Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 3

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

[edit] TenPoundHammer

(3/6/5); Final; withdrawn August 17, 2007

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) - I nominate Ten Pound Hammer for the mop. Although he has had 2 ([1] [2]), I think that he has continually improved, and would make an excellent sysop. I first came across Ten Pound while working on the Maple Hill Mall article, when I was still rather new to Wikipedia. I was impressed with the amount of information he was able to provide, and I thought he was great. I have also come across his edits on most mall and shopping center pages I have been to while browsing and editing. More recently, I have come across Ten Pound on WP:RFA. Whenever I go to discuss deletions, which I have become more active in recently, I see his contributions, either in the discussion or as the nominator. His comments are always clear, make sense, and reference the policies, which in my opinion, shows that he understands them. After two failed RFAs, he continues to edit and make positive contributions, in both the project space, and the article space, which shows he is dedicated to being an active Wikipedian. Although he may have some questionable edits behind him, I think that he has demonstrated he is an excellent candidate for the mop within the past few months. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I accept the nomination I withdraw the nomination (and I fixed it so it would show up on the main RFA page). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: I realize that my last RfA was only 22 days ago, but keep in mind that my second RfA, unlike this one, was a self-nom. I don't want anyone to believe that I'm desperate to become an admin; if Nenyedi hadn't nominated me, I probably would have waited at least another month before placing a self-nom.

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: My main goals now are to help in maintenance of articles -- cleanup, deletion/undeletion, vandal fighting, et cetera. I am quite active in AfD, giving my votes whenever possible -- and if I think that a discussion needs closure (for instance, if it should be in another Xfd instead, or if the consensus is clear), then I'll make sure to close it. I've become a bit more cautious lately; I'm no longer closing discussions in which I've participated, unless I was the nominator and I'm withdrawing (or if someone else deleted the article and forgot to close the discussion). I've now learned the difference between consensus and majority (albeit the hard way), so that should be helpful as well.

I also plan to participate in countering any users who are persistently vandalizing Wikipedia. If a user is repeatedly vandalizing, I will warn him or her first, and if they keep it up, I take it to AIV. I've made several reports to AIV in the past of clearly vandalism-only accounts, and most of the users I've reported have been indefinitely blocked. Of course, I made sure that each user was sufficiently warned first before requesting a block; I know that blocking is not to be taken lightly!

I have been trying to exercise more caution overall -- previous comments in my other two RFAs stated that I was often too hasty in closing discussions or nominating articles. Sometimes I still do a bunch of AfD's in fairly rapid succession, but I do take the time to read the article and see if I can find any sources first.

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

A: One of my recent creations, Larry Stewart (singer), made WP:DYK on July 31. This is the first time that I've had an article appear on DYK.

I also did a WP:HEY job on Dutchess Mall, Northway Mall, Wenatchee Valley Mall, and Indian Mall when they were both put up for AfD in the past; the article previously was an unsourced stub, and I added several sources to establish the mall's notability.

Diamond Rio, Doug Stone (singer), Jeffrey Steele, Kevin Sharp (country music), Trace Adkins, Bellamy Brothers, Stephanie Bentley, Confederate Railroad, Joe Diffie, Clinton Gregory, Pirates of the Mississippi, Sixwire, Alexandria Mall, Ashtabula Mall, Cincinnati Mills, Eastland Center (Harper Woods, Michigan), Fountain Walk, Great Lakes Crossing, The Great Mall of the Great Plains, Mall 205, The Mall at Partridge Creek, and Universal Mall are all pages that I have rewritten from scratch. In each case I added several references to assert notability, and corrected any errors; a few of the singer pages were also copyvios before I tackled them.

Other significant contributions I made can be found here; I've been very active in creating new pages on shopping malls, country music artists, and whatever else.

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: I recently closed this AfD as a "keep". Granted, this article's subject isn't my field of expertise, so I misunderstood a couple of the delete votes, and went with a consensus of "keep". Some users think that my closure was based on majority vote and not consensus. Unfortunately, my biggest mistake here was that I had participated in the actual AfD, so some saw my closure as biased; others simply thought that I did nothing wrong and it would have been closed as "keep" or "no consensus" anyway.

Optional question from Leebo

4. Do you feel that you have adequately addressed the concerns raised in your previous RfA, taking into consideration that the last RfA was less than a month ago?

Of course; otherwise, I wouldn't have accepted! I'm trying to exercise more caution overall -- making sure not to close AfDs I've participated in; not requesting speedy on articles that clearly don't deserve it; trying to exercise good faith at all times; and overall just thinking more about the consequences of my actions. Of course, the closure I mentioned in question 3 was one mistake (although some feel it wasn't, I feel that it was), but I do feel that third time is the charm here.

[edit] 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 · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

Support – XfD contributions (including posting of opinions, and nominations); WP:AIV and WP:UAA reports; WP:SPEEDY nominations. TenPoundHammer clearly demonstrates a requirement for the tools, and has also gained my trust. Best of luck :) Cheers, Anthøny 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose; see below.

1. Support. Thought one of your previous RfAs passed. I have no idea why the oppose votes are worried about the timing. In this case, I now understand. But what is wrong with having almost a month to change. You're ready for the tools now (although as of yet, you haven't accepted), and apparently you weren't a couple weeks ago. Big deal. You are a fine candidate. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Support has a very good track .He has accepted the nomination because some one else nominated him.Has just under 20000 edits and is one of the most active and productive editors.Harlowraman 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Support this is unlikely to pass, as it's too soon after the last one, but that won't stop me from supporting. Acalamari 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry, I like you man, but waiting just three weeks between RFAs is just not enough time to improve and put things behind you. It's just way too soon --Lucid 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

   Please look at his track which is very good and he has been around since December 2005 with just under 20000 edits.His contribution particurly in AFD or anywhere have been totally non partisan and very good.Just taking someone else nomination alone is not a crime.Harlowraman 20:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose – I was not aware that there were 29 22 days between TenPoundHammer's last RfA and this one. To me, this is a clear sign of "desperation" for the Administrator tools, which is never a good sign. Anthøny 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

   Before you indict him, he never accepted this nomination. This RfA is out of process. Leebo ^T/C 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

   He accepted it informally on his talk page, and added the page to WP:RFA. It's a de facto acceptance --Lucid 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

   That's true. I didn't realize he had transcluded it. However, it makes sense to wait for him to provide a reason for waiting such a short time through his answers to the questions. Leebo ^T/C 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

   In regards to Anthony's comments -- My second RfA was a self nomination; this one was made by User:Nenyedi. I don't think that's "desperation" at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

   The thing is that you accepted. That's what makes us uneasy --Lucid 19:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

3. Sorry, far too little time between RfAs. Yes, someone nominated you this time, as opposed to last, but you didn't have to accept the nomination. There were concerns that your last RfA was rushed, as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'm afraid I must oppose for now. Editor seems to be in a hurry at times, and can act a bit rash because of it. This third RfA seems to continue that pattern. I'd like admins to be a bit more deliberative. Slow down, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. :-) henrik•talk 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - This oppose has absolutely nothing to do with any review that I have made of your contributions. My concern is that your last RFA was closed less just a bit less than 21 days before this one started. There were no procedural issues or anything that I can see and it was not a borderline case subject to bureaucrat discretion. The fact that you are here again now shows poor judgment in my opinion. The fact that you claim that you would have waited at least another month if you had not been nominated does not change my opinion. You had the option to decline this nomination and, I feel, you should have had the judgment to exercise that option. If you would like for me to support you for adminship, please withdraw this RFA promptly and do not accept another nomination until October 1. Also, when you do RFA again, please provide clear response to the items that caused your 2nd RFA to not succeed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Note: Please, also, do not interpret my comments to indicate in any way whatsoever that you may not be valued here or could not become a fine admin in the future. I am only saying that you must show better judgment and you must let enough time pass between RFAs to be evaluated by the community vs your prior attempt. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
6. No. I opposed you before but with reluctance bordering on no abstention or neutral due to your great work. This nomination acceptance after such a short time is very poor judgement. Self nomination or own nomination is totally academic - at RFA you are asking the community to trust you not to abuse a few extra tools. Whether other editors nominate you to have them, or you ask for them yourself is irrelevant. The point is purely trutworthiness. This is a community, and I fear you have judged the community badly by this rushed re-application which means I must again oppose. I'm sorry. Pedro |  Chat  21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, suggest withdrawal - Seriously, having a Rfa after only 3 weeks is bound to fail. Wait a few more months, so that other users can see how you improved. Good luck next time! --Hirohisat ^Talk 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral teetering on the brink of support I happen to like this user a lot and have been frequently impressed with his work in AfD. I supported him last time and I'm leaning to support this time, but I think it's just too soon after the last RfA. Trusilver 19:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral I was oppose last time, and because this is not a self nomination, I wish to remain neutral and encourage a withdrawal on the grounds that less than a month is not enough time. As before, I still think you're on the right track, but want to see three or four more months worth of work to judge. Hiberniantears 20:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral I was support last time around and didn't vote on your first one. However I do think its too soon for another RFA. I know you were nominated by another user, but IMHO accepting it shows a lack of discretion. And I think admins need to use discretion alot. New England ^{Review Me!} 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Friendly neutral much per New England and others. Three weeks from now, this would have been unhesitating support. —AldeBaer 21:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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