Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] TenPoundHammer

Final (94/42/8); Closed as no consensus by WjBscribe at 07:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) - Ah, what to say about TenPoundHammer. I studied the previous RfAs carefully, and it looks like he's learned from those mistakes. The fact that he's a very frequent AfD patroller is quite good as well. He has a huge edit count, for starters. He writes plenty of articles, as I see him at DYK every so often, and he's clearly created many articles, as well as helped make some country music articles look pretty nice. His participation throughout Wikipedia is certainly notable, plus he's using edit summaries regularly the past few months as well. He's certainly a very improved candidate the past few months, and is ready for the tools. Wizardman 05:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: My otters and I accept the nomination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nominator forgot to transclude this, so I did that for him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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: Primarily, I plan to continue contributing regularly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If I become an admin, I will help in the actual deletion and/or undeletion processes. I believe that I am familiar enough with the deletion process to know when to delete a page, and will make sure to exercise caution so that I don't screw up. In the past, I've been accused of taking too many pages to AfD at once, or applying WP:SNOW too soon -- but lately, I've been making sure to think twice (or even three times) before I act. For example, I make sure to do several searches for reliable sources and/or claims to notability regarding a page's subject before I take it to AfD.
Although I'm not as active in countering vandalism as I am at AfD, I also plan to help out in that department whenever possible. I make sure to remove any vandalism I see, and report to WP:AIV if the need arises. If I become admin, I will help to block obvious (and I stress obvious) repeat vandals when necessary. Again, this is a department where I'll make sure to think it through first -- if I become admin, I really don't want to screw up.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Although I haven't helped promote any articles to WP:GA or WP:FA status yet, I've made considerable rewrites to several articles. Diamond Rio, Collin Raye, Lila McCann, Jeffrey Steele, and Cincinnati Mills are among the articles to which I have added the most information. Also, I rewrote Doug Stone (singer), Pirates of the Mississippi, Stephanie Bentley, The Bellamy Brothers, and Stephanie Bentley are a few of the articles that I have re-written from scratch as the previous versions were copyright violations.
In addition, I have created four five articles which have appeared on WP:DYK: Neil Thrasher, Sakowitz, Larry Stewart (singer), and Pearl River (band), and Dennis Robbins. (Dennis Robbins, another one of my creations, is currently in the DYK queue.) I have also created new pages for very many notable country music artists; among the largest, most comprehensive, and most sourced articles I've written almost entirely by myself are McBride & the Ride, Robert Ellis Orrall, and Sons of the Desert (band).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes. My most recent conflict was with User:Keri Nowling, who has repeatedly been changing the year of birth in the Collin Raye article from 1959 to 1960. Although I warned the user several times about adding unsourced info, he or she continued to add the inaccurate info, citing Raye's MySpace as a source. I then informed the user that a.) MySpace is not a reliable source, and b.) the sources in the article all state he was born in 1959. The user ignored my warnings and changed the info again, so I undid the revision (mainly because it screwed up the infobox coding) and took it to WP:AIV.
It turns out that I was one step ahead of myself -- since Twinkle contains a Level 3 "unsourced" template but no Level 4 "unsourced" template, I thought that the Level 3 was a final warning in that case. (Even though it wasn't a final warning, I also cited "evidently vandalism only account" in the AIV listing, which I felt was valid since the user had made no other edits besides persistently adding the wrong info -- and I have witnessed other users who have gotten blocked indefinitely for similar disruptive edits.) User:Tony Fox informed me of my simple mistake regarding the warnings, and left a note on the user's talk page.

Optional question from User:Krator

4. You contribute to articles for deletion and state above that this area is also the main area you will use the administrative tools in. What do you think are the largest problems in the deletion process at the moment, besides the obvious "too many articles for deletion, not enough editors to discuss" problem?
That obvious problem certainly is a major complaint, but otherwise I don't really see too many problems in the deletion process. One thing that I would consider a minor complaint, though, is users who don't understand how it works, and thus make common mistakes (such as re-listing a closed discsussion instead of creating a new one, giving just a vote with no rationale, putting up a template but not creating the discussion page, etc.). Otherwise, my only complaints about AfD process would be borderline nitpicking.

Optional question from User:Pomte 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

5. How do you search for reliable sources?
Primarily, I use Google and Google News searches, applying keywords when necessary (for instance, if I'm searching for info on a certain mall, and there are several malls by that name, I try searching for that mall and the name of its city, or a key store within. I also try sources such as FindArticles.com and other freely available sources. Although the Internet isn't the only source out there, I would think that a total or near-total lack of online presence for a subject would be an indicator of non-notability.
6. Was it a right decision to tag Lynn valley elementary, which was already at AfD, for WP:CSD#A7? Why or why not?
On the one hand, the article did seem to meet A7, as it was a very, very short article on an organization but didn't assert notability in any way. But on the other hand, I would say that I got a little trigger-happy there, and probably should've checked for sources first. The article has since been rewritten with sources added -- and although I'm not fully sold on the school's notability (I think even my podunk elementary school had more than 216 students), I would say that no, I shouldn't have asked for A7 on that page.
6b. I should clarify that for question 6, the fact that the article is sourced now is irrelevant, but that your answer should be based on the quality of the article at the time of tagging. So I'm not sure whether you say no because you didn't check for sources, or because there are evidently sources after the matter. Also, what do you make of the consensus at DRV that A7 was indeed invalid? 00:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomte (talk • contribs)
  • I'm saying no primarily because I didn't check for sources -- at the very least, I don't recall checking for sources. Although I've only participated in a couple school related AfDs, I agree with the consensus that since school deletions can be controversial, schools aren't valid A7 candidates.

Optional question from User:Lucy-marie 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

7 What is your view on the current procedures regarding the moving of pages and the merging of pages. This is primarily in relation to the process regarding deletions? Arguments made on deletions need to carry weight behind them to be valid and "volume support" is generally not accepted, without backing up. This is in relation to mergers for example; where the nominator has strong reasons for nominating, backed by policy, but could be opposed by more people on "emotional" grounds, with less reasoning from policy. This means the merger does not occur, due to "consensus" and can cause highly contentions issues. How would you as an administrator deal with this at an early stage, if bought to your attention? Also how would you resolve at an advanced stage, if bought to your attention?

Question from Corvus cornixtalk

8. If your nomination is successful, will you add yourself to the "admins open to recall" category?
A. Whoops, didn't see the question until just now. Yes, I would add myself to that category as a cautionary measure. This RfA doesn't look like it's going to pass (about 64% support by my figures as I type this), but if by some miracle I get an extra 11% support in the next couple days, I'd probably want to make myself open to recall, since a.) I'd have ended up gaining adminship by a narrow margin, and b.) I do have a tendency to screw up.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 2 Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 3
Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 4 Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. I'll support this one. I don't think the candidate will abuse the tools, and has come a way in improving. Need more admins, and this one is good. Regards, Mercury 15:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. At this point, he makes an overqualified admin. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support —BoL 06:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support --- thought he already was an admin; a good sign, I think. --- tqbf 06:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support I thought he was an admin, too. Look what he's done without the mop. Imagine what he'll do with it! Best of luck to ya! Mr Senseless (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - I have seen him regularly around Wikipedia, and I also thought he had the tools. He seems well-balanced, keen and responsible. Go for it! docboat (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support - Does great work around Wikipedia. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Both I and my otters support this nomination. Lankiveil (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
  10. I dorfbaer I talk I 10:00, January 1, 2008
    (Update) Support weekened by some of the oppose rationales. W.Marsh and VanTucky indeed make good points. However, I'll stick by my support for now, in recognition of TPH's overwhelmingly positive contributions. In the unlikely event that this request succeeds, please be very careful with particular regard to CSD tagging and AfD closures. I dorfbaer I talk I 13:20, January 2, 2008
  11. Support. He is very involved in the AfD process, and although the opposers say that TPH has made a few judgment errors in the past, I can trust that he will be more keen. Overall, he would make a great asset as an admin. Singularity 10:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support I previously opposed TPH for swinging his hammer a little too readily but I'm sure that with the extra experience he's gained since his last RfA he'll be a fine admin. A lot of people stomp off after failing an RfA or simply ignore the suggestions of other editors but TPH has kept working hard and deserves to succeed this time around. We all make mistakes but I think he's always open to discussion and that's the main thing for me. As I want this RfA to succeed I would urge him to perhaps leave the more contentious closes to others, at least to start off with, to assuage some of the concerns of the opposers. An article which can be improved is not an article which should be summarily deleted and I take him at his word that he'll search for sources (and add them) himself before taking things to AfD or speedily deleting them. Nick mallory (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support A hardworking, civil committed member of the community who would not intentionally abuse the tools. Perhaps a little too deletionist for some but we have a mechanism to correct poor deletion decisions. I'm sure the candidate will listen to concerns raised on their talk page about borderline (and not so) decisions and will learn from experience. If you get the tools, please start off slow. Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support First saw TPH on AfD and that's where they shine. We all make errors once in a while (in reference to the comments below). <humour>But isn't sharing an account with a couple of otters in violation of m:Role account and possibly PETA?</humour> =P NF24(radio me!) 13:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support This user can be trusted with the tools. I like that he is very responsive to opposing points of view if they are backed up with evidence. It seems to me like TPH will continue to work to improve his editing, and his work ethic is impressive. Darkspots (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support The user here is civil and well versed in how we do things around here. I was a little concerned over his AfD's until I examined closer and realized that while he does not think the articles belong, he is not attempting to have them speedied. He's bringing them to the community for a decision. Of late he is not contentious when people oppose him but in fact often withdraws his own nominations when he sees consensus is against him. That, to me, is a sign of someone who wants to work with people to build a fine encyclopedia. -JodyB talk 13:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support have seen him at work, a fine man for the mop I say. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support - Will be a great administrator addition to the AFD logs. Rt. 15:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    Support per many good reasons. Dlohcierekim 15:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support 110%. This guy helps Wikipedia no end. Has definitely learned from previous mistakes, and I really think Wikipedia will benefit from his being admin WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.• 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support as nom. Wizardman 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support add me to the list. Avruchtalk 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. support demonstrably a constructive member of the project, has earned my trust for access to admin tools. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support, as previously. - eo (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support, this user seems to have a good grasp about AFD, and although he makes mistakes sometimes, we all do. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support. As for deletion concerns, which seem valid, anyone who gets taken to DRV frequently as an admin learns how to correct their behavior quickly - it's not always a pleasant process. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support well involved at afd and his arguments are always well thought. As others have pointed out, we have DRV if he has too much of a deletionist bent. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support. Work with him in AFD, very good editor. Good luck!! Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support. I think he might have invented AfD :) J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support I know it's the oldest RfA cliche there is, but it's true: I'd long assumed he was one already! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support good user, seen him around.--Phoenix-wiki 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support puts in the work, makes a few mistakes, but who doesn't. RMHED (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. STRONG support per questions 2 and 3.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support, user has had plenty of useful commentary, advice and (esp.) experience to prepare him for the bucket. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support A solid contributor to AfDs and not afraid to bring items up at that forum for resolution to seek consensus on their suitability for Wikipedia. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support For the same reasons I supported the last 3 times. Should have passed at the first attempt, in my opinion. CIreland (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support. Following a read through the nomination statement, the points raised both above and below, and the candidate's contributions, I see no considerable reason to oppose. However, I would offer Hammer the advice that he work on the concerns raised by those opposing, and particularly Le Grand's comment about being a little to quick to delete ;) Anthøny 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support, but needs to be less quick with deletions. bibliomaniac15 20:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support. From what I've seen looks to be careful, trustworthy and reliable. --NrDg 21:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support From what I've seen, TPH is a trustworthy, reliable editor. The deletion diffs are an issue, but not a glaring one; I'd advise the user to take more time when considering an article for deletion. Master of Puppets Care to share? 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Strong Support I've opposed the candidate's last two RfA's, admitedly the last one based on timing. I've interatced often with this editor and find them to be courteous and willing to accept other view points. TPH's energy and efforts to this project are without question. Furthermore I trust this user to take it steady with the delete button. Very best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. I don't think there's any question that this editor would serve the community exceptionally well with the mop. If I hadn't known otherwise beforehand, I might have thought he already was one. Maser (Talk!) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - I am not particularly pleased with the answer the candidate gave to my question, as I think it is good to have some thoughts on the processes one's involved with, but it is no reason to oppose. User:Krator (t c) 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support May make a mistake here and there but seems willing to recognize when he does.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support TPH helped me a couple of times and I think he'll help more editors with mop in hand.--Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support I don't normally participate in RfAs, but I do like to keep an eye on them. I've seen this editor around enough, and would give him my support based on my own observations. As for any possible mistakes, etc, (which I may or may not agree with) the best I can say is that everyone has flaws to one degree or another, and this editor doesn't look likely to fly off the handle. Yngvarr 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  47. Again. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support In general, has done alot of good work on music-related articles at AfD. dissolvetalk 03:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support Whenever I go to AfD, I always see a slew of signatures from TPH. He is very well experienced in this field and while the concerns noted previously and currently are indeed valid reasons to not grant admin powers to the candidate, he is more than willing to admit his mistakes and make an effort to undo any damage done. Several of the AfD's cited in the Oppose section below were withdrawn after it was evident he had made an error. However, the majority of the arguments presented by TPH that I have seen are exemplary and demonstrate a more than sufficient understanding of policy. He has a good understanding of consensus, which in AfD is one of the more important abilities of an administrator. I am confident TPH will continue to improve upon himself as he has done and resolve the remaining few flaws in his ability. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support. TenPoundHammer is just so completely approachable and civil that even if he did delete something a bit off, I don't think he'd make a big stink if it was appealed. I think that's how it was supposed to be, really. So many editors make up their minds, never change them, and fight to RFAR that their initial snap judgment was correct. TenPoundHammer has the exact opposite mentality. It's extremely healthy, conducive to discussion, productive, etc. Many of the diffs provided by the opposers show, to me, an editor with an extremely open mind and a lack of self-righteousness. I really don't have any concerns. (Well, agree with VanTucky about the AIV report, but I think it's unlikely to recur.) We can trust the Hammer with the rest of the tool box. --JayHenry (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support AniMate 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support as before; an experienced and knowledgeable editor who will benefit the project as an admin. krimpet✽ 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support Civil and friendly editor. But sometimes CSD and afd becomes controversial though. I hope, he'll improve those issues ASAP.--NAHID 08:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support See no reasons to suspect user would misuse or abuse tools, although I do think that a reread of WP:VAND#NOT may be in order. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]]
  56. Support. Yes, it's well known by now that we disagree frequently at WP:AFD discussions. However, he is always civil, sometimes convinces me to delete, and has scads of experience. Meets anyone's possible standards for admin. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    If he "meets anyone's possible standards for admin" then why are there 25 opposers? --W.marsh 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not to speak for many, but I honestly think that opposing these perennial "borderline" candidates whose RfAs hover around 69% is a way for users to finally do something a bit "uncivil" while still appearing sanctimonious and looking out for the good of the wiki, much like Americans (NB: like me) who drive SUVs that ruin the environment on their way to buy organic food and fair trade Starbucks. This is not aimed at those who bring up legitimate issues, but rather the quickly ensuing cascade of pile-on opposers who suddenly find the "oppose" section after Important Personage X (talk) ~~~~ says something. Just my two cents. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't know about Ryan's comments, but I'm pretty sure it's bad form to be having a debate in the "support" column of the RFA. --- tqbf 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, I'll let that SUVs/starbucks comment go back to left field where it came from. There are legitimate issues being raised below, that there are tack-on "me too" comments just mean they're reasonable, mainstream complaints (when my verbose opposes or supports don't get "me too"s, it often is a sign my opinion might be a bit fringe). At any rate... I don't think there's a need to accuse them (or me, if I was accused in that) of being uncivil just for opposing when there's a perfectly good assumption of good faith to be made. I think this candidate can be a good admin and would support if he could show he does have a good handle on CSD policy. I don't think that's unreasonable. As for it being bad form to have a debate in the support column... I know of no such standard. This is supposed to be a discussion, right? --W.marsh 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    No, no. I'm not accusing anyone in particular. If anything I am dinging the RfA process, which generally works quite well. I am merely suspicious about the fact that this RfA plummeted from ~90% support to ~75% support in little over two hours yesterday, right around the time a few Big Name users raised some concerns. This pattern - an RfA going well for a day or two only to sharply and suddenly tank is not uncommon, and is one of the more lamentable things about the process. I am not criticizing or attacking any issues on this specific RfA, but rather criticizing this pattern of RfA, which for some candidates must be very disheartening, especially when it occurs over and over again, and is perhaps sometimes of dubious accuracy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I noticed that exact issue with my 1st and 2nd RfAs: support started piling on, and then, to quote Robert Ellis Orrall, "Boom! It was over, just like that". I've found it rather disheartening indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    This is a commonly observed trend in many RFAs. I think it's largely just human nature... most people don't want to be the first to oppose (or support, in a lot of cases) and wait for someone relatively respected to go first, so it's not so risky. I don't really think you can do much about it... you probably don't have to look to hard to see this kind of trend occurring when groups of people do stuff that has nothing to do with RFA. It's just how groups act. --W.marsh 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    You're right, this isn't confined to RfA. but it's certainly an area where it's more undesireable... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think the problem is with the "pile-on opposers". The fact that most of the opposing voters come in later means that they have spent more time actually looking at the contributions and thinking about the issues rather than just saying that they'll support because they can't find any reason to oppose within their attention spans. Many of these pile-on supporters turn up themselves at RfA within a couple of weeks: it seems that there is an "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" attitude amongst some people. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I believe that qualifies as an assumption of bad faith. Some of us who voted early on did so because we've interacted with TPH frequently in the past and are generally impressed with him and believe he'd make a good admin. It isn't because we have brief attention spans and the anticipation of quid pro quo. Avruchtalk 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I believe that qualifies as a down right rude statement. Tell me Phil Bridger, given I've already got the bit and have opposed the candidates last two RfA's, exactly how I have a short attention span and why I'm commenting based on a "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" reason. Disgraceful. I suggest you strike, redact or modify your comment. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've reconsidered part of my statement and retracted. However I do also consider RyanGerbil10's comment about "pile-on opposers" to be equally against the spirit of WP:AGF. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Okay. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support - I've seen TPH working in a couple areas I frequent, including AFDs; personally, my view is that yes, in the past he was too quick or reacted in a manner that didn't really work for the situation in those areas, but with three RFAs and all their constructive criticism, he's learning more and more each time. I honestly don't think that he'd misuse the tools, and from what I've seen he's quick enough to respond when there is a potential problem that if something came up, it could easily be rectified and he'd learn for the future. My two cents, anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support - Everything I've seen him do or contribute to has been very constructive. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support. A great editor who is dedicated to the project and knows what he's doing. I do recommend following the advice of some of the opposers in shaving a pound or two off the deletion hammer. Useight (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support an admin whom I've worked with on several AfD's, and whose body of work is impressive. I acknowledge that there are some concerns with CSD tagging, but I submit that they are mistakes made in good faith, and not made in undue haste or sloth or malice. Do I believe that this candidate will act without fault or failure as an admin? Absolutely not. But, I do feel that I can trust this candidate as an admin. That's enough to earn my support. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support Will certainly help for AFD's as he has been very involved in that part and 30 000 edits the experience is there. Fourth time should be the charm.JForget 03:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Bleh seventh try, that's because I maked a mockery out of RFA back then and other people reached 5-6. Secret account 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support We can never have enough people doing the thankless job of making the AfD process run smoother. Spellcast (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  63. support Everybody makes mistakes. THis guy seems like he knows what hes doing. Stupid2 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support. Although I have never had any direct interaction with the user, he seems well-reasoned and responsible. So while I understand the opposes, I feel as though after this RfA the user will be very considerate with the tools. Overall, it is my feeling that the net result will be positive, particular in AfD work. SorryGuy  Talk  07:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support. Always thoughtful and knowledgeable. And deletions can be reconsidered and undone with almost no effort at all, so I don't see how that warrants opposition. Kafziel Talk 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support Deb (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support Need more like him. Eusebeus (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support A regular on AfD and I see no indication that he would abuse the tools. Also, keep in mind that most AfD's are actually fairly easy calls that just needs an admin to do the work. Also, I trust Wizardman's judgement here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  69. Strongest Possible Support Great track helpful user with great commitment to Wikipedia.The user is very civil.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support despite some legitimate reasons to oppose. When I was going through a period of tagging CSDs and answering for why, I wanted to say that there's a difference in the care needed to tag a CSD versus actually deleting the article. Anyone with high activity is bound to stumble on controversial cases. Basically, I think TPH understands the process, and he should have a chance to make mistakes like everyone else. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support. TPH is very versed in AfD's, cites policy appropriately, and as such, would do well with the added buttons. Although I've held the opposing view on a few AfDs with TPH, he's always civil and backs up his views with policy and guidelines where appropriate. When he is wrong, or too fast to the CSD, he says as much. When his noms are proven incorrect through additions to the article, he withdraws the nom. All in all, I think he would be very trustworthy with the buttons and would only do what consensus tells him to do in closing AfDs. I would trust The Hammer. Keeper | 76 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support TPH appears to have a good temper and I don't believe he would abuse the tools. IrishGuy talk 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  73. Weak Support After a careful re-appreciation I believe that TPH deserves the benefit of the doubt for his clear improvements. Besides, he's unlikely to abuse the tools. Húsönd 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  74. Support you're a very good user and I think you'd make a pretty good admin.   jj137 ♠ 00:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  75. Support would make a great admin. Mopify him--Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support. I see this editor reguarly at AFD and he seems to have good judgement.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  77. I can't believe the opposes, SUPPORT excellent editor with best wishes for wikipedia in mind. No REAL reason not to have the tools.Balloonman (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    Support – Even though I believe he/she may be a little too quick on the delete at times. He has demonstrates a willingness to listen and take advice. I feel with the additional responsibility of the extra buttons that he will definitely do much more good than the remote possibility that he will do harm Shoessss |  Chat  16:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  78. Weak support per above. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support He's excellent at AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  80. I support this nomination, but I think a re-read of speedy deletion criteria will be a good thing to do. Acalamari 19:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  81. Support With minor concerns as voiced above regarding being "quick on the draw". SkierRMH (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  82. Support I have no reservations. SeanMD80talk | contribs 05:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  83. Support Have noticed his great contribs and involvement in afds recently. Editorofthewiki (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  84. Just barely support; but please watch the knee jerk deletions. By most accounts, I'm a rabid deletionist myself (just ask DGG) and I sometimes come across !votes from you on AfDs that give me pause— and that's probably not a good sign. Given that everything else you do seems okay to me, and that this can be fixed with a little guidance, I'm willing to trust and give a chance. — Coren (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  85. Support Giving this guy the mop is already way past due. I read through this entire RfA and while I do have some concerns, the odds of him abusing his authority are remote at best. I'm disappointed to see that after a four month wikibreak I have returned to find that the time-honored yet ridiculous practice of dickering over every single mouse click an editor has ever made before allowing them the miniscule authority of adminship is still alive and well. Trusilver (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  86. Support, but only just. Your taste in music almost lost it for you.  ;) Have the mop. I know you'll use it well. You've got a heavy opposition here, but I'm sure you'll pass (crat, please read this) because the nature of the opposition you're getting in natural in the pages you frequent. Unfortunately, you can't help but to step on a coupe of toes, especially clocking up over 30,000 edits. --rm 'w avu 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  87. Support - He is good. Brusegadi (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  88. Weak support - needs to take note of the notes left in the oppose section, because they need addressing, but apart from that, a decent set of contribs. Furthermore, I always trust Wizardman to make great nominations. Lradrama 11:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  89. Support - I see this user all the time at AfD. Fifth try lucky? How much torture do we need to put experienced editors through? I am confident he will use the tools wisely.Sting_au Talk 12:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  90. *Cremepuff222* 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  91. Support While more of a deletionist than I, I feel he addresses this well. He always seems to be the first to comment on articles I nominate.--CastAStone//(talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  92. Support I do think that the deletion concerns are enough to oppose. Captain panda 20:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  93. Support I belive this RfA has show TPH where he needs to be careful, and there are enough editors who pore over every deletion and debate to ensure that he learns to act with greater discretion. --Stephen 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Good point. Most of the opposition TPH has received stems from concern that he will make mistakes. There are checks and balances here. Someone is always watching over us. I expect TPH probably will make mistakes on occasion. I'm confident he will not be making loads of mistakes. Just the odd one as he goes through a learning curve with actually using the tools. My belief is that he will learn from any he does make. We are not robots nor are we expected to be. Most of us do make mistakes from time to time, but these can be a good way to learn how to do things correctly. Sting_au Talk 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    That's probably not going to change anyone's mind (especially with only one day left in this RfA), but I do agree -- I've seen admins make mistakes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  94. Change back to support per Stephen. Dlohcierekim 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose, maybe bordering on neutral, primarily because I seem to still be seeing too much quickness to want to delete stuff rather than improve articles. I do, however, acknowledge that TenPoundHammer has been polite with me even if we do disagree in AfDs. He even nicely thanked me for participating in an earlier RfA that I opposed. So again, I am just a bit concerned that there may be a quickness to delete good articles or close articles as delete that we really do not have a consensus to delete. Maybe if I saw even more effort to rescue articles, I would feel differently, because personality wise, I think Hammer does put a good deal of time into this site and as I mentioned above is certainly one of the more pleasant editors with whom I have disagreed. It is reassuring at times that with some editors, we can disagree and yet still be able to do so civilly and be pleasant on other matters, even if it is simple things like holiday greetings. Thus, my opinion of Hammer has certainly improved over time and so on one hand, I commend him for participation such as here; however, part of my concern with the AfDs is that there are a handful of users using TW to nominate numerous articles in one day, perhaps more than can be thoroughly discussed and attempted to be improved by the handful of editors who participate in these discussions. There has been some controversy about using TW in this fashion. In any event, good luck and happy new year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. I do not trust this user with deletion. Recently nominated AfDs:
    inadequate application of IINFO, 2
    questionable source searching methods, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    inconsistent standards, 2
    The candidate mentions too often when an article has OR, POV, or lacks RS, when those are generally maintenance issues that don't warrant deletion. –Pomte 07:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    Point taken, but (if every one of these AfDs had run to its conclusion and he was otherwise uninvolved) how would TPH-the-admin have closed the discussions? I see in his edits--in your list of AfDs as much as everywhere else--a solid respect for community consensus. Darkspots (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    He shouldn't have started them to begin with, based on the neighbouring AfD'd articles being kept for the same reasons. –Pomte 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    For the record, the two presidential campaign ones were actually 50/50 -- half because I thought they were indsicriminate, and half because they were contested prods. The user who placed the PROD on both articles called them indiscriminate, and I just happened to agree with him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    Hammer spends a huge amount of time at the afd's. And as he is human, there will be a few questionable calls. But at an rfa, the important questions to answer are - Is he flexable? Does he follow the concensus? Does he modify his vote when the article had been improved? Does he modify his vote when someone points out the questionable application of Wikipedia policy? His record clearly indicates the affirmative, and that's why he would make a great admin. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be bringing this up if these didn't form a reasonable percentage of his AfDs. The incorrect CSD taggings shown below by W.marsh, made while the AfDs are already taking place, shows poor judgment and a hurry to delete articles that others are clearly unsure about. I would urge the candidate to note that it is not easy to fail A7 as it is quite trivial to assert that something is important. –Pomte 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The examples cited above makes me not want to trust him with a delete button. I'd rather see editors put effort into improving articles rather than deleting them, and it seems like he would press the delete button on articles that should be improved instead. RxS (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I still see the editor making many minor mistakes in his speedy-closing of XfD debates fairly regularly: nothing so glaring as to stand out in one diff, but a pattern of mistakes that (combined with editor's high activity) make me worried should he be given the delete button. Xoloz (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    Examples would be nice though, even if there are no specifically problematic diffs. I dorfbaer I talk I 20:33, January 1, 2008
  5. Oppose per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I find the lack of understanding of speedy deletion criteria, as shown in Moonriddengirl's examples above, disturbing, and in general I see far too much enthusiasm for deleting articles rather than improving them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Just way too many simply incorrect CSD taggings: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Those diffs just cover some of his taggings in the past month, a few of which lead to protracted and unnecessary drama. The candidate doesn't seem to respect that A7 requires just a claim of importance, and that it only applies to narrow classes of articles, or that A1 requires there only be enough context to identify what the subject of the article is. At this point, given how long the candidate has been here, it would seem to be an intentional disregard for these things. This seems to be direct evidence he would make bad speedy deletions as an admin... we don't need more of that. --W.marsh 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose He's improving, but he's still too impulsive. I don't think it's really intentional, but i think it would result in improper use of the buttons. It was made clear in the previous RfAs about nonadmin closures and such things, and he still can't resist them. Unfortunately still not ready. Being flexible is not enough--agreed he';s good-natured about it, but he needs to actually understand and follow the policies. Some of the people saying support above are qualifying it so heavily that i think they mean he is not yet ready, but might be so in the future. If so, that's a oppose, not a support, even a weak support. He has to show that he knows first. DGG (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Regretful Oppose I do not believe this candidate should have (as of now) the power to close AFDs and delete articles based, among other things, the evidence provided above. I have come across this user in AFDs and while I was very inclined give my vote of support for this user (as tend to not vote against somebody just because they interpret Wikipolicy differently from me), I would not yet like to see him with said powers. I am sorry. --Sharkface217 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per W.marsh and, to a lesser extent, Le Grand Roi des Citrouille and DGG. Knowing and being able to correctly apply the speedy deletion criteria is crucial for administrators candidates who say they will work in that area. We have the potential to lose valuable contributors and contributions through errant deletions, and I'm not sufficiently confident about this users' understanding of the application of the speedy deletion criteria to be able to support them, sorry. Daniel 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per W.marsh and Daniel. I am not confident of the user's ability to judge speedy deletions yet. — DarkFalls talk 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. The candidate has made multiple clearly inaccurate speedy deletion taggings in the last month alone, such as this, two days ago, and this and this, both a month ago. This suggests he doesn't understand the speedy deletion policy, and therefore shouldn't be given the tools. Picaroon (t) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Erm...how is this incorrect? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Because it asserts a basis for notability (or does at the time of that diff). Avruchtalk 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - concerns that the behaviour is not consistent with good 'pedia building due to above points raised at AfD. Concerted work on article building would benefit next time 'round should this fail to pass. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Switch to sorrowful oppose per Wmarsh and Picaroon. Dlohcierekim 01:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Struck oppose. Re-evaluating. Dlohcierekim 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose I have issues trusting this user with deletions.—trey(wiki) 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I'm right with DGG on this: TPH shows a positive learning curve, but displays an itchy trigger finger far too often when it comes to AfDs and speedy deletion tags. The hardest part about cleaning out CSD & prod backlogs isn't deleting obvious crap, but saving mediocre-quality work with proper attention and research. I appreciate that TPH is dedicated & cooperative, but recent examples provided by W.marsh indicate a significant range of improvement needed before I would feel comfortable supporting. Keep up the good work, continue improving, and come back in 4-6 months. — Scientizzle 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I trust this user to close AfDs (although I frequently disagree with his comments on them). But I'm seriously concerned with his outlook on speedy deletions, per many of the examples from User:W.marsh. I really want to support this user, and I don't want to let our differing deletion philosophies stand in the way (while I don't think he should have listed the Kennedy and Wallace campaign articles, to name two examples, I'm quite confident that he would have closed those correctly), but overuse of the A7 criterion is one of the biggest problems with our current deletion process. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose I was all set to support, when I read your answer to question three. By your characterization of the incident, the user was in a conflict over content with you. Vandalism is the deliberate intent to do harm to the project. This is not the same as taking a position on content that you oppose. The fact that someone is ignorant of policy or the reliability of certain sources is not proof of bad faith. Taking that to AIV and calling it vandalism shows an assumption of bad faith and a glaring ignorance of what constitutes vandalism. Despite your valuable mainspace and AFD contributions, I cannot in good conscience trust you with the tools if you can't properly recognize the difference between a good faith content dispute and vandalism. VanTucky talk 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Way too fast in dropping the deletion hammer. east.718 at 05:58, January 2, 2008
  19. Oppose per VanTucky and W.marsh. --John (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose for now - due to the deletion issue. Will gladly support in next RfA if deletion acumen has improved. The Transhumanist 07:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Transhumanist puts it perfectly. Jmlk17 08:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Unfortunately, I don't feel confident giving you my support. Criteria for speedy deletion is not a simple policy and it is essential that potential administrators know it well enough not to slap blatantly-non-criteria-meeting articles with giant speedy deletion tags. Spebi 08:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Sorry. I can't support you because of the deletion issue. If you correct your errors, I will support your next RfA. Good luck. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, based on the comments of User:DGG and User:Picaroon, among others. Coemgenus 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Sorry, too many deletion related issues raised above. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose I supported a few of his prior RFAs before, and a couple of the articles wmarsh linked I would have speedied them myself, like the Marco Island Center one, but this one in particular shows severe inexperience with CSD tagging. Also I seen some questionable AFD decisions which shows very clear lack of experience with the deletion process. I thought this would have been fixed since your last RFA, but it seems to have gotten worse. Please take this critism by heart, and you would pass in a few months. Sorry Secret account 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm revealing my ignorance here, but on that diff - if he wrote the article, and made essentially all significant edits, why is db-author inappropriate? I'm going to go look at the criteria again just in case its obvious! Avruchtalk 02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope, I looked and still don't get it. Avruchtalk 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • {{db-author}} is not really for "I changed my mind, this is not notable" situations, several months after creation. It is for "oops, I didn't mean to create that" moments. I think the main point is that deleting the shopping mall article may well have been contested by other people in the community, and would probably not be thoroughly non-controversial as speedy deletions are supposed to be. The fact that the article survived AFD and is still online testifies to that. (I hope I'm not putting words into Secret's mouth here.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's actually simpler than that - other editors had made substantial edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Sjakkalle has what I wanted to say. Secret account 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Too borderline the RFA so I'll withdraw my oppose as I do like TenPoundHammer, please listen to my advise and the others advise in the future. Secret account 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Definitely needs more time. Makes plenty of minor mistakes that could've been avoided. Razorflame (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Quite concerned per comments by W.marsh and DGG. Perhaps a little more time is needed to take in the constructive advice from the community and improve for next time around. --Charitwo talk 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Oppose reluctantly, often noticed TenPoundHammer as a good contributor at AFD but the concerns raised above, particularly about speedy deletions, where I agree with what Walton has written in the neutral section about discouragin the creators, just make me unable to support giving the tools at this time. Would be delighted to support in the future after a period where the concerns raised here have been addressed. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose per Pomte, W.marsh and Daniel. -- 69.183.42.216 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Anonymous users can't vote in rfas, though they are certainly allowed to discuss the rfa. Wizardman 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Oppose John254 07:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Is there a reason for this oppose? An oppose without a reason is unhelpful. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Weak Oppose An unfortunate focus on deleting articles, exacerbated by nominations of articles that had already made clear statements of notability. While I have seen some improvement in the recent past in this regard, I am unsure that Hammer is appropriately prepared to pass judgment on Wikipedia content up for XfD. I hope to see continued moderation in the future and, based on past trends, I expect to be prepared to consider supporting the AfD at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer number 6 or 7. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Oppose - I stumbled across this RFA all ready to give my support, however, after reading some of the concerns above, I have to regretfully oppose to per W.marsh and DGG. Sorry. Jauerback (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Mild oppose This user has been improving, but I still share some of the concerns above. Húsönd 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to weak support. Húsönd 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Oppose per above concerns. Not ready for adminship yet. Singopo (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Reluctant oppose per W.Marsh and DGG - I like TPH, but there are far too many very links to poor speedy tags above. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Oppose needs a bit more policy experience to avoid problems like the deletion tagging pointed out. Shell babelfish 21:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. Oppose per Le Grand Roi, DGG, W.Marsh. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Per W.marsh mostly, tagging issues plus maybe a little too jumpy in the tagging. I hope I don't sound too antideletionististic. - Dureo (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. per Xoloz -- Y not? 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Nope. To the lake (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Any particular reason for this and why your first edits are votes on RfA's? EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Because. To the lake (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    — To the lake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Just because. This is the lake 10:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    signature unlinked. User indef blocked. -- lucasbfr talk 11:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Another comment has been struck and outdented here. Maybe for the sake of consistency the same should be done here. Dorfklatsch 12:02, January 6, 2008 Already done. Dorfklatsch 12:03, January 6, 2008
  38. Oppose - Sorry guy, had to change my opinion base on the Afd nomination as of this morning. Shown here. [9] Shoessss |  Chat  18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You're changing your mind just because you disagree with me over one AfD? No offense, but that does seem a bit petty. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. Besides that, I don't think nominating an article that should arguably be kept (I'm not sure what I think about that particular article, and I'm pretty inclusionist) doesn't speak to TPH's ability to close RfAs, which is what should be at issue. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I take it you did not read my support opinion listed above. That was one of my concerns. You may call it petty, I call it a validation of my concern. Either way, it looks like you are in as an administrator and I wish you the best in your new position Shoessss |  Chat  20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    It's not only petty, it ranks up there with me as one of the most petty reasons I've ever seen an RfD position changed. (and oh man have I seen a lot) There was nothing at all controversial about listing that AfD, in fact I happen to agree with him. The fact that the RfD process has deteriorated to schoolkid pissing matches rather than focusing on the one and only true qualification of adminship (will the editor abuse the tools) is what's wrong with the system as it currently stands. Trusilver (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Call it petty, call a schoolyard-pissing contest and I am sure there are additional superlatives that could be used. The one thing you are forgetting that this page is for opinions, be they childish, be them petty or whatever, they are opinions that should and be allowed to be expressed especially on this page! May be a little bit more decorum and a lot more focus on expressing why Tem Pound should have administration rights from your part, yes or no, would serve a better purpose to Wikipedia than focusing on my opinion. Shoessss |  Chat  21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    You might have noticed that I already did. I consider TPH to be among the most dedicated and clueful editors that is immersed in AfD. He consistently is willing to go against the popular opinion when he sees it necessary. He is one of the very few editors that I have seen who is willing to go to the mat for what he believes regardless of how it hurts him politically. You are opposing him for the act of listing an AfD that has serious notability concerns and only tangential sources. That wasn't a controversial action, that was the action of a level-headed editor who's working to improve the encyclopedia. A controversial AfD would be listing George W. Bush for lack of notability (write your own punchline there). Trusilver (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Shoessss I don't tend to harass opposers, but I too must call it petty. Please review your attitude because it really denotes bad faith, and may be treated with appropriate disregard by the closing bureaucrat. Húsönd 01:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment – LOL I never realized my opinion counted so much. I have been called many things in life, and yes here at Wikipedia not so mentionable things, however this is the first time I have ever been called petty. Initially, I supported Ten Pound, as you will note above. However, I did express some concerns, along with a number of other editors about Afd’s. Once again, I expressed an opinion. Nothing more and nothing less, just an opinion. Moreover, to be honest after this post, I will take this Rfa off my watchlist because I believe it distracts from the purpose of this page. To Ten Pound, I wish the best, either way this goes. To be honest, I have seen far worse than him have the opportunity to control the buttons. On the other hand, in six months, with just a little bit more experience, he will do more than just a average job in his new capacity but a great job. With that, good night to all and a Happy New Year. Shoessss |  Chat  —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    FWIW,I consider that particular AfD a reasonable nomination, & I notice almost everyone is saying delete at it. DGG (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Oppose I agree with DGG and W.marsh and am going to have to throw my two cents against this. Over- and mis-interpretation of CSD is a peeve of mine ever since becoming an administrator. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  40. Oppose per the clear issues recognised by many on both sides above. When a very active specialist is showing weaknesses precisely in the specialised area, it's time to draw back. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Oppose, while I hugely respect the nominator, the concerns brought up are quite serious. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. He's usually right on the nominations, but I'm still not comfortable having TenPoundHammer close AfDs. Aside from some of the specific instances listed above, the perceived deletionist leanings continue to indicate to me that having him close AfDs will result in an uptick in entries at DR - which would not be a plus for the project. Dekimasuよ! 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. --'n1yaNt 07:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Very good user, do not think they will purposefully abuse the tools, but think they may be a bit button happy when it comes to deletion per diff's at WP:AFD. This user is very civil, still unsure whether to switch to support. Tiptoety talk 08:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral: The issues addressed above are concerning enough. However, other than that, I've had several positive interactions with the user, and am leaning toward support, but I'd like some more time to go through TPH's contributions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. - too quick on the CSD button in examples above for me to support. Administrator's should be conservative with CSD - when in doubt, send to AFD. Especially marking db-bio for a high-school, db-context for a valid stub, etc. If the user would promise not to mark things as CSD when they're not so obvious, I may change to support. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I've been trying to hold back on the speedy deletion tags, although I still need a little bit of work. Regardless of whether or not this passes, I'll make sure not to use CSD unless it's more obvious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Switch to Neutral Weak support. I'm in a similar boat as Tiptoety (down in neutral), even though (no offense, Tiptoety) I really don't want to be there. I think TenPoundHammer is an excellent editor and a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, which is why I'm in support, but I'm somewhat concerned with a few things I found in contribs, which is why I'm tentative in that support. The AfDs mentioned in oppose do not concern me, especially as in a number of them the nominator withdrew the nomination once it was demonstrated to him that consensus was against him. I note that in the same period of time, he listed a number of mall articles for AfD that were accordingly deleted by consensus: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, to name a few among the many. It's not like the nom is working to delete articles on former English kings, here—there is obviously legitimate need for discussion over what renders a mall notable and what does not. However, I've gone through his recent contributions (deleted and otherwise) with an eye for locating mistagged speedies, since I think those are probably a better indicator of misuse potential, and I do have some misgivings about some of those, particularly in WP:CSD#A1 territory. A1, no context, is for articles that cannot be comprehended because there is insufficient material in them to parse what they're about. This seems obviously to me not to apply to the following: 1, 2 and 3. (This one is hardly a stellar example of an article stub, but it was tagged 2 minutes after creation—surely not enough time to allow the creator to establish the article? I tend to think it might be better to watchlist an article in such a case and come back to it later.) Also, this A7 nom is concerning given that the article asserts a charted hit. The fact that half an hour later, after the speedy was declined, nom admitted "didn't catch that, they have charted a hit" in the AfD doesn't reassure me. We ought to read the whole article before !voting for delete, much less tagging for speedy deletion. :( So, given these misgivings, why am I in support? I've thought for a long time about it. I feel very confident in his work overall. I do not believe he will willfully abuse the tools, and these indicators of potential misuse are very small in proportion to his overall contributions. He is overall very familiar with policy, and given his obvious desire to work within guidelines and to seek consensus, I believe that once an issue is pointed out to him, he will work in good faith to correct it. Still, while he says above that "lately, I've been making sure to think twice (or even three times) before I act" in terms of deletions, one of those A1s was placed on 12/31 and that unread A7 was only a month ago. I would really like to be an enthusiastic supporter of this RfA, but can't without some additional assurance that he's going to be careful with deletions to apply policy properly and to thoroughly evaluate candidates before deciding that an article should go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    In my case, DGG is right. I'm afraid that I am allowing my personal regard for the nom to influence my opinion. I spend a lot of my time reviewing speedies, and I would not support a candidate for whom I had less personal regard with those tags. I'm sorry. I won't oppose, because I still believe these are a small part of your contributions, but I should not support, either. If you get the tools, I hope you will make good use of them. I think you're a great Wikipedian. But I do have concerns that you may be a little too imprudent in deletions at this time. If perchance this RfA does not pass, I feel sure I'll be able to support without misgivings next time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Let me make it clear I share your high regard for a generally excellent editor, with whom I have never come in conflict.DGG (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral...Moonriddengirl explains it well. Ten pound hammer is an apt pseudonym, as sometimes subtleties or details are missed in favor of deletion (I'm concerned mainly about the overuse of speedy deletion, you don't seem to have trouble following consensus in discussions). However, you do a lot of great work bringing up reasonable discussions and doing non-admin closes, you're able to recognize mistakes and change your opinion as the situation changes, and you're very civil in discussion, so I'm reluctant to vote no for these reasons. I hope you exercise caution if you do become an admin, and that you continue to keep up your devoted work if not. I think you're a real asset to Wikipedia and I'd like to confidently support a slightly more caution TPH in a future RfA. Rigadoun (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Experienced as any other, and does good work on the project, but I am concerned over the tendencies towards rushing through things as noted above. I don't think the person will do anything in bad faith however. Undecided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - Excellent editor who I would love to support, but I am concerned with the speedy taggings cited above. I do not have an issue with the fact that his views are somewhat more deletionist than the general community norm; controversial AfD closures can always be taken to DRV, and I trust that he wouldn't ignore consensus in favour of his own opinion. However, speedy deletions turn on the judgment of a single administrator, and he has demonstrated that his views on what should be speedied are not in line with community consensus. An incorrect speedy deletion, even if later overturned at DRV, can demoralise the article's creator and drive them away from Wikipedia. I don't doubt that he acts in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and FWIW I don't totally disagree with his views on deletion. But it is essential that an admin should follow community consensus even where he disagrees with it, and even more essential that the CSD criteria should be construed narrowly; where there is any doubt as to the CSD-ability of a new page, use a prod instead, or take it to AfD. WaltonOne 13:18, 3 January 2008 (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.