Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TomStar81 3

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

TomStar81

edit

Final (80/18/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 08:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

  • Co-nomination
I am nominating TomStar81 for adminship as this is overdue. I have worked closely with him for about a year, in Milhist, where we are both coordinators. He is sensible, thoughtful and trustworthy, with a direct but civil manner. He is good at finding consensus, and then implementing it.
Tom has been around since September 2004, racking up over 17,000 edits. His first RfA became hopelessly derailed with a dispute between two editors, and Tom honorably withdrew his nomination. His second attempt followed very shortly afterwards but this, he acknowledges, was a mistake as it was far too soon for the dust to have settled from the first. However, this was nearly a year ago and we have since all moved on.
Tom is an excellent content editor, and despite his famously idiosyncratic spelling, has contributed to ten featured articles (mostly about the US Navy). He has also nominated a dozen images for featured status, and accumulated many shiny things. He is mostly active in the Ships and Military history wikiprojects. He has been an active and enthusiastic Milhist coordinator since August 2007. He came third in the last coordinator elections, which indicates a high degree of community trust.
I don't imagine Tom will change his spots and become a world-class vandal blocker or a AfD/CSD enthusiast. I expect he'll mostly do low-key routine backroom stuff, tidying as he goes about his regular editing. Additionally, he'll be good at helping with the increasing number of disputes involving POV-warriors.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nomination

I am honored to offer up a co-nom for TomStar81. He is the one of the first if not the first editor that I became in contact with after I began to edit here just under a year ago, and if it were not for him, I do not know if I would still be writing or improving the occasional article. As mentioned above, he has many Featured Articles and Featured Pictures (noms) to his name, along with a few GAs and DYKs, which means he also is a recipient of one of Durova's Triple Crown's. I have collaborated with Tom on a few articles which have gained some status:

  • USS Illinois (BB-65) was originally put to FAC by myself but once I encountered some issues that I could not deal with on my own, Tom stood in and took him upon himself to get the article to Featured status. Without him, I do not believe this article would be where it is today.
  • USS Texas (BB-35) was expanded by Tom before I even registered an account, but with my gentle nudge, we successfully navigated a Good Article nom and we are almost ready to take the article to FAC.

Tom has always welcomed questions with good well-thought-out and reasoned answers and I do not remember him ever being uncivil. Both of these qualities are ones that I expect from an admin. I trust Tom's judgment so much that I granted him rollback rights in January of this year, and I have not seen him use those rights incorrectly. I do not expect that Tom will use the tools everyday, but I believe that he will use them properly when he deems necessary, as I do. -MBK004 04:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

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: To a certain degree, vandalism prevention, since we have all encountered that problem here at some point. Outside that the two likely areas for admin related work will be afd and RC patrolling; in the case of the latter, for blocking vandals at or beyond the last warning and deleting csd-tagged articles that pop up when I happen to catch them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I still consider my best contributions to Wikipedia to be my featured articles and pictures, as these represent the most elite and highest regarded articles and audio visual media on the encyclopedia.
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: By far the conflict over editting that caused me the most stress was the virutual anihilation of nearly all the old Command & Conquer pages at the hands of Proto (now Neil (talk · contribs). He and I had gunfights over that, and it took me alot of time to come to grips with it. The memory of the whole incident still bothers me, but with time I have come to reliase I was in the wrong in attempting to save the pages, and though I remain disappointed with the deletion of the articles I recongnize that it was and remains for the best. More recently, I had an unpleasent encounter with BQZip01 (talk · contribs) during the second FAC for the article USS Illinois (BB-65), this time over the issue of notability as it related to an incompleted ship. As a show of good faith for BQZip01 and others who had reservations about the article, I nominated it at afd to settle the notability issue, but the whole incident still leaves something of a bad taste in my mouth. I have kept my distance from BQZip01 since then, more as a self imposed measure to keep from doing something I may regret later (being uncivil will not help reestablish good relations, and I one day hope to).
Please see my comments in the discussion section. Extremely pertinent. — BQZip01 — talk 02:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Icewedge
4. What is the difference between a block and ban? [just so you dont lose the bet ;)]
A. Ban: a community sanction applied to an editor, restricting or removing editing privileges. Block: a technical mechanism from preventing an editor or a site from disrupting Wikipedia or its editors. Admins may use blocks to enforce bans. [..and now I don't lose the bet ;)]
5. Under what circumstances should a page be given semi-protection or full-protection?
A. As I understand the policy, pages should recieve semi-protection or full protection is they are experiencing heavy vandalism (with the expection of the mainpage article, which is to remain unprotected), or if they are involved in content disputes, edit wars, copyright violations, or if the page in question is about a person and is recieving defaming remarks.


Optional questions from User:Filll
6. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
A. If I had the answer to this question I would be a lot happier. As it is, these have a reputation for being high stress areas, so the best I think we could do would be to remind contributers to stay civil, remind questioniers not to bite the candidates, and remind the rfa man or woman that failing an rfa will not contribute to any forsable end for the world. On the issue of the P3, I remain neutral on its appliaction since I have not had a chance to dog into the back story for its creation.
7. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
A.
Very optional question from Hiberniantears
8. I will not oppose you for your spelling, but can you at least explain your deficiency in that area? There is a long history of you acknowledging your struggles with the language. Since clear communication skills are key for an admin, and since this is an entirely text based project, it would be helpful to know if you would be willing to proof read any posts you make when wearing the admin hat.
A. The problem is four-fold. First, I have always had a hard time spelling. I can read and discern the meaning of words with ease, but spelling was something that always seemed to escape me. I think that part of it the fact that as a photonic alphabet, English words should be spelled with the letters those using the language think are being used rather than the letters actually being used. The second part of the problem is the keyboard. Big people like me have big fingers, but these keyboads have tiny letter button klacker things that the manufacturers expect woul to be able to hit with prescion without hitting any of the other letters on the keyboard. Thats hard for me to do. Lastly, like all americans, I have a tendancy to rush type for no apparent reason. In such situtations my brain often thinks four or five words ahead of where my fingers are currently typing so that I can get an idea all down before it leaves me. By its very nature this sort of behaviour lends itself to the inclusion of spelling errors that would otherwise not be present if I were to slow down (I should note, for the record, that I do make an effort to copyedit messages I leave if the subject matter of such messages nesscesitates that they be correct for the sake of peace and civility). Fourth, I spend a lot of time adding and subtracting content to my sandbox, and by a lot of time I am talking about monthes, like 6-8 if not more. After a while (as I am sure we have all experinced before) one stops reading what is actually there and reads what the brain assumes is there. This explains why articles I have rewritten come out with a butload of spelling issues, and why I request copyedits for articles recently moved into the article mainspace by me after having been rewritten. I will disclose that I consider something to be well written if others can read it despite the spelling errors. As to the extent that this effects admin work: for RC patrolling the problem is larged checked through the use of templates (test, warning, db-[reason], etc) which already have correct English spelling. For afd matters the problem is somewhat mitigated by the fact tha I can site one of the afd criteria for deletion and let others do the checking to see what I have cited.
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
9. Should cool-down blocks ever be used?
A. Absolutely not. Not for any reason, not for any purpose. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional (extremely loaded) question from Icewedge
10. I am sorry Tom, but, when you have answered an RFA question and users have used that answer as part of the grounds for their oppose !votes how do you really feel that it is acceptable to simply "trim" out the parts they objected too?[1]
A. If one makes a mistake and is called for it would it not make sense to correct the mistake rather than allow the mistake to exist? I have made several mistakes onsite, and when such mistakes are pointed out I endoveur to correct them, rather than leave them in their place. As a matter of history, it still exists, bound to this page in previous version of the edit history; it has not been deleted, simply relegated to the past. If I have made a mistake by correcting my mistake here then I apologize, as that was not my intention, but to my knowlage there is no line anywhere here that says users can not trim there answers if they discover they provided an incorrect answer or a partially incorrect answer, so I was under the impression that I was free to correct my answer(s) as I saw fit.
Comment What do you think of the strike tag? Why not use that, to retain transparency? II 03:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the stike tags look awesome, and will remember to use those here in the future :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fence-sitting questions from — BQZip01 — talk
11. Tom, why do you feel it necessary to change your responses as depicted? Doesn't that violate WP:TALK? Couldn't you have simply struck the comments as needed? Do you feel it disrupts the flow of a discussion in such a situation? For example:
Person A: "I think X, Y, and Z"
Person B: "Z is not applicable in this instance and shows a potential problem."
Person A edits initial post to read "I think X and Y" with no explanation leaving Person B's comments with no context.
A: Actually, this came up on my talk page, and it was suggested that I readd the comment and strike it out using the tabs. After having thought about the suggestion I have come to the conclusion that readding and striking the phrase would be the best course of action since others haven't seen that, but then the problem arises of how to note that I tweak my answer twice for the viewing public. At the moment thats the issue I am trying to figure out; whether it would be best to note in the answer area itself that I removed two words and readded them later at the suggestion of a fellow editer, or whether I should note this in the discusion section and hope others spot the answer there. The more I read into it the more I reliaze that my attempt to tweak the answer actually made things worse.
12. Where do you plan on finding vandals to block? Are you going to block them as you see fit if you think they are becoming a problem in an article you wrote?
A: The area where I would find the most vandals to blocl would be at the rc page, although there are two articles on my watchlist that see a good deal of vandalism: StarCraft II sees vandalism from anons who do not read (or read and choose to ignore) the editting messages at the top of the page (these are hidden, if you wish to see them you'll need to click edit). It has apprently got so bad that the page has been semi protected to deal with the problem. The other I article on my watchlist that sees a lot of vandalism is USS George H. W. Bush, this article is frequently attacked by critics of the current Bush's presidency. Watching the article for vandalism has since become nessicary.
13. Will you ban vandals or block them?
A: Block them. Unless there is a very good reason to ban a vandal I do believe the SOP is to block (after all applicable wrnings have been issued).
13. What process would you use to initiate a ban then? Would you use an automated system, or do it by hand?
A: The Ban is the heavy artillery, and as such can't be issued singlely. I know Jimbo Wales can ban at will (though I assume he does so only under the most dire of circumstances). For the rest of us the process as I underatand it is that the arbitration committe rules on such matters, so going through the arbitration committee would be one way to get a ban on a user. Lastly, I believe that a block can elvolve into a Ban if the powers that be (admins mainly) deny requests to unblock a user. In such situtations, the block is said to have become a ban (or so I understand).
14. Do you think that there aren't enough admins who are enacting blocks against vandals?
A: Yes, but I think part of this has to do with the AntiVandalBots opertaing on the site; as they revert the worst of the vandalism I sense that people tend to let such contributions go until actual humans get involved and block (to m knowlage, the bots can not do this).
15. What do you plan on doing in RC patrolling that requires admin privileges?
A: I've been in situations where I have been the guy to issue the final warning to a vandal (or the first guy to warn a vandal after the final warning template) and could have used admin provalges to block the accoutns/annons responsible rather than having to add messages to the edit summary asking admins spotting the summary to block for me. I could also delete eligable csd articles (like nonsense pages or attack pages) directly rather than add the csd tag and wait for someone else to pickup the trail.
16. What did you mean when you said copyright violations should be page protected?
A: An error in my interpretation of the blocking policy, I either read or think I read/ misread a part pertaining to such violations and added it here thinking that was an acceptable grounds for protecting the page.
16b. Were you meaning you would protect the page to prevent persistent copyvio?
A: Yes. Having reread the blocking policy that seems to be what the policy people wrote, why I misread it is anyones guess.
17. Hypothetical Situation: Say IP 156.33.0.11 (but no information available from a logged in screen name) is editing the USS George H. W. Bush and, despite 5 warnings on the IP user talk page and a history of other bad edits, replacing the page repeatedly with "GWB is a FAG!!!" or other frivolous/nonpertinent nonsense at least twice a day for the past 6 days. This IP is being continually reverted by responsible editors mere minutes after such an edit, so no permanent damage is being done. What would your action(s) be?
A: Request semi-protection from an admin I know (probably Kirill, Roger, or MBK004). In my request I would explain the sitution, noting the type of vandlism occuring on the article and the fact that the adress has been warned repeatedly of the consequences of continueing.
17b. Why not semi-protect it yourself? Just to be clear, would you or wouldn't you block the IP as another user suggested in the discussion? Why or why not?
A: If I was an admin (and at this exact moment I am not) I would semi-protect the article myself. As to other part of your question: if a check of the ip contributions reveals only vandalism on only this page then I wouldn't block unless the ip was on his last warning. My justification of the refusal to block is that if this one adress is only hitting the GHWB article for political propganda then semi-protecting the GHWB article so the ip can;t hit it should solve the problem. If the vandal moves to hit other articles then I would block the adress for disruptive editting.
18. On a related note, if an IP address has been blocked 4 times in the past 2 months for repeated vandalism and incivility, would you indef block the IP address? Why or why not?
A: It depends. Some IP adresses that recieve warnigns for uncivil behavior contain notices that they are based or registered out of schools and that blocks should be asigned with caution, other IPs may be in areas heavily populated and thus indef blocking may not be the best solution. Outside extreme examples like this I would seriously entertain the idea of indef blocking, though I would likely defer to more experienced admins during the process to make sure I was doing everything right. Screwups with something of this nature would be, for me, hard to deal with, and would look bad for the wiki if not executed properly.


Optional question from Five Fifteen
19. Can you describe the circumstances surrounding your first RFA. Did the dispute mentioned in the nomination statement effect votes? Would it have been successful (with the dispute on-going) had you let the RFA run its course? Any lessons learned from the whole experience? 5:15 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A I am afraid I will have to ask for clarification before I can give an answer: The first sentence you wrote I assume is in reference to the New England-Oldwindybear edit war, but the second sentence seems to suggest that the first sentence is in reference to my original answer to Q3. Were you refering to the former, the latter, or both?
It was all a reference to the New England-Oldwindybear incident. Sorry for the confusion. 5:15 04:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats quite alright. For convience I will tackle these two points seperately:
First question: My first RFA had its roots in StillStudying's (SS) rfa for Oldwindybear (OWB). SS had incorrectly filed the rfa, and I spotted the malformed rfa via an rfa message on OWB's talk page and decided to correctly file the rfa for OWB. Since SS had originally attempted to file the rfa I did not think it would be right of me to add my name as the nominator, so I left the nominator as SS but noted that he had misfiled the rfa, and that I had corrected it (I've done this before, for the FA Battle of Midway, so I wasn't expecting any problems). When OWB rfa ended he asked my if I would help him learn the admin ropes, and I reply that I wasn't an admin but would be happy to refer him to other milhist members with admin buttons if he needed help. Shortly after words he asked when I was planning to go up for admin and I said I was waiting to be nom'd, so he filed a nom and I accepted. It when well until New England (talk · contribs) pointed out that the timing of both noms seemed suspicious (like an I scratch your back, you scratch mine kind of thing), and I replied that it was just a coincidence. OWB then replied and the nom nosedived into a large and somewhat heated discussion as to who had nominated OWB. It escalted to the point that that was more or less the main issue and admin privilages for me a distant second, so I pulled the rfa to kill the edit war.
Second and third question: No, running the rest of the rfa would not have been usefull, nor would it have been well advised. Edit warring isn't tolerated on Wikipedia, and killing the editwar quickly meant getting my 1st rfa off the rfa main page ASAP. I have no regrets about sacraficing the first rfa to end the edit war, though I do admit that I felt bad for a few days afterward because I thought I had been cheated out of my one shot at getting admin privilages. I began to see that by the second day the odds of my making admin were iffy at best, so my concern shifted from passing the rfa to get enough people to oppose so as have a sufficent base of suggstions for improvement. People here seem to miss that, but the oppose commenters are by far the most valuable to the rfa process since they poitn out an editers weaknesses so that he or she can improve on them. (Incidentally, thats why I have mixed emotions on SNOW-closures since I feel an overwhelming number of users opposing an rfa equates to an overwhelming numbers of areas you can improve in or on, and improvements increase one's chance of passing next time). From the first rfa I learned little, if any; I had a few oppose people who comment on lack of admin related work, but then most of the commenters got into opposing over the whole issue of OWB rfa. I got much more out of the second rfa; I knew I wouldn't pass it, but the oppose people there had a few days to get past the who OWB New England fiasco and gave some good feedback with regards to what I should be doing ahead of this rfa. I have tried to take there suggestions to heart, getting a little more involved in official areas and trying out new things ahead of this rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from User:TaborL
20.In your own words, why do you think your last(second) RFA did not pass, and what have you leanred since then?
A. My last rfa failed because it was filed too close to the first. Its that simple. In the 12 monthes since my 1st two rfa's I have learned a few things. I've learned that reading about things is ok, but doing things is much better. I've learned the best way to remember something onsite is to roll up your hands and learn as you go. I've learned that no matter how much you try to remain neutral in your writing and opinion, there will always be decenters on way or the other. I have learned that when I have doubts about something I should ask people more familar with policy and the relevent guidelines for help, and that even then there will always be stubborn people who, despite all evidence to the contray, will insist on clinging to the truth as they see it rather than the facts as they are. I learned to provide an edit summary for saved pages, and to use the preview button a little more. I have learned that it isn't my place to debate with the people who oppose rfa's, as they are entitled to there !opinion just as the supports are entitled to there !opinion, and it isn't my place to try and change their minds. I've learned that I do not need the admin tools to be an active contributer here, nor do I need the tools to be happy, and that adminship isn't a promotion or an exercise in handling power, its just a mop and bucket. By far the greatest lesson I've learned since my first two rfa's is this: If you are not enough without the admin tools, you will never be enough with the admin tools. That was the enlightment I recieved from the community following the last two rfa's: my contributions are what matters, not my admin status. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TomStar81 before commenting.

Discussion

edit
Son of a *&@^&!! Hiberniantears (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ;-)[reply]
(After I quickly and sneakily added the missing apostrophe from my post :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, Tom, but the newest version of Firefox Portable has a spellchecker built in to most data-entry fields, such as the editing box. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Icewedge asked his two additional questions. Surely all the candidate has to do is look up the relevant policy and paste it into the answer?--Serviam (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It puzzled me too but nothing like as much as Filll's extraordinary AGF Challenge 2 question. How does this determine trustworthiness?--ROGER DAVIES talk 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the trend lately at RfA, and it's keeping 'em away in droves (candidates, that is). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The questions section is often treated as an open book test. (Cough...Wikipedia:RfA cheatsheet) --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[In response to Serviam] I asked question 4 because I noticed that the user has not made a single edit to WP:RPP and I wanted to evaluate his knowledge in that area, it is true that he could just go look up the policy but then by writing it down the editor would have learned it. As for question 3.5, that comes from a joke on my talk page; User talk:Icewedge#Re Optional Question. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I understand, if the user didn't know the answer, by looking it up someplace and cpoying it in, he will have learned it.--Serviam (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification
    First, let me state unequivocally that TomStar81 contacted me for feedback in this RfA in accordance with my explicit request that anyone with whom I have interacted is requested to do so. This should NOT be construed in any way as a violation of WP:CANVASS. Now for the rest...
    I resent being hammered in such a public manner. I am sorry TomStar81 found our discussion "an unpleasent [sic] encounter", but that does not warrant dragging my name through the mud and miscategorizing in such a public setting. To begin with, I never contested the subject's notability (in fact I defended it in both the AfD and the FAC). My problem was that the subject had a total of four unique sentences and that the subject didn't need its own article and another featured article already covered this subject adequately. I believed a simple redirect and incorporation of the data in the parent article would be sufficient others agreed, but majority opinion (which I'm fine with) was to the contrary. In the FAC, I felt it didn't meet FAC criteria and gave an extensive review and rationale for my objection with very little direct rebuttal from the nominator (see the bottom of the second FAC nomination). It was not personal in any way. Others disagreed and the article was promoted. I'm fine with that; it's what Wikipedia is all about. I haven't brought it up since, until now).
    I think an admin should know the difference between a discussion and hostility and be able to keep the two separate. Now, I have had two featured articles on the main page and I understand the internal pressure to get a featured article through the FAC. I am perfectly willing to accept an apology and put it all behind us and TomStar81 should be commended for asking me to talk here. Should he do so and renounce his hasty reactions (which we all have sometimes), I think all this should be put behind us. But until he does so, I fail to see why it should remain in the past. An emotional gut reaction is not what we should have from our admins, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 03:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I apologize for any hammering in public that this rfa may have brought up, as it was not my intention to turn this into an inquisition for you (or me, for that matter). I have this disturbing trait to tell the truth, and the truth of the matter is that the Illinois fac was not handled in the best possible way, and if you recall your rfa came up at about the same time as that fact I posted some rather unpleasent remarks there that spilled on to your talk page and the FAC, hence the mention here. Its just that I took that FAC a little more personally than the others, and acted somewhat outside CIVIL, so I put your name up here figuring that your comments or !vote would be more critical than the others. That was, for me, an unpleasent encounter, but I can not speak for you, nor can affect your descions or opinions on the matter. And I do apologize for any hasty, emotion based replies, so if you are willing to accept my apologize I will honor your request to put this all behind us. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me! I'm moving my !vote to neutral for now. Please address concerns in the objection section too. I'll have a few questions for tomorrow. I hope all our future discussions can end so amicably! :-) — BQZip01 — talk 04:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eight questions seems a bit excessive. Enigma message 03:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel that way. He has days to answer them and they need not all be bazillion-word answers. Some of them should be simple answers. — BQZip01 — talk 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a big deal, Enigma. Do not worry to much about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the answers to those questions to be highly problematic. You cannot ban a vandal yourself (see WP:BAN of how a ban is different than a block). If there is vandalism after a final warning, you report to WP:AIV, not leave a message in your edit summary. The place to find vandals to block is WP:AIV. If one IP address is repeatedly vandalizing a page, you block the IP, not request protection of the page. One vandal hitting a page is never a reason for protection, unless the vandal is using a dynamic IP and a rangeblock would cause too much collateral damage. There are a few other minor points I don't like, but those are the primary problems. Enigma message 04:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Enigmaman, I was asking for his answers on these questions, not yours. Giving him the answers (whether correct or incorrect) gives us no insight as to his logic/maturity. As an admin, he may have to answer tough/complicated questions. — BQZip01 — talk 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally you were looking for his knowledge of policy, and I'm explaining why I find his answers to be lacking. I don't see the problem. I didn't answer the questions for him. My criticism of his answers is not an attack on you. Enigma message 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
edit
  1. Support as co-nom. -MBK004 06:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, I've "known" TomStar81 (and his "famously idiosyncratic spelling" :-) for about as long as I've been on Wiki; he is a solid content contributor and a civil, collaborative editor. Happy to support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as co-nom. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Solid. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Switching to Neutral. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support for now. It'll take me a bit longer to go through my review of this candidate because he has 17,000 edits, but I wanted to get my current thoughts down before I fall asleep. Anyway, TomStar81 is an excellent content builder, but according to Q1 he wants to work with vandalism, AFD, and RC patrol. Going through his contribs, he has exactly three edits to AIV, and one of those was adding his sig to his previous edit. Depending on what I find tomorrow when I have more time to go through his contribs, my !vote could change. Useight (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, upon further review, the ruling on the field stands. Weak support. Not a whole ton of work in admin-like areas, but I found many quality contributions at AFD. That, along with his excellent mainspace work and tenure as an editor are enough to warrant a support from me. Also, his spelling errors give something for us WikiGnomes to do. Useight (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Tom is a great editor and I am very pleased to support his nomination. In particular, I'd like to highlight the extent to which Tom seeks to gain consensus when writing articles or discussing issues. A particularly good example of this is that he nominated the article USS Illinois (BB-65) for deletion shortly after he sucessfully guided it through a FAC as several of the editors who commented on the FAC stated that they didn't believe that uncompleted ships deserved to have articles and Tom wanted a ruling one way or the other. Based on this behaviour I think that there's no danger that he will miss-use the admin tools. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per reasonable stance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homunculi of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga and his userpage shows an impressive degree of featured article contributions and barnstars, which shows clear effort and knowledge of building the project and cooperation and appreciation from fellow editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strongest support. —Giggy 09:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Have met this user several times and have always thought him to be fair and non-judgemental. Also thought he was already an Admin. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I have always found this user to be approachable and fair in his actions on this wiki. Whether under extreme pressure on his FACs at times, or under pressure from other editors, he has always acted fairly for the benefit of Wikipedia. Not every admin will be extremely active on all policy areas, indeed active at all at admin functions. But I do think he will benefit from the tools where needed and it would be a benefit to the project. Woody (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Hardly as if blocking vandals at AIV is difficult. Naerii 09:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support - the contribs look OK, and there are no serious issues I don't think, but the answers to the questions aren't very impressive really. I still feel that we have a decent admin in the making though. Lradrama 10:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I've seen your work at WikiProject Military History, and its great! Keep striving to do well! --Meldshal42 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Tom's work speaks for itself, and he's always been a fair and civil editor in my interactions with him. No reason to think he'd misuse the tools. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Tom is a diligent and dedicated editor; I have no doubt he'll make an excellent admin. Kirill (prof) 12:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Candidate has demonstrated significant growth as an editor and contributor. Good judgment, trusted. BusterD (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. TomStar81 appears even-tempered, dedicated and clueful. I've admittedly only taken a superficial look, but pending further findings and per all of the above, I believe the candidate can be fully trusted with the tools. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support. · AndonicO Engage. 13:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, nice editor. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support Mainly per Useight. As he said, when I look more closely as this continues, my !vote may change. America69 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Tom's a level-headed article writer who's exercised good judgment in the past. I trust he'll continue to do so as an administrator. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yes--Serviam (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Sppuort. Rudget (logs) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Week Support. Much more activity in AIV needed before I feel comfortable with you beong able to block, but being the coordinator of arguably the biggest Wikiproject on Wikipedia shows your commitment and communication skills. Good luck. weburiedoursecretsinthepark 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I am going to trust him. MBisanz talk 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak support - Spelling doesn't bother me much, since spelling does not affect use of the tools - any editor can edit an article or talk on a talk page.  Asenine  18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  28. Good user: not bothered about a low report count to AIV. After all, I only had two edits to requests for page protection when I ran for adminship, and I said in my RfA that I wanted to help out there. Acalamari 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Actually intended to support when I left my question... Just forgot! Great editor, great skill, and great work. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. No trust issues, long running track record of useful contributions. I'll support for that alone. The limited reports to WP:AIV and the like do not concern me with to an editor who's done this much work. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: He's a blessing to MilHist.--Bedford Pray 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - I have taken the necessary time for closer inspection, and I find that the good completely out weights the relative inexperience at AIV. You have my support. Good luck. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, we need more admins with strong experience in content writing. Also, Tom is polite and dedicated, and is already a coordinator at the Military History WikiProject.--Aldux (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, excellent MILHIST / WP:SHIPS editor, I have no doubt that he will use the tools fairly and responsibly. The process at AIV is not exactly complicated, I have no doubt that he can figure it out regardless of how many times he has used it in the past. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support- Has shown no predisposition to abusing the tools. Also, we need more syops working the afd and aiv backlogs.--Finalnight (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Impressive edits, candidate also shows patience (time between RfA 2 and 3), sense of honor (RfA 1) and clear understanding of what he wants to do (Q1).--Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. To anyone concerned about spelling, if you have the time you might enjoy: "Why Stevie Can't Spell". On other matters, Tom is somebody who I've noticed is a helpful guy and smart editor. All things considered, I thought he handled the USS Illinois (BB-65) situation with a lot of aplomb. I probably would have thrown the towel in had I been in his shoes--that he stuck it out is a tremendous credit. --JayHenry (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the greatest thing I've ever read! Thanks for the link, I will keep Stevie in mind the next time I submit an article for FAC :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per nom. Good contributor, can't see any reason why you would abuse the tools. - Shudde talk 04:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. An excellent article contributor, and excellent coordinator for the Military History Project, and an extremely active contributor to Wikipedia. You've got my vote! Cam (Chat) 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Yes. Epbr123 (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. –xenocidic (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Mature, patient, knowledgeable. I hope that patrolling to eliminate the worst of WP doesn't draw too much time away from creating the best. Dhatfield (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support One should always support unless there is a very good reason not to. This is not the case with TomStar. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. One of the strongest candidates over the past couple of weeks. MrPrada (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - A great editor, and he passes my criteria. And per his answer to Q9. --Chetblong (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Just watch the spelling and read over WP:ARL. Malinaccier (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. The candidate meets what i like to see in a candidate. But I'd suggest using Firefox for spellcheck ;-) Yamakiri TC § 07-2-2008 • 19:23:58
  50. Weak support - perhaps there are some issues here and there and this candidate could do with some polishing, but to be honest, most of us do at one point or another. What it boils down to is that I can find no good reason to oppose this nomination, and chances are sysopping this user will be a net positive. Shereth 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support no problemo - a well-rounded contributor. Vishnava talk 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I've taken some time, looked over the RFA process, and also discovered WP:NOBIGDEAL. My conclusion is this: unless an editor has demonstrated that they are actually unfit to wield the extra tools that come with adminship, they should be supported. Thus I offer my support to TomStar81. S. Dean Jameson 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: Tom is a hardworking, fairminded editor who handles a lot of the "grunt work" in the projects he supports and a valued contributor. I think he would be an excellent contributor to administrative grunt work if the mop is placed in his hands. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - anyone who can quote Socrates in his defence can't be too bad a candidate! Seriously though, while Tom does not always express himself clearly, I think he generally has pretty good instincts and will not go far wrong. Gatoclass (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - a little humility goes a long way. Dean B (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Troppus Keegantalk 06:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support When making a decision whether or not to support someone the most important question for us to ask is "Will this person abuse the tools?" From looking over the comments of people who have opposed thus far, I don't feel as if this user will misuse the tools. On top of that, I don't see any attitude issues, which is another important thing. Good luck:-)--SJP (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Per answer to question 9. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support - Past experience with this editor has shown him to be a hard working team player who is dedicated to the improvement of the project. I have zero concerns that he would abuse the tools, and great faith that he will use them to better the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Positive interaction with WikiProjects, plus sensible and pragmatic answers to questions that apparently, juding by the oppose section, do not fit the precise standard, which I don't really think is a problem. This request for access is not an examination, it is a demonstration of trust. User:Krator (t c) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong support back to basics. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, a gentleman and a scholar. Neıl 龱 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Sensible and reasoned person with sufficient experience; meets my criteria. Orderinchaos 15:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Over 70 have weighed in here already, so I'll be brief: support as per SandyGeorgia, Woody, Dual Freq, JayHenry, Shereth, Gatoclass, SJP, Orderinchaos. — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. He will be fine. Axl (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. A fine candidate. BradV 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, meets my criteria easily. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support per the user's wikiproject work! Keep it up! --Cameron* 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nousernamesleft (talk • contribs)
  71. Support Tom is one of the nicest persons that I had the pleasure of interacting with. Not only is he a great editor, but he is also a very understanding person when it comes to issues. Tom, I know that you will make a great administrator and in the furure a terrific historian. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Excellen work at WP:MILHIST, can be trusted with the tools. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support I have no major concerns here, and I dislike this trend I see of expecting brand new admins/candidates to know every admin policy/rule. He's eager to learn and do the right thing, that's what's important at this stage. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support as per comments by Krator, SJP, & Rlevse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. 'Support as per [[Cofraternity of Wikipediams whose Speeling Spelling and/or Typing Suck(s)]] Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support tabor-drop me a line 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support usually I don't support based upon my emotions/feelings towards a candidate, but for Tom, I'll make an exception. Some of the opposes are of concern, but I still support.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Per accumulation of "many shiny things". :-) --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Per Sandy and because of content contributions, which I always like :) Gary King (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Most of the opposes seem to be based on either his spelling, or his minor error on a really nasty trick question (17). I can't call either of those a good enough reason for me not to support - everything else looks good to me. ~ mazca t | c 08:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And that makes 100, albeit with the !votes in all three sections :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Call it "Honorary WP:100 with 20% disapproval!" ;) ~ mazca t | c 08:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Weak Oppose Not everyone is a naturally gifted speller, but spellchecking is out there for a reason. The candidate seems aware of this apparent shortcoming, and yet three words are misspelled just in the first sentence of the Q3 response. Overall, I feel like more effort should have been put into this RfA, and I think the candidate lacks experience in some critical areas. Weak oppose with regrets, candidate seems like a good guy, and if he happens to not get the mop this time, I'll be rooting for him in the future. Keepscases (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're opposing him because of a lack of experience in some critical areas, right? Would you mind being a little more specific? Which areas are weak in your opinion? A side question, do you actually think correct spelling is what makes a good administrator? Mahalo and thanks. --Ali'i 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt anyone thinks correct spelling is what makes a good admin, but I would like to see all administrators be able to write coherently. There are constantly opposes on various RfAs for lack of substantial article-writing experience. Can someone really be that good of a writer if they can't spell basic words? In short, I doubt anyone would support a candidate because the candidate is a good speller, but poor spelling and/or grammar is a red flag. Enigma message 20:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, disagree; I know of at least a couple of prolific FA writers who depend on others for basic copyediting. (And that's without mentioning people like me who make a gazillion typos in spite of preview and spellcheck because of eyesight.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree, Sandy. I know various article writers who do brilliant work in expanding, sourcing, and making prose flow brilliantly that don't always get their spelling perfect. Good thing there is a website format out there that allows other people who are good spellers to come along and fix their typos. Where would these so-called WikiDragons be without their WikiGnomes? ;-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regretful oppose This user is an excellent contributor, very civil communicator and there is no chance that he would intentionally abuse the tools but I do not see that he knows what to do with the tools really. Per this edit[2] where he submits the username "Islamn" to WP:UAA he admits he knows nothing about the username policy. "I find this well written compared to other article[s] that I have seen here"[3] is a very poor keep rationale. He has never made an edit to WP:RPP and his answer to my question (Q4) about page protection was rather inadequate and shows a great deal of misconceptions.
    • Full protection is not the correct response to vandalism.
    • "the mainpage article, which is to remain unprotected", incorrect. Discussion related to this issue has been about whether or not the mainpage article should automatically be protected just because it was featured on the main page, no one has ever stated that the mainpage article should not be protect if it is experiencing heavy vandalism.
    • The correct response to copyright violations is to delete them, not protect them.
    Also, in question 1 he states that he would like to work anti-vandalism and RC patrol. Those are basically the same, are they not? CSD participation and knowledge is lacking, in this vote[4] he advocates speedy deleting an article with poor writing as patent nonsense, CSD G1 explicitly state that "This does not include: poor writing". And while this is not RFB all of his RFA !votes are like "He will make a good admin, of this I am certain.", or similar.
    I want to support but I just do not feel that he knows enough policy. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per answer to #9. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Should've known this was coming when you asked it. Enigma message 04:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious kurt, you opposed the last candidate you asked this question to because s/he referred back to policy. This user, however, from their adamant statement seems to have a personal opinion that they should not be used and is (seemingly) not blindly following a rule. –xenocidic (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    extended discussion of Kurt's oppose moved to talk page
  4. Oppose User's question responses are almost robotic. I am weary to promote somebody who won't bring a fresh perspective to the encyclopedia. Juppiter (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are a philosopher, Thrasymachus, and well know that if you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibit him whom you ask from answering twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, 'for this sort of nonsense will not do for me,' —then obviously, that is your way of putting the question, no one can answer you." -Socrates, Plato, The Republic TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, July 2, 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - switched from neutral. Insufficient grasp on policy per Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose–This was a bit of back-and-forth for me. Positives: Learning from one's experiences is a biggie for me. TomStar81 experienced WP:OWN the hard way, and learned from it. If an editor can go from pistols at sunset to cordial relations with another editor, that's another big win for me. But the candidate states he wants to do vandalism, AfD, and RC patrolling. I see very little to no activity in these areas in the candidate's contribs, at least going back 3-4 months. I think a user needs be involved in the tasks he plans to use the tools for before he gets those tools; if only so the user is familiar with the policies and practice of that area. So, in short, participate in the projects you want to admin and ask again. Livitup (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom actually has some quite impressive contributions to AfD. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 19:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at his contribs and didn't find anything that I would characterize as "quite impressive," though I will admit to not going too far back. In fact, one thing I did find was a little unsettling. If you know of any particular contributions I should be looking at I will be happy to reconsider. Livitup (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Question 13 (you can't ban people). Also, lack of any work in admin areas (WP:AIV and WP:AN/I) shows that you don't need the tools.--Koji†Dude (C) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But KojiDude, nobody needs the tools! Look here! Your reasoning is flawed!--Koji†Dude (C) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an essay; not a policy. I can oppose for whatever reason I like. I don't think he needs the tools, and because he doesn't need them sysoping him would make adminship seem like a trophy. It isn't a trophy, it's a responsibility.--Koji†Dude (C) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any diffs to back your claim up? All you're doing is making assumptions based on your editcountitis!--Koji†Dude (C) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't have diffs, stop badgering me. I've opposed the candidate, and right now you're not helping to change my mind.--Koji†Dude (C) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, then we agree to disagree.--Koji†Dude (C) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmmmm... -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But KojiDude, nobody needs the tools - see this!.... :-) —Giggy 09:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC) You've justified your opinion well enough for me not to actually badger you. And you made me laugh. Well done.[reply]
    Gasp, KojiDude has been badgering opposers (whatever that's supposed to mean), which is the worst crime on Wikipedia! He has to be blocked indefinitely! Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he need some serious counselling---definite signs of multi-personality disorder..---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Answers show a lack of experience - for one, we don't indefinitely block IP's. Daniel (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65) has me shaking my head. Maybe it was a joke on your part, or maybe you made the mistake of taking a couple of drive-by "notability" complaints (see FAC) seriously, or maybe you opened a "procedural nomination" to prove them wrong. Poor judgment in any case: articles are not marshmallows to dangle over the bonfire. Possible lack of common sense: If you have enough verifiable information to write a bloody FA about something, the question of "notability" is moot (and ideally unasked). Sorry. — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "I appreciate Tom nominating the article here for deletion if, for nothing else, to clear the air and make its status more well known." BQZip01 (talk · contribs), USS Illinois AFD
    "I must say, I've never had the chance to consider a featured article before that wasn't a bad faith nomination. After taking some time to look through it, notability is not the slam dunk I was expecting. The majority of the references refer to the entire Iowa class of battleships, not this particular entry. However, it certainly was mentioned repeatedly and nontrivially by reliable sources - not as much as I'd like, but enough to satifisy the notability threshold. The article itself is, to me, certainly worthy of its bronze star, and I think the WP project is better for having it." - Xymmax (talk · contribs), USS Illinois AFD
    The AfD was six months ago and was done entirely in good faith. Do you think he'd did it again in the light of the comments here? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Per CharlotteWebb and Daniel. Nominating an article for deletion to prove its notable enough for Featured Status? That isn't something an admin does. Nor does an admin indef block an IP address. 5:15 18:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And he now knows that so it's a mistake he's unlikely to make with the tools. The problem with extended and vigorous questioning is that it exposes all sorts of hypotheticals which in reality probably won't happen. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Not that an admin has to understand every detail of policy in advance, but some of the responses here,as given by the others in this section, add up to insufficient preparation. DGG (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per answers to questions 5, 13, 14, 17, 18. While I understand that knowing policy is only really part of Adminship, I am concerned that his knowledge really isn't up to what we need for admins. Furthermore, real-time spell checkers are available in Firefox and other browsers so you don't make constant spelling errors (most of these are underlined in red for your quick perusal, right click for suggestions of corrections). I am concerned that this will not present a professional image in his rationale for deletions and other situations. A pretty blatant violation of WP:POINT also has me concerned. I'll admit some of my questions are a bit loaded, but 17b is what really put this one over the edge. This particular IP address belongs to the U.S. Senate. Blocking that IP, no matter how correct, needs additional information to be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation. Your lack of knowledge in that area could be a major issue. I am not saying you shouldn't re-apply. I can easily see myself supporting you in the future, just not yet. — BQZip01 — talk 22:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he didn't understand the finer points of policy before he has certainly had them drummed into him now. Tom has not been admin coached and, in my experience, is far too sensible a person to dive into contentious areas without checking first. Would this persuade you to change to neutral? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, spelling errors happen, but you allow them to remain even when you know they are wrong...concerns me. — BQZip01 — talk 22:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. I do not have a big problem with the spelling issue, but the Q&As and other comments above raise sufficient concerns about understanding of policies and procedures. As others have noted, indef blocks are not appropriate for IPs. The mistake in answering the copyvio question is also telling and removing that portion of the answer first instead of striking it down made it worse. The AfD episode cited by CharlotteWebb raises more questions, and Icewedge brings up more such examples. Overall, I feel that the candidate has insufficient understanding of the WP policies at this time and is not ready to be an admin. Sorry. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, per Q5. Nakon 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per IcĕwedgЁ, your close to the mark its frustrating, if this doesn't go through come back in couple of weeks or a month and ill support   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose The answers to certain of the questions posed by BQZip01 are not entirely pleasing or satisfying—the answer to question seventeen, most poignantly, is, to my mind, problematic, and not really for the reasons sset forth by BQ in his oppose; unless I misread entirely, the candidate is suggesting that semi-protection is appropriate where an article is repeatedly vandalized by a single IP, which would seem entirely contrary to our protection policy and to the fundamental tenets that underlie it, which would, for reasons that I need not to set out, suggest that locking an article to anonymous editing is not to be done where blocking one IP address would (at least apparently) do (I intended to oppose earlier in order that the candidate might alert me to any misunderstanding of his answer [because it is, in my facial analysis, so profoundly flawed, I wondered whether I might have missed something], but I managed to leave this oppose open in a Firefox tab for several days, and so must apologize to the candidate for failing to express this particular objection before the close of this RfA)—and they do not allay the concerns that otherwise I might have had. There is, of course, much to (re)commend the candidate to and for the tools, and I think him, on the whole, to possess the fine sense of judgment, civil demeanor, and deliberative disposition that well equip one for adminship, but I am not convinced that he is sufficiently acquainted with policy and practice as to be able to determine whereof he does not know, and so fear that, even as Tom is altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse intentionally the tools, he might avolitionally misuse the tools. I am unable, then, to conclude with the needed degree of confidence that the the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 06:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose for now, you're definitely a fantastic editor, but the answer to the IP question and others shows that you are perhaps a little too hasty for my liking. The correct course of action is to check existing policy to make sure that you're right before answering, by not doing this you've indicated to me that you're possibly a bit too hasty right now. I encourage you to reapply in a few months, because there's nothing that would stop me supporting you in the future once you get some deeper understanding of policy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  18. Oppose at this time. You certainly look like a very good editor, but this is a written medium; administrators must have a good command of the written language in order to communicate effectively. Also per some of the policy knowledge concerns expressed above.  Sandstein  07:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
Neutral - Changed from support above. Neutral for now per Useight above and the answer to question 4, which just isn't really fleshed out. In conjunction, I'm beginning to have fledgling doubts. I need to take a closer look at the user's experiences, but I cannot do this tonight. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Supporting. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral towards oppose - unconvinced grasp on policy is sufficient. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Switched to oppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending responses to my questions. — BQZip01 — talk 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC) (edited 00:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'm gonna remain neutral on this one for now until he finishes his questions, but I am concerned with a few of his responses. Tom admits mistakes quickly, but still does not quite have a full grasp on problems that an admin may face in the areas he desires to work. Specifically, his knowledge on the difference between a block and a ban are inadequate for an admin (see question 13). Contrary to his answer in 14, there are plenty of people handing out blocks for vandalism (in my experience, every vandal I have reported was blocked in under 1 hour...most in well under 10 minutes); he doesn't need to be added to the list. There are others, but I will reserve overall judgment until he completes his answer on questions 17 and 18. Everyone makes mistakes, so I welcome clarification, but not after the answers I expect are already given out. — BQZip01 — talk 05:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC) switch to oppose[reply]
  1. Neutral - This is an experienced, good-natured Wikipedian, but he has not sufficiently demonstrated his intentions for adminship through his edits. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - troubling answers above are offset by numerous good contributions.  Frank  |  talk  15:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TomStar81_3&oldid=1259639349"
  NODES
Canvas 1
chat 2
Community 3
HOME 1
Idea 3
idea 3
Intern 1
iOS 2
languages 2
mac 1
Note 9
OOP 1
os 118
text 2
Users 4
visual 1
web 8