Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tomf688

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Tomf688

Final (28/1/1) ending 00:05 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688 (talk • contribs) – Tomf688 has been with us for over a year and has over 9,000 edits to his credit. He has made many quality contributions to articles about political figures and events and more recently to articles involving hurricanes and related areas. A strong proponent of Neutral point of view and Civility it is my pleasure to nominate this fine contributor. MONGO 11:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and thank you for the nomination. --tomf688^{talk} 21:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator MONGO 00:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Support per nomination. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 00:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support will make an excellent admin --Rogerd 01:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, this user has left me with a good impression every time I've encountered him. Just venture a little bit more into the Wikipedia namespace every once in a while. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support plenty of experience, went through his archives and cant find any scandals. freestylefrappe 03:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support 9000 edits in a year is most impressive. Banes 07:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Yes ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Shauri smile! 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Orane (t) (c) (@) 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. I have ran into him before, and in each case he was either reverting vandals, making good edits, or engaging in civil discourse.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 05:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
13. FireFox 13:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. BazookaJoe 16:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support although I don't know 'em. V/M
    19:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
16. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. It's been a pleasure working with him on various articles and was one of the first individuals that helped point me in the right direction when I was a newbee. Will make a fine admin. --Holderca1 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Won't abuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
19. King of all supports. His contributions to Wikipedia are immense. He has a lot of talk page edits (every talk page I visit seems to have a post from him on it). That is amazing. I probably see Tom on talk pages more than anybody else. He is civil, knowledgable, helpful, and extends a hand to everyone who asks for it. Hats off friend. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Over 9000?? this should be clear... Gryffindor 18:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support -- Francs2000 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. El_C 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support --Kefalonia 08:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Not come across him, but a brief look at his contributions looks good and I trust the other supporters. the wub "?!" 14:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Xoloz 17:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Tedernst 18:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support Private Butcher 20:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question [1] or he is excessivley sarcastic [2]. I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes he offers an exlanation on someone's talk page if they request, but rarely. Such votes only anger the candidate as they have no given justification or construcive criticism and Boothy knows this. There is a word for actions that are designed to provoke anger and frustration, but I will use good faith and continue to assume that that word does not apply here. If I did annoying things like this on other sites, I would get bold red mod text warning, troll warnings, and then I would get banned. As Molotov said, vandals and trolls can't get away with Bad Faith edits, nor can users with high edit counts. If Boothy had his way, we would have maybe 5 admins tops. Vandals and trolls would OWN this site without admins, and AfDs would pile up, and you know it. We need admins.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 16:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I won't condone Boothy's actions, but they do only minimal harm, since, considering his record for consistency, it is hard to take his votes personally (or very seriously, to be frank.) If he wants to oppose all nominees on the (mostly unspoken) theory that all admins are bad, it is probably best to leave him alone on his mole-hill. Besides, there is some symbolic value in having a single oppose vote. If I ever ran (which I won't), I take a backwards pride in it. See also: William Plumer for historical trivia. Xoloz 17:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Sorry, but the 160 edits in the Wikipedia namespace is way too low for me because it shows that you have not been very active in the various janitorial and procedural tasks. I would like to see more participation on AFD, TFD, CFD, HD, VP, PR, FAC, or any other tasks listed on Wikipedia:Maintenance. I would be more comfortable if you have more proof that you are well versed on all of the policies and guidelines before handing a mop to you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

An admin has many duties obviously, but vandalism is a major problem and, if made an admin, I would spend more time RC and Random Page patrolling with the additional rollback and blocking functions that would be made available for use.

As for being involved in Wiki procedure and politics, this nomination has alerted me to the fact that, even though I have nearly 10,000 edits, I only have 160 involving the Wikipedia namespace. I will seek to improve my involvement in these areas even if I am nominated (even if this nomination should fail, I will still improve myself in this area).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

Specifically, I've contributed a large amount to many articles relating to Maryland politicians, and politicians in general, an accomplishment which I hold in high regard. I've filled in a large portion of recent governors on the List of Governors of Maryland page, and have added fuller articles for several. The same goes for senators, representatives, and other politicians from Maryland (see my user page for a fuller list). I've also endeavored to add images to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons, and have uploaded over 200 to the Commons alone, mostly from Government sources or of which are from the Library of Congress or other similar sources.

In general, I've done a fair amount of random article searching. I also do RC patrol, but not a great deal as of late, mostly since I have been working on specific objectives (scouring the Library of Congress webpage for images, writing longer articles, keeping up on the recent hurricanes, recategorizing the U.S. Senators and Congressmen, etc.), and have not had time. Also, Wikipedia has been quite slow recently, and, since reverting an edit manually requires quite a few clicks, it can be a very slow and frustrating process. I will, of course, budget a much larger amount of time towards RC patrol and Random paging if made an admin, since the functions will be easier to perform.

As for contributing to other users, I will continue to provide as much assistance as is reasonable to anyone who comes asking for help on my talk page.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

I try to avoid conflict if possible, not by burying my head in the sand or by running away from it, but by staying calm and trying to present my arguments in a reasonable manner. I will admit, though, that the pages I mostly concentrate my editting on aren't exactly consisting of controversial material, so when I deal with other users it is mostly in a good-natured environment.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.