Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Tom

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] The Tom

Final (16/1/2) ended 01:51 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The_Tom (talk • contribs • count) – User:The Tom seems to me like a stand up sort of guy who I assumed was an admin. He appears not to be, hence this nomination. Hiding talk 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I graciously accept. Thanks Hiding! The Tom 01:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, despite whining about the Yukon being different. :-) Lots of good edits, lots of good category cleaning up work recently. Will wield the broom sensibly and is respectuful of consensus. Will be a good administrator. Luigizanasi 02:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support -- The Tom has been around for a while and has made nearly 8000 edits with a good spread over the talk and project namespaces. I'm very pleased with the category work he has been doing. The only complaint that I have is the lack of information on his userpage, but that is just what I prefer to see. Otherwise, I see no reason why The Tom shouldn't become an admin. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, but please use edit summaries more often. Also, try to 'talk' more. You have only 69 usertalk edits, about .9% of your total edits. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian 05:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support No reason to believe that he can't be trusted with admin tools. --Rogerd 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support 8000 edits and a solid history with "janitorial" tasks; I can't hold the 200 edits against him when he was cleaning WP's house at the time. Xoloz 07:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, good record of janitorial work. Kirill Lokshin 14:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support work on those edit summaries but I don't think that should ever be a reason not to support someone. Just because it's harder to evaluate the editor? Other than that, a lack of edit summaries aren't a good enough reason to vote oppose when being an admin is no big deal.Gator (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support Use Edit summaries!:) Ohterwise, Gator is right, being an admin is no big deal. Good luck!--MONGO 20:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Ambi 00:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Good work.
  12. Support. El_C 23:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Always being sensible at WP:CFD. Martin 20:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Fahrenheit Royale 16:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. --Kbdank71 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, seems like a good and dedicated editor. Palmiro | Talk 15:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I don't know this user personally, but from looking at his last 200 edits, it is very hard to find an instance when The Tom put an edit summary, and just a bit more often he uses the minor edit button. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yikes. You're quite right that I've been leaving the old edit summary blank a fair bit lately (although I was mildly surprised myself how brutal it looks at the moment). In all honesty, though, I've been on a huge Category maintenance kick lately which isn't indicative of my general editing habits. You'll find 90%+ of those edits have been either votes on CFD subpages or manual recats (which, admittedly, could have been summaried). The Tom 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I looked at all your edits, starting with June, 2003. I see more edit summaries, but not many more. I know that putting edit summaries is just one (and not the most important) of the qualities necessary for an admin. However, I keep my vote. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
In this edit, dated November 18, 2005, you emptied a category which seemed well-named of subcategories which also seem well-named and belonging in this category. The mother category is still alive, empty for now, with no mention anywhere whether it will be deleted or not, or what on earth is going on. This is a concrete example of why edit summaries are necessary. Would you mind explaining? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Must use Editsummarries but other than that everything is ok --Jaranda(watz sup) 03:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Will support if I see more edit summary usage by end of RFA, this is a big pet-peeve of mine, especially for an admin. Other than that, I have seen the work you have done and support you as an admin. «»Who?¿?meta 02:35, 19 November 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I've been a fairly enthusiastic battler of vandalism across a heftyish swath of politics articles that have ballooned my watchlist in the past few months, and have been known to F5 good old WP:RC on the odd lonely night. The magic of [revert] would certainly let me continue this with a bit more vigour and an enhanced sense of, erm, duty. I've also been a keener is matters of article titling, and so I imagine I'll spend some time working at WP:RM as well as overwriting a long mental list of obstinate redirects that I've let slide.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Gosh. I've long been brutal at starting anything that isn't a stub, and while a few have grown into wonderful oak trees (or however the strained metaphor goes), I can't honestly say I've got a portfolio that I'm crazy about. I suppose there are a couple of political templates I can call my own... the standardized political party sidebar that started for Canadian parties like the Liberal Party of Canada has since spread throughout the Wikipedia, often unbenownst to even me, such that the likes of the Left Party (Germany) and National Party of Australia now look mildly Tommish. A lot of election articles, like Canadian federal election, 2004 and British Columbia general election, 2005 contain a lot of me, too, including that bigass candidate template/table I designed (also seen here). I'm also really pleased with the group effort I helped to participate in for 2003 UB313 which grew an article about a ball of ice to something rather good within hours of said object's discovery and continued to flesh our marvelously in the weeks that followed. That effort led me to a fair amount of work on articles like Trans-Neptunian Object.
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?
A. To be perfectly honest, I've had very few problems, considering the total number of edits I've accumulated—perhaps I've just been editing alongside too many other Canadians :). I've had the odd brush with disagreement over applying Wikiwide standardization to the odd topic, and I've lost a few WP:CFD decisions, but I've rarely let it really affect me all that much. There seems to be very little that a polite note on a talk page won't accomplish. Indeed, my talk page pretty much reflects my experience here at wikipedia, warts and all, and I can't honestly say there's been anything too heated on it (nor in any of my replies). Should the day come where I attract a bit more ire from users, which I suppose could be expected from the odd administrative decision, I see no reason to change my tune and become any more touchy.
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.