the judgment to determine when something is a serious issue, and when it's nothing big. Ral315 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Last time I was concerned about an edit by TenPoundHammer which nominated an article for speedy deletion that in his opinion was a hoax even though it was not obvious. When I asked him about it I was not satisfied with the answer, but nevertheless I thought I was being a bit hard on him for drudging through his deleted edits trying to find something wrong so I weakly supported. However now I see far from being a one time event TenPoundHammer regularly nominates articles for speedy deletion because he believe they are untrue (besides the links above there is also this, this, this, this and his reference to this behavior in his answer to Q1). So long as the community has not changed the rules of CSD to allow the speedying of hoaxing (a move I would strongly oppose) speedying of these articles is highly inappropriate and opposed to the community consensus. What is worse is that this kind of misuse of admin power is large uncorrectable. An admin can unilaterally delete many articles that he in good faith believes is untrue, and it is hard to correct him for this behavior. You just sound silly saying "this shouldn't have been speedily deleted; it should have been regularly deleted". For the most part these deletion don't cause any damage until he deletes one that really is true. At that point, most users who's article got deleted would just leave and we would never know that we lost a valuable editor and a valuable article. And even if he stuck around and fought for his article, there would still be no consequences for the admin. The admin would apologize and we would all forgive him because after all it really did look like a silly article, and he thought he was helping the project. Also these deletion took place after an AfD was already in progress. While it is allowed to speedy article that are undergoing an AfD, I consider it inappropriate to do so except in clear cases. There are many articles that are borderline A7 or G1 or G3 and the original nominator made a decision that it didn't meet the requirement. I strongly feel that we should defer to this decision. Otherwise every borderline speedy that some reasonable people think qualify and other reasonable people think do not is always speedied by those who think it qualifies. Slowly, as all these borderline cases are always speedied it becomes more and more acceptable to delete these article. Again this kind of abuse is hard to undo. It is hard to fight against a speedy deletion when you think it should have been a regular deletion; It just makes you look like a silly wiki-lawyer. I strongly believe that this kind of unilateral deletion does significant irreparable harm to the project. Jon513 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - from what I've seen of the CSD work, I'm not confident in your ability to delete without your decision being reviewed. Haste in deletion, and the general feeling that you would delete because it "looks wrong" rather than an actual CSD criterion (examples are the various mis-tagged "hoax" articles above) lead me to oppose. Weakly because this is the only problem I have with you. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am changing my vote from Neutral because I cannot, in good conscience, provide tacit support of this nomination by voting Neutral. In addition to my earlier concern with TPH's rush to delete the "I, Claudius" article (see below in the Neutral section), I am also reminded of his sloppy and reckless desire to A7 the article on the metal band Pyorrhoea because he claimed this band had no notability and that the link to its label was for a defunct TV show -- again, he made no effort to locate references and fix the obvious errors in an article about a very notable band [4] (I wound up doing the research to determine notability that he should have done -- and I am not a metal fan!) Then there this wildly inappropriate non-admin closure (you don't close AfD discussions where you are a voter, TPH!) coupled with self-congratulatory crowing about his embrace of the WP:BOLD and WP:IAR tenets [5]. And, again, his reopening a closed AfD discussion for the insertion of a completely irrelevant last word: [6]. If this kind of careless and silly behaviour is typical of his non-admin activities, I hate to imagine what will happen if he had buttons to press. Sorry, TPH -- like the Corleone family says, it's nothing personal...it's strictly business. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the praise he is receiving en masse for his heavy work at XfD and his diligence at that forum, the diffs and comments the opposition before me have presented are both illuminating and disillusioning. It seems that while TPH does much great work, his recurring mistakes relating to deletion and CSD continue to be black marks on his record that I don't feel comfortable ignoring when I consider whether I'd like to see him given the mop. Sorry, but, no, not this time. When the mistakes go away, so does my oppose. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but too many incidents of not understanding speedy deletion is too problematic. Several examples quoted above, This was less than two weeks ago. Admins don't need to know every policy inwards and out, but they need to be familiar with those in the areas they're active in. Wily D 11:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A lot of very good work with AfDs but too trigger-happy with CSD tags and does not do enough homework before deletion nominations. This is not just a past problem but a current one as well. The diffs provided by Ecoleetage (both in the oppose and the nutral sections) particularly worry me. Nsk92 (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (switch from Neutral) The diffs shown by the users in the oppose section, especially by Richard Cavell and Ecoleetage, raised some concern. I think an admin should be able to use CSD tags correctly, although of course I know he might have acted in good faith. But there are several cases in which he added CSD-notices to articles where AfD's where already open (and resulted in keep) [7] [8] or requested speedy that was declined [9]. Of course that does not make a oppose reason by itself but it gives me the impression that TPH is eager to delete first and ask questions (or consensus) later, which might well result in a large number of articles who actually were not eliglible for CSD to be deleted. I think his work at XfD is without any question great and much needed but I simply feel that he should not be the one actually deleting things. Also, I am not comfortable with his answer to Q6 because his example contradicts current articles: This bands article was redirected (i.e. deleted and redirected) to Pump Up the Volume (song) which is in fact notable even if the band was not. By his example, he'd have deleted the song as IAR. So#Why ^{review me!} 12:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on my oppose, what was pointed out by Elkman below is upsetting as well. Nominating user subpages for deletion without even talking to the user in question first is highly inappropriate, especially if the page nominated page does not violate any guidelines. It does show a certain tendency to "know better" what other people want than themselves have articulated. It might lead to some very serious problems if TPH as admin went and just deleted such pages. So#Why ^{review me!} 22:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I fear TenPoundHammer will go around deleting things with no discussion or oversight. Not worth the risk. AfD hero (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ because of his sarcastic and arrogant funmaking of another editor at Support #8. Very bad behaviour for an admin. Sister Endorphina 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One step up to Strong Oppose because of this user-subpage nomination. First mocking the guy (as mentioned above), now trying to get his subpage deleted. Is this some crusade? Sister Endorphina 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose I really, really, really wanted to !vote support but I regretfully can't do so. TPH is an invaluable asset to this project as an editor but I simply can't convince myself that I would be comfortable knowing that he has access to the delete button without any kind of a failsafe. Incorrectly tagging articles for CSD is no big deal when a cautious administrator is right behind you wagging his finger and saving someone's incomplete work from permanent loss to the project. The ability to speedy delete articles suspected of being hoaxes gives the rest of the community no opportunity to say "hey, I know this may seem like a hoax but I can provide a link to verify these claims". Personally, as much as I wanted to believe otherwise, I fear he may not have learned much from his previous 5 RfAs - he still does outstanding work as an editor but he still makes the same mistakes. Editors' mistakes are always easier to fix than administrators' mistakes. Sorry, TPH. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per most of those above. Deletionists provide a useful service as editors by bringing potentially unworthy material to the attention of the wider community, but there's just too much history that suggests TPH as an admin would beconstantly making poor unilateral out-of-process deletions; IAR should be a last resort, not a badge of pride. – iride scent 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many RFAs. There is a line between following "consensus can change" and throwing yourself before different audiences in the hope one will like you at some point, and I believe this user has crossed it. User:Krator (t c) 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to badger you or challenge your right to oppose Krator, but I did want to point out that a lot of votes on RfA's aren't "not now, not ever" type things; many people have "not ready yet" type opposes. In this light, rather than continually trying to find a different consensus about the same question, the candidate might be asking a different question each time. I don't think we should have the expectation that a person will never undergo another RfA after a certain number of failed ones, because that could deprive us of good admins (not that I'm saying you have this expectation). Just my take. delldot talk 17:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point delldot, but you should understand that my stance here is due to an individual consideration, rather than a general limit. I agree that it doesn't make any sense to expect of an editor to never undergo another RFA after a certain number of failed ones. My opposing stance here is more like Skinwalker's, below: I think that the editor under consideration here, in particular, has crossed the line I mentioned in my initial comment above. User:Krator (t c) 13:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I share the same concerns as TigerShark and iridescent in their opposes. Additionally, the answers to Q6 (would invoke IAR in AfDs) and Q9 (candidate doesn't think he's careful yet) concern me, and, I also agree with Endorphina - the mockery of Kurt in the Support section of this RfA is unfortunate at best. Townlake (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Strong Oppose ~~Oppose~~ My experience with this candidate has not been good...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I regret doing this, because I used to see TenPound doing a lot of good in music editing, but I think his judgment at AfD et al. lately has been impaired. His efforts to clean house are throwing out too many musty or slightly broken curiosities of considerable encyclopedic worth. And there's no need to request adminship 6 times. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Trigger-happy and arrogant. I absolutely do not want any more admins that act like this and this. I have zero trust that he would be a competent administrator. SashaNein (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He also fails to give articles a chance, and in an unrelated matter has today made another ridiculous MFD nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight. I will oppose his 7th nomination, his 8th, and his 47th. He has done nothing to improve his credentials for the position. We already have far too many administrators with a severe lack of judgment, and that is no excuse to add one more. SashaNein (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too much incorrect CSD tagging. Epbr123 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User's signature, demeanor etc. prevents me from taking him seriously. Keepscases (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ecoleetage and other opposers who have pointed out the reasons why his judgment and personality will not make for a good admin. Sorry! « Diligent Terrier (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from neutral. So many concerns raised, bad tagging, trigger happy, arrogant, also userpage mentions "pursuit" of adminship and how the user wants it even after five failed attempts. Adminship is not a "level-up". While we're all volunteers and should be having some fun from time to time, the off-the-wall wackiness and maturity issues do worry me. George The Dragon (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. Clearly an asset to the project. But the diffs provided by TigerShark, Richard Cavell, Jon513 and others indicate that Ten Pound Hammer does not understand WP:CSD, or that he has decided that it does not apply to him. Sandstein 16:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. CSD is one of my hot buttons... too much damage can be done by violating or "ignoring the rules" when it comes to CSD.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While I am all for users performing WP:IAR actions, and consider myself a user who uses that "rule" quite often I also find that there is a place for process and that IAR is not always the best solution. Looking over some diff's provided above, along with my own interactions with TPH I must say that I am not yet sure this user has used or will use IAR correctly. I also have strong concerns with the number of RfA's in such a short period of time, and to be honest it is getting a bit tiring seeing the same arguments every three or four months and is borderline disruptive, I mean is it not clear that previous issues have not been addressed when they continue to come up every RfA? One thing I really like to see in a return admin candidate is the ability to listen to past criticism and opposes and better themselves because of them, this demonstrates a certain level of maturity that comes with admin work along with an ability to listen to the voice of the community and it saddens me to say I do not see this in TPH. I feel that at this point it TPH is a net positive and an asset to the project right where he is, and that is an editor without the mop and bucket. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that TPH is an asset to wikipedia. . .it was thoughtful of you to mention and 100% accurate (I forgot to mention it myself, so I'm jumping in here to support that part of your statement). R. Baley (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nominating Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight. There are lessons to be learned about how to deal with Kurt Weber, and you clearly haven't learned those lessons yet. (Neither have I, of course.) I don't want you to repeat the same kind of mistake that I made 13 days ago. Oh, and I just noticed that you're Twinkling through these MFDs as well. That shows an even worse lapse in judgement. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these MFDs (there's another one just like it, now) are just bizarre. Many of the supporters here cite the candidate's great work at AFD, which puzzles me greatly considering these two ill-considered nominations. Perhaps the supporters mean great volume of work, rather than great quality. Friday (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize till just now that the above MfD was nominated today. My concerns are the same as the last time, it's better that this editor just nominate articles/stuff for deletion -and not have the ability to do it him/herself. R. Baley (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor judgment in deletion areas. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was ready to support, until I saw the argument users made in the oppose section.--LAA Fan 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; Sorry TPH— I supported you (if barely) on attempt number four because I felt you could keep the overzealous deletions under control with some guidance— the fact that you did not accept that two failed RfA mostly on those terms were a strong hint that you should correct your deletion aim worries me too much for me to agree with your getting the bit at this time. I would recommend you wait at least six months before you try again and that you work really hard at refining your delete-fu in the meantime. — Coren ^(talk) 23:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the speedy deletion concerns. Incorrect speedy deletions are a great way to drive away newcomers, and the candidate seems not to have learnt from the previous times these concerns were raised. Do not trust with the delete button. Is he back? (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wikipedia doesn't need a deletion happy admin. Schuym1 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another example of a bad AFD nomination. He nominated the article for deletion after only doing a little bit of research. He also said that a reliable source was only a trivial mention. Schuym1 (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No more deletions.Duck of Luke (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose, per User:TigerShark. I really wanted to Support this, and I believe that the user really does mean well, but those are some pretty elementary errors from a user that really ought to know better (especially since this was brought up at the last RFA). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I just see too much willingness here to stretch the bounds of speedy deletion; its hard to swallow the claim that he's still making these same "mistakes" after all this time. Also, since this has been the bone of contention at most of his RfA's, the candidate seems to be willing to ignore the community on this and keep doing his own thing. Just not good traits for the admin bit. Shell ^babelfish 06:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per above. After 5 RfAs, he still does not understand the deletion criteria. —Dark ^talk 06:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hasty deletionism. Also, he should be more ready to assume good faith. Axl (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Tigershark. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alot of people have given examples of you jizzing-up at XfD. Too worrying for me. Something that contributes to that is the number of RfA's — to clarify, it doesn't bother me if you have a lot of RfA's in a short ammount of time, but it isn't a good reflection on yourself that after so many RfA's you still don't get the deletion process.--Koji Dude ^(C) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sad oppose. I opposed one of his early RFAs due to his impatience with full discussion (involving not just inappropriate CSDs, but snowball early keeps), but with the hope that he would learn to be patient, so I could support him in the future. Unfortunately, after several failed RFAs which have been sunk by this same issue, it has become apparent that Hammer is a leopard who can't change his spots. Even some of his supporters have advised him to be cautious with the delete button if he passes, but there's little hope of that: he hasn't been able to take the advice he has been given in past RFAs to heart, and his answer to Q1 proclaims, "The work I plan to participate in the most is deletion work." Note that my main problem is with hastiness, more than deletionism per se - the candidate can also point to articles he has saved, nor is he the most unreasonable person once a discussion gets going. Also, no one seems to be questioning his snowball keeps lately, so maybe he has improved on that score - if he has, it may have ironically made him seem more deletionist. I also feel he has waited "long enough" between RFAs, so that doesn't bother me. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, to put it bluntly, per all above, I do not trust this user with deletion. I will admit I am fairly inclusionistic, and in that regard I may be biased, but I cannot reconcile the fact that TPH seems to overly jumpy/hasty when it comes CSD/AFD. -Dureo (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm a strong deletionist, but six failed RFAs inspire no confidence. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG, and we've got a lot of terrible admins who looked at RFA as a social promotion. Skinwalker (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, must oppose. I consider myself a deletionist, but having the admin deletion toolset requires more consideration and care than I have seen from TPH in this regard. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why would TPH try this again, without a good long time passing? The lack of patience is a sign of lack of maturity, in my opinion. And this comment which got an editor going in an edit war, was not appropriate. Especially since the consensus was that TPH was wrong in intent and result. TPH needs to stop these RfA's until he shows significant maturity. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeMarlin's diff above got me; you don't close non-obvious AfDs early just because you disagree with the rationale; that's what the space beneath the nomination statement is for. naerii 03:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To me this editor does not show the maturity needed by an admin. I'm concerned by his statement, "While it would be "cool" to be an admin, that's not my only motivation by a long shot." I'm glad it's not his only motivation - but it does seem to be a significant one. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am still uncomfortable with his approach. He says "Also, by surfing around at random, I tend to run into things that look like they might be deletion-worthy.". In my view he needs to give greater weight to WP:BEFORE and look to see if articles can be improved first. Taggings such as this indicate to me a lack of undestanding of policy and that he might well delete pages incorrectly. TerriersFan (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too eager for the tools, too immature from what I've seen around WP. Agee with TerrierFan re trying to improve the articles rather than just shuffling them off to Buffalo (no offense to the natives of said town :). Jim62sch^dissera! 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

6 RfAs in 14 months.. so that's what, an RfA every two and a bit months? Uncomfortable about this. naerii 22:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it was four months after the last one, quite a long while in wikitime. —Kurykh 22:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five months. The last one closed in March. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it closed at the end of March, so only 4.5 months. Useight (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Numberwang! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. I'll probably support, but I want to see how this plays out a bit - I'm expecting a carnival atmosphere with seventy-six "Numberwang!" comments, a bunch of anti-Kurt stuff, and a still-inexplicable pack of otters creating bad jokes. I want him to take this seriously. Tan ǀ 39 22:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Changed to support - Tan ǀ 39 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Agree with Tan on this one. Synergy 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Still neutral. Its not time yet. Synergy 10:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ (Switched to oppose, see above) for now as well. I went and looked about the conflicted described in his answer to Q3 and it appears he removed some content with an edit summary of "fiuxes" which is highly misleading even if the removal might have been correct for being unsourced. I want to wait and see what others find or see first before switching to support or oppose. So#Why ^{review me!} 23:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that diff, I saw no point in having "Snappy Answers…" and the "Fold-in" in the infobox since Mad was already in the infobox field, and those two features are his regular contributions to Mad. Obviously, I meant to type "fixes". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I gathered as much. But my point is not about the change but about the edit summary. If you remove things from an article of which you know another editor is disagreeing with those changes (as with this one, as you pointed out yourself), then using a edit summary like "fixes" might lead to more edit warring as it could imply that your changes where about style (like typos or grammar errors) rather than content changes. To stress it again: I do not have any opinion on the subject of those edits, I just remarked that bad use of edit summaries in that case. I will review more tomorrow morning (it's 1am here) and may change my opinion within the course of the RfA. So#Why ^{review me!} 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with the candidate at Al Jaffee bordered on unpleasant, he seemed to have an agenda vis a vis Mad Magazine and related subjects..he threatened me but we managed and eventually we both moved on, but I most definitely see issues arising with him as an admin...Modernist (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Switch to oppose (see above) I am genuinely troubled by the reckless and sloppy manner in which TPH has approached the AfD forums. His chronic overeagerness to nominate worthy articles for deletion suggests he will adapt an admin style where he pushes buttons first and asks questions later (if at all). I am only voting neutral because his dedication to the project cannot be denied. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out specific examples of where he's been "chronically overeager" to nominate worthy articles for deletion?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter, nomination for deletion is harmless. Often, a deletion nomination leads to improvements to the articles that would otherwise not have occurred. It is the decision to delete (or keep) an article at the end of a discussion that shouldn't be hasty, and we have plenty of evidence to look at of TPH's non-admin closures to see if that would be the case. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one. Found most of those on the first three pages of google hits. Tan ǀ 39 23:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems harmless to me. He nominated it, saw that hew as wrong, and withdrew the nomination. How is that a problem? Protonk (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I did indeed search for sources for that chain, but found nothing substantial, so I AfD'ed it. Sometimes you need more than one pair of eyes to find reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this one instance is bad. I was merely providing an example for HSR of a poor nomination (I've done this myself, too, so don't bother looking). Protonk's rebuttal of AfDs being good to improve articles is a little weird.... Tan ǀ 39 23:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one stands out as one of the worst AfD nominations I ever saw: [10]. Also, I sincerely hope that TPH's supporters aren't going to pick apart every criticism that is leveled at him -- it does not enhance his viability as a candidate (his merits should be an adequate defence) and it only runs the risk of being obnoxious. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to pick apart everything, but look at the version he nominated. If you hadn't heard of it, what would you have done? There are hundreds of thousands of articles without sources in the english wikipedia. Some are that way because the subject isn't notable. Some are that way because the editors didn't know how to add sources. some are that way because editors didn't feel sources were necessary. The reason people respond so quickly is that early criticism matters in an RfA. If an RfA starts off on the wrong foot so to speak (from the candidates perspective, of course), it is hard to right it before people just browsing along see lots of neutrals and opposes and just jump on the bandwagon. I hope i'm not being obnoxious. I'm not trying to tell you that you are straight up wrong or that you are misguided. I certainly think you have hit on a valid point with respect to TPH's demeanor (he certainly does nominate quickly). But I'm just trying to make the case that his actions from that standpoint are positive sum for the encyclopedia (note that the I, Claudius article improved SIGNIFICANTLY during the AfD after seeing few to no edits before). Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk hasn't learned that essentially every word in an RfA that's not in the "Support" section is A Bad Thing. Tan ǀ 39 23:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that some really confusing kind of sarcasm ...? naerii 00:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have better ways to waste time than playing tit-for-tat, so here is my last word: If you never heard of something and you are uncertain of its notability, you take a few minutes to look it up. Everyone cited in the "I, Claudius" article has their own article here. Like I said: sloppy and reckless. And if you want to add absurd to the list, how about reopening a closed AfD discussion for an irrelevant last word: [11]? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat on the fence. Has been really nice to me at times, but I do still see some over zealousness with AfDs and now more than ever perhaps am I seeing overall too much zealouness in general to delete articles that should not be redlinked. So will have to think on it. One thing I will say, is that I do not see multiple attempts at adminship as a bad thing, as we should encourage editors to work to improve themselves and give them other chances to do so. Even if it is on someone's sixth or so attempt at, we should be able to say that they have done enough since the fifth attempt to either convince us or to try again later. I would never fault anyone from trying every so often and I do not believe there is any bad faith in these repeated efforts either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards support – I see him around frequently at AfDs and he definitely leaves the impression of someone who would be a hard-working admin whose use of the tools would provide a net benefit. Still, I am concerned with some misapplying of speedy-delete [12] [13] [14]. The last one, combined with a "total rubbish" comment was surprisingly WP:BITEy for someone so experienced. He also applied a "G3 blatant hoax tag" to UK Physical Singles Chart which was not a hoax (though it was non-notable). So I'm a little concerned about over-eagerness to delete without sufficient discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, ~~leaning support~~: TPH is someone I've interacted with frequently on Wiki and he's a great resource for questions from his experince with the project. And he has great taste in music :). I think he's worked hard to address the issues raised in his RFAs and his AfD noms and !votes have improved since AfD 5. That said, I agree with some of the concerns raised about it showing a possible over-eagerness to be an Admin. While non-admins can't delete an article, they can certainly influence the process through strong discussion at an AfD. I think TPH does this well and while no one needs the tools I wonder how having the tools is going to enhance his wiki work. Hmm that's feeling like a question. See above. TravellingCari 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose now but not going to pile on. Some of the issues brought up here concern me but the one that does so the most is the MfD of Kurt's subpage. There's no positive outcome of this other than stirring up drama. While I don't think TPH seeks to cause drama, that action was not a net positive and wasn't even a particularly good case of being BOLD. Not conduct I'd expect to see from an admin or admin hopeful, especially while said hopeful is under RFA scrutiny. Yes, there are admins who don't play nice with Kurt and vice versa, doesn't mean it should be encouraged. Also not 100% thrilled with the answer to my question, but that wasn't enough to get me to change. TravellingCari 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now, may go either way. Userpage mentions "pursuit" of adminship and how the user wants it even after five failed attempts. Adminship is not a "level-up". While we're all volunteers and should be having some fun from time to time, the off-the-wall wackiness and maturity issues do worry me. On the other hand, and least this would be one more admin who is old enough to be legally accountable...! George The Dragon (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Switched to oppose George The Dragon (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~leaning toward support~~ I'm involved in a lot of AfDs and have seen his work around a lot. I usually find what he does to be quite reasonable and civil. But in an AfD nom something like "just some in-universe info relevant only to very obsessed fans of Mad" [15] is perhaps not as polite as is ideal, and I've seen things like that pop up fairly often (I'm equally conserned that he didn't appear to do a google news or book search before putting in that nom). That said, I've had a great deal of respect for what he has done for the project. And even though I'd call him a deletionist and I'd consider myself an inclusionist, I think the vast majority of what he's done has been solid. I just worry about civility and his ability to close AfD's per consensus rather than his opinion (a problem that I've been seeing more and more recently by various admins). So Neutral. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with you about some admins clearly closing discussions based on personal bias rather than the actual consensus of the discussion. It is especially a concern when it comes to the whole fiction article matter as we can't even get an agreement on whether or not WP:FICT is an essay, historical, or what, i.e. there is simply no consensus about fictional notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to question #6 scared me enough to almost move to oppose. Speedy delete is one of the most important things to actually follow process on in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral TPH is a great user but overzealous application of the SD criteria worries me. I would agree that the SD criterion as they stand are too narrow but the answer to that is not to delete pages for reasons that they obviously do not meet. - Icewedge (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per several people above: namely, I've seen him around, been impressed with his work and was at first planning to support, but the now-apparent over-zealousness in AfD and particularly CSD give me cause for concern. Will try and find the time to make a more detailed delve into his contributions after the weekend. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I won't oppose a man without a full and fair review of his contribs, which I don't have time for right now — and I am doubly reluctant to oppose someone with a strong history of contribution and dedication to the project, as is obviously present here. However, I can't support — there are just too many examples already of AfD nominations made without due consideration or research, something I take very seriously. It seems to epitomize a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. Would an IP editor receive this same treatment? Blocked first, review later? Don't good-faith article contributions deserve a bit more thought before they are thrown into AfD? I won't rule out a switch to support, but these concerns weigh heavily on my mind, especially when what we are discussing is granting use of the block and delete buttons. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 09:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully Neutral. Moved here from support. I still believe TPH to be a great editor, but the MFD of Kurt's subpage, during an RFA? I'm sorry, there's no reason to just delete another user's Wikipedia-related subpage. Useight (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to support. Neutral TPH is a wonderful editor. After he has shown more understanding of WP:CSD and has acknowledged that in his zeal to help the project he has sometimes been far too quick to tag articles for xD, I'll support him in an RfA. I would also like to say that when he's ready to be an admin, he'll hear about it from others and this could easily happen in 4 months or so. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral from support (as mentioned above on my previous support vote). --Craw-daddy | T | 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm glad this user is helping out with closing AfDs, he isn't doing the job properly. In the cases of two articles I saw where he closed "keeps" he didn't add the AfD result template to the talk pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he could easily be nudged about remembering to do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nudged him once before, without result.[16] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I missed one. Is that really that big a deal? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something tells me TPH will never forget to do that again, so no worries there. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a regretful neutral: in the past, I've supported TenPoundHammer's RfAs, for I have believed (and still do believe) that TenPountHammer is an excellent editor, wouldn't abuse the tools if granted them, and was going to learn from past mistakes. However, although I don't think he'd willingly abuse the the tools, I am worried that his many mistakes with deletions would lead to him misusing them. While the number of RfAs doesn't give me too many concerns, the fact that in most of TenPoundHammer's requests he has been opposed for deletion errors, and still makes errors with deletion-related areas as recently as a couple of weeks ago, leads me to go neutral on this nomination, albeit regretfully. In addition, I also recall this MfD, and although it was from three months ago, it was unnecessary, and there have been inappropriate XfDs from TenPoundHammer since then, as evidenced above. I really hope that TenPoundHammer makes an even greater effort at making less mistakes in the deletion area, and waits at least six months before applying again. As I said before, TenPoundHammer is an excellent editor, and wouldn't abuse the tools, but I worried about possible misuse at the moment. Acalamari 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I came here when I spotted this RFA intending to support. I regard TPH as an excellent contributor, a civil and proactive editor, and obviously committed to the project. But some of the deletion diffs cited here worry me. I do a fair bit of CSD-based nominating myself, and I regularly find pages whose language is coherent but the content appears to be rubbish, but which don't easily fit any of the SD criteria. It's tempting to slap a tag like G1 on these articles, so the admin with the delete button must not be trigger-happy or material will be lost for the wrong reasons. I don't have a problem with using a G3 tag for unarguable hoaxes, but it's depressing to spot an article that is factually questionable, go off to try and check it out, then come back a short while later to find it has already been speedied on some entirely spurious pretext, usually G1, which is the most abused of all the SD criteria. I would be unhappy to help add another admin to the ranks of those who let this kind of thing pass. Aside from this caveat I think TPH would be a fine admin, so I'd be happy to be reassured. Ka renjc 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't bring myself to support, but I can't bring myself to oppose either. tabor-^{drop me a line} 21:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would oppose based on his AfD work, but I understand that is just a facet of a good user. That said, since it is where he said he would use his admin tools, I don't feel confident giving him the bit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I feel the same way as TaborL just above. I can't honestly oppose a user who has done so much work to improve the encyclopaedia, and who would probably be a net benefit as an admin. But I can't bring myself to support either, due to TPH's somewhat aggressive, and sometimes dubious, use of speedy-deletion tags. Deletionism, in itself, is not a crime; it is a legitimate point of view (which I share), that there are too many articles on WP about non-notable subjects. But requesting to have articles deleted on grounds such as CSD A7 (when an assertion of notability, however weak, is made) or G3 (when the article is self-evidently not nonsense/vandalism) goes beyond that, and looks like misuse of policy to circumvent the AFD process. I have no doubt that TPH's intentions are good, and that where he has made mistakes, he regrets them; but a good intention does not justify bad methods, and I just can't trust him enough to use the deletion process correctly to honestly support. I wish it were otherwise, and if this RFA fails, I hope TPH improves his judgement to the extent I can support him in a future nomination. Terraxos (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not bothering to pile-on OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvinced either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2008 (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.