Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 7

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

TenPoundHammer

Final (26/33/2) ~~Scheduled to end 16:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by candidate and closed by xeno (talk · contribs) at 03:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) – It has been more than a full year since Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 6, and in the intervening year there has been no slowing this editor down. TenPoundHammer is a very dedicated editor, and his work suggests that he could very much make use of the admin tools to expand his usefulness to the project. TenPoundHammer has been an editor since late 2005, and in that time has (with the assistance of his keyboard-using romp) amassed a stunning 110,000-plus edits, 70,500-plus in article space, improving articles both in his chosen target area of country music as well as across a wide range of other articles. Folks, the guy is a stellar editor. His focus is on expansion; to date he has racked up an incredible 46 Did You Know? entries. He has been recognized for bringing Diamond Rio discography to Featured List status, and has several Good Articles under his belt as well. His article work has only gotten better since last August.

To address some of the concerns expressed last time around, I think that TPH has begun interacting with others with a greater level of maturity that has helped him in his dealings with other editors. I've gone back through a few thousand edits and have not seen any issues with other editors; I've got his talk page watchlisted and haven't seen any issues arise there that were of great substance - and when issues do, he seems to handle them very well. Another issue expressed in previous RfAs have focused on his deletion work, but again I believe that he has ironed out any concerns there. A browse through his deleted contributions turns up no obvious contested speedy deletions that I can track down, and he has done far less AfD work recently, but when he does it often involves correct non-admin closures and speedy deletion nominations that result in deletion. This essay written by him last June is used as a rather well accepted extension of the long-standing WP:CRYSTAL. A more mature, thoughtful and cautious approach appears to have helped to clarify any of the issues that were raised previously. I suggest a look at User:TenPoundHammer/Barnstars, especially those towards the bottom of the page, where he's received Article Rescue barnstars alongside deletion barnstars - he has settled into a very balanced approach to deletion work.

In conclusion, in my view TenPoundHammer has successfully incorporated the feedback he has received through previous RfA discussions into his editing practices. His long history and wide range of editing work over both mainspace and projectspace assures that he has a good grasp of policies and guidelines, and I feel that he is well worth being granted the tools at this point in time. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by User:Treelo: What can I say? TenPoundHammer has been single-handedly (as otters don't have hands) making the Country music articles we have, in terms of creating and improving them. Recently, the issues of over-zealous deletionism as levelled at him by some have been reduced to a point where he seems as balanced as any other admin currently active here. He will be of much more use with the mop than without and will be a net benefit to the project. treelo _radda 17:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ~~I accept.~~FORGET IT, I'M WITHDRAWING.

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take part in deletion (and undeletion, if necessary) of articles, as well as vandalism-fighting. I've been around the block a few times in XFD and feel that I know all of the proper protocol when it comes to deletion (e.g., consensus vs. voting, when to relist or close as no consensus, how to handle DRV, etc.). Also, I have a very large number of non-admin closures, almost none of which have ever been disputed; on the rare instances that have been disputed, I've reopened without argument. (I admit that I handled Atlantic Records discography clumsily, however.)

When it comes to vandalism fighting, I feel that I know the proper warning procedures, appropriate block lengths for various offenses, and so on. I have reported several vandals/otherwise disruptive editors to AN/ANI and AIV, and I usually watch how other admins handle vandals after I report them.

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

A: I have promoted four articles to GA status: Diamond Rio, Walden Galleria, The Kentucky Headhunters and McBride & the Ride, which I first wrote back in 2006. (Wow, has it been that long already?) In addition, User:X! and I promoted Diamond Rio discography to Featured List status. The Kentucky Headhunters is probably my best work, as it's the most in-depth I have ever gone with an article (and not surprisingly, that's one of my favorite bands).

Beyond that, I have 46 entries at DYK (with #47 in the hopper right now); all but one was an article that I wrote. (Well, technically, I co-wrote Why Baby Why, since it was created with just an infobox and nothing else.) By my count (see User:TenPoundHammer/Pages I created), I have written over 900 articles, and have made significant improvements to several more (see User:TenPoundHammer/Other major contributions). The latter includes WP:HEY work on at least sixteen articles, most of which were in questionable shape before their submission to AFD.

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: Occasionally, I will find myself in an edit war over chart positions in discographies; one user in particular was insistent on adding unsourced Mediabase positions, thus creating a misleading claim that Carrie Underwood had nine #1's in a row (two of her songs only got to #2 on Billboard). Since this user was so insistent, and 2/3 of their edits were to add this information, I reported the user and they got blocked twice for edit-warring and adding unsourced info.

Over time, I've dealt with other users, who insist on adding misleading/incorrect information or just plain vandalism. I follow the proper procedure of warning first, and then report them if it escalates. I have never run afoul of WP:3RR that I'm aware of, as I am very careful to avoid going beyond it.

I also admit that I was greatly stressed during the time that I was on IRC, lapsing into bouts of allcaps and complaining. That is exactly why I left IRC; I realized that the environment was causing me so much stress, and I really am sorry for my actions there.

4. Standard returning candidate optional question: What do you think was the primary reason your last RFA failed? What has changed since then? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think that my last RFA failed over concerns that I was editing too fast and making sloppy mistakes, as well as sending too many submissions to XFD. I have tried to pace myself some, and I have reined in the XFDs a great deal.

5: You have stated you plan on closing AFD debates. Many in the past have questioned your views on deletion, although you have since also been commended for rescuing articles from being deleted. Could you give a basic general overview of how you would decide on the results of an AFD? For example, if a particular debate had been listed for two entire weeks, and there were exactly the same number of users arguing for keep and delete, how would you close it? What if after a relist there were still only two or three participants, with two saying delete and one saying merge? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I hate to see debates get relisted even once, but I would be willing to give a discussion. If a debate had been listed for two weeks, I might relist it, depending on how obvious the consensus is. For instance, if it were two WP:ILIKEIT keeps vs. one solid delete rationale, I would relist and see if anyone else agrees on the deletion; if even after two weeks, both the keepers and deleters are providing convincing arguments, I'd probably say "no consensus."

Additional optional questions from Treelo

6. What other aspects of adminship besides handling administrative XfD decisions do you believe you have the capability to perform well in?

A: As I said, vandalism reversion and blocking. I can't think of a case where I've been too hasty to report a vandal, and I seem to have a more thorough understanding of the process (last time, I didn't even know how banning was different!). I admit there isn't too much adminly stuff that I would be all that good at, but do admins have to be jacks of all trades?

7. Somewhat loaded totally optional question: This RFA had garnered two oppose votes within two minutes of being transcluded, (not really enough time to review the candidates recent work unless we are to believe they were already monitoring it every day) and before any of the optional user generated questions had even been asked. Why do think some users are so eager to oppose you? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Probably because of my history: six failed RFAs already, as well as my history of having been a hasty editor in the past. Furthermore, I admit that my conduct on IRC was not exemplary, and I do apologize for it. Furthermore, I think that sometimes I may interpret WP:IAR a bit too loosely.

Optional question from Theleftorium

8. You voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toothing (2nd nomination). Do you still think the article should be deleted? If so, why?

A: That article has demonstrated clear notability through multiple sources, so I would definitely not !vote delete now.

Optional question from Ironholds

9. In your last RfA you answered a question approximating "will you run again if you fail" with "If this one fails there'll most likely be a #7 but I'm not sure beyond that". Do you plan to run again if this RfA tanks?

A: Maybe.

General comments

Links for TenPoundHammer: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for TenPoundHammer can be found here.

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

Discussion

Several opposers have brought up the number of RFAs as part of their reasoning. I don't believe that is a valid reason at all, but in any event you can blame me for this one, it was my idea, not his. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a bit of a silly reason to oppose, one that sends the wrong message: after a few failed RFAs, it's best to just disappear and start fresh. –xeno^talk 19:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer is amongst top 50 users in Wikipedia in all respects not only edits while he may had many RFA his commitment and dedication has been undetered and after each RFA failure he has continued to work harder for the project He has been around since Dec 2005 has no blocks and with over 70000 non automated contributions surely do not see how the project loses by having him with tools.Many RFA is okay if the user is working hard and is a active user Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see multiple RFA's, especially when most of them close at numbers on the brink of support, as great enthusiasm.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal opinions like he is incompetent or not suited for adminship as it would highly demotivating to any user Opposes need to helpful either with or withour differencesPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assertions of opinions (or claims made with evidence) regarding competence are entirely germane to the subject of RfA. If I feel someone isn't technically competent for the bit then I'll make that known. If I feel someone isn't emotionally competent for the bit, I'll make that known as well. TPH is a big guy, if he's gone 6 RfAs then he can handle accusations of incompetence. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Conditional support - 7 RFAs means nothing but he's trying. Anyway, I don't agree with him on certain things, but I'll give it a shot.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 17:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seen him around. A preliminary check through his contributions shows nothing (much) to worry about. I haven't seen the off-wiki issues Roux mentions below, so I cannot take them into account. ƒ(Δ)² 17:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, much as it seems academic at this point. TenPoundHammer is an extraordinarily dedicated editor who I feel would be a definite net positive with the tools. I do not always agree with him, but I'm pretty confident that he'd make good use of admin tools, as in general his knowledge and attitude are good. Having not seen the off-wiki actions mentioned in the opposes I am not at this point worried by them: I have not encountered any reason to suspect TPH is anything but a sensible editor who just happens to have some slightly radical views as far as some inclusion concepts go. ~ mazca ^talk 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra strong uber Support It's a crime that this highly experienced and dogged editor with so many excellent content contributions has been denied the mop so many times over what is now ancient history. TPH has clearly demonstrated that he can and does learn from legitimate criticism and from his own mistakes, and has demonstrated that he can be patient in that he waited an entire year this time to run again, and actually had to be talked (or at least nudged) into it. While there is no of course no amount of editing that automatically grants adminship, 116,000 plus edits is mighty impressive, and no one could accuse him of being soft on content creation, he has been an extremely prolific creator of new articles, many of which have been featured at DYK. And, if you ask me, sense of humor and not taking things too seriously is a plus, not a negative, in an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lucky number seven? What occurs off-wiki should remain off-wiki, it shouldn't by any account colour what he'd would or wouldn't do with the bit which, as we all know, only works on-wiki. Heck, I even believe his current judgement of XfDs to be as good as any admin who deals primarily in content deletion and will offer balance in an area which suffers from a lack of bold admins. I reckon he can utilise the tools well and, to his credit, he won't be going anywhere soon. treelo _radda 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support May I ask how many people gathered here would have the courage, the dedication, the sincerity and the strength come back to this faith-shaking arena and subject themselves to the abuses of RfA for a seventh time? I am highly impressed by this man’s ability to return again simply because he wants to offer a greater level of assistance to a volunteer project that he has enhanced with his time, energy, dedication and intelligence. TPH’s positive contributions to Wikipedia’s editorial contents have been extraordinary – I was floored in reviewing the full scope of his original work and the honors he racked up. As for the whisperings in the Oppose section about alleged IRC misadventures, I find such behavior to be obnoxious – we are here to judge TPH solely on the capacity of what he can bring to the Wikipedia community, so please leave the off-Wiki world off-Wiki. I believe that TPH will be an asset to the admin ranks and I am very glad to support his candidacy. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that padre. IRC is not part of Wikipedia any more than 4chan is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it does give you a hint if, i.e., a user has exhibited ongoing rude and disruptive behavior on IRC, and keeps it to a dull roar on Wikipedia. JamieS93 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not on IRC and I don't care a hoot about it. I am here to judge TPH based solely on his Wikipedia work and not on allegations of supposedly grouchy remarks made on a thoroughly unrelated web channel. Stick to the program, please. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not relevant to adminship. What if you met a candidate in the "real world" and you didn't like them, but their contributions were solid and there was no behavioral problems on Wikipedia? Would you still oppose? Or what if your best friend was running, but for whatever reason he acted like a clueless blockhead on Wikipedia? Still support? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I've been involved in numerous discussions that TPH has also been in, many of them at AfD, and I've never had a reason to question their judgment or knowledge. In fact I've assumed that he was an administrator already. -- Atama頭 19:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I believe that this user has been impulsize in the past, there is no reason to believe that he hasn't improved. I also support his courage here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need more data, but I don't want to see this one turn into a train wreck. I totally understand SoWhy's point, having declined quite a few of TPH's speedies myself during the spring, but I think there's a chance that TPH will become one of our most productive admins given his prodigious editing and tagging work so far, and before I give up the chance to get someone who could offset 10 inactive admins, I want to make sure there's no way we can make this work before I'm willing to oppose. At a minimum, I'd like ~~for the community to be really clear about~~ to be able to get a sense of what he would have to do over the next 3 months to offset the negatives and get the mop. I discussed tagging issues a lot with TPH in the spring, and I found him to be a bit stubborn, a bit curt, but intelligent, consistent, and dedicated to the project. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen him around and have seen his hard work. The opposes don't bother me; I'm confident TPH will be a very helpful and trustworthy admin. Tim meh (review me) 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I supported TPH in his first RFA, and supported him in the 6th, so you would think my support here would be a given. I came here to do just that but found myself struck with a lot of doubt upon reading some of the opposition here. Their concerns are most definitely valid and do give me some pause, but after having considered it for a couple of hours, I come to the conclusion that while TPH has tripped up here and there, who of us haven't? Given his prodigious contributions, I would frankly be surprised not to see some mistakes brought to light. I do not believe any of these errors are egreious and certainly not permanent. I don't forsee a cavalcade of DRVs sprouting up in the wake of a successful RfA. I am confident in saying that TPH is familiar with the policies and procedures, and certainly the nuances of the processes in which he wants to contribute. Result of sysopping this candidate is a net positive. Shereth 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beaten to the punch support by nominator. I'm disappointed by the early reaction to this; it's my view that TPH is a dedicated, balanced, thoughtful and effective editor who will not do anything stupid with the tools. If waiting a full year before accepting another nomination is an indication of "wanting it too much," I'll eat my damn hat. Without ketchup. I don't see overturned speedy deletions, and my look through recent contribs didn't suggest he was missing anything. He works on article rescues and does well with them. Because he works in deletion that shouldn't make him a pariah when it comes to adminship. I ask that he be given a chance to show his maturity and effectiveness as an admin, and feel that the encyclopedia will only be better for his having the tools. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought they already were an admin.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seventh time lucky? Support based solely on level of contribs. Hope I don't take this many attempts to pass my RfA! Francium12 21:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support The idea that all our admins must be cut from the same bolt of Soviet-grey damask is an absurdity. The oppose votes are all tired variations on the don't like his deletion attitude blah blah blah. Well, frankly, 1) we should have admins who come from all corners of the spectrum. We have arch-inclusionist admins (DGG) who do an excellent job and don't misuse the tools. 2) We have mechanisms for censure and redress in the event that admins are routinely letting personal bias interfere with interpreting community decisions. If the only outstanding objection of substance is this BS about how TPH behaves at AfD then we need to amend the process by which admins are selected b/c the process is broken. Show a consistent pattern of incivility, ownership, poor edits, pointy behaviour or biting newbies, ok those are reasonable grounds for objection. But what I see is mostly personal disagreement over wikiphilosophies masquerading as principled objection in faux-ingenu tones. I respect editors' right to oppose. But opposition to a candidate with over 100,000 edits should require more serious engagement with the editor's record. Eusebeus (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute the characterization of DGG as arch-inclusionist and I don't think opposers are painting TPH as an arch-deletionist. In any case, you can't simply say "TPH is the flip-side of DGG" so all is well. Overuse of the delete button can cause serious harm and drama, it can alienate newbies and drive away new editors. I'm probably a bit of a deletionist myself but "Oppose: user is a deletionist" makes sense because of that risk. "Oppose: user is an inclusionist" on the other hand is just a principled objection because an arch-inclusionist admin is at worst someone who doesn't touch the delete button and at best another DGG whose admin-work in the deletion area is top-notch. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because I think the AFD opposers are nit-picking too much, and I feel comfortable with him having the tools. ArcAngel (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, most of the opposers are not making valid points and/or are misinformed. Ten Pound Hammer is an excellent editor (look at his contributions) and he would better serve the project by having the tools to make an even greater impact. He is tireless and willing to improve this project by doing all the dirty work that no one else wants to do. It is simply unwise to oppose. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Again. Still a trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Icewedge (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I've said before TenPoundHammer is a great editor. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After so many edits surely this editor will be as well equipped as someone with 7,000! Aaroncrick (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A couple of RfAs ago, I opposed because of speedy deletion issues -- I haven't run across a single bad nom of TPH's in my speedy work since then. While TPH is a bit more deletionist than I am, so are a great number of Wikipedians, so I can't hold that against the otters. I read every oppose here, and none of them convinced me to change my mind.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My support has nothing to do with edit count. TPH is a committed editor with some excellent and thoughtful contributions under his belt. He has, in the past, been described as "careless" from time to time—and I think that was an accurate description when it was made—but TPH's recent contributions do not show this flaw, so I assume he has genuinely matured and begun to show more care.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I know TPH will probly be suprised to see this, but I support. TPH has made a lot of edits. I don't know much of his work since I was blocked, but yes, he seems all good. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Support Very commited user with more than 119,510 edits and is one of the users who will stay in Wikipedia and is really dedicated and really commited to Wikipedia.Even after the RFA failures he has continued to work harder and contribute to Wikipedia even if this RFA tanks he will continue to contribute and which is really good and his dedication will not go down.See zero chance of misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

No, no, no. I still have major doubts about his knowledge of this pedia through many conversations and plenty of his actions (the majority of which are found at afd). Syn 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, which AFD actions would you be talking about? The only one I can think of that I fluffed recently was the Atlantic Records discography. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point you should recall every afd I've brought to your attention, and the mistakes you were making in the process. My oppose has to do with how you handle criticism and the edits that follow. You act impulsively at times, and either brush off comments or act like it didn't happen. Unfortunately this is the impression that you've left upon me after countless conversations. I won't be supplying diffs as you should recall these instances from memory. Syn 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those diffs could be useful to those of us who haven't yet decided to support or oppose. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 7 RfAs? No. Lack of real understanding of how Wikipedia works. Other issues which I shall not comment on, as they were offwiki, but betray a personality inconsistent with being an admin. → ROUX ₪ 17:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know how 7 RFAs per se is a reason to argue against, and how you think that I have a lack of real understanding about how WP works. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of clue. You don't appear to understand that the community simply does not want you as an admin, as well as 7 RfAs making it clear that you see adminship as some sort of brass ring. The lack of clue is a recurring refrain with you, alas, which is more than enough reason to oppose. → ROUX ₪ 21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, not to badger you Roux, but you and Syn opposed within two minutes of this rfa being transcluded. Are you sure you are up to date on this matter? If you doubt his knowledge in a particular area, the usual way to confirm that is to ask a question of the candidate regarding the area in which you believe they lack understanding. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have RfA on my watchlist, I was home from work early, and happened to hit refresh shortly after TPH transcluded. I'm afraid there is not a single thing that could possibly make me change my mind. TPH is unsuited for adminship, period. → ROUX ₪ 21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The majority of his AfD contributions are Non-Admin Closures which do not allow me to see how well thought-out his comments are in that area, something I like to see before promoting an admin whose stated goal is to work in XfD related areas. The few actual comments I've seen are one-liners like "does not show notability" "no notability found" with no explanation or full rationale. Contact I've had with this user off-wiki, particularly on IRC, shows that while the face he presents to the wiki may have changed, his character has not, particularly one noted conversation in which he lambasted #wikipedia-en in caps for refusing to help him edit a country & western article. Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion surrounding his flub of the Atlantic Records AfD here is also slightly disconcerting. An admin who doesn't understand WP:CONSENSUS and seems to think that lack of quality in the article is itself a reason for deletion? No thanks. Ironholds (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this as a reply, albeit a redacted one. If IRC introduces stress, the work of an admin is going to do more than that. Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I redacted that comment because I moved the comments up to question 3. Also, poor quality was not my only reason for nominating that discography, and I admit that I flubbed that up seriously. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user seems to have trouble determining what should and should not be nominated for deletion. They fail to understand the principle of NOHARM as it applies to redirects and miscellany. And nominating Billy Mays' flagship product for deletion days after his death with a joking nom statement showed extreme insensitivity and poor judgment (Disclosure: I closed it as speedy keep). Oppose with my sympathy, as I'm sure running 6 or more times without success must be disheartening. –xeno^talk 17:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, isn't WP:NOHARM an argument to avoid in deletion discussions? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as it pertains to articles, but continue to the part about miscellany: "Note that in miscellany for deletion debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue..." –xeno^talk 17:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. I just happen to disagree with the fact that certain "harmless" things need to be kept, and I'm sure that I'm not alone.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do they need to be deleted. Deletion does not save space and rather than nominating harmless things that others may find useful [1] [2], your time would be better spent elsewhere. I do note that I have seen the frequency of (what I would call) spurious noms from you decrease in recent memory. –xeno^talk 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intends to work in deletion, but holds views on deletion that are considerably more radical than those of the community. No evidence that this has changed since the other RfAs. (Was edit conflicted by TenPoundHammer's comment above; that statement makes me more worried about controversial deletions in the event he is made an admin.) Dekimasuよ! 17:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seven RfAs seems too excessive to me. I was considering neutral but I highly trust Roux's judgement on administrative matters, and although I haven't seen the evidence he mentions, I trust it's sufficient to deny you the mop. If you'd like to make that incident clear and present your side, that's fine. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness it has been rather a while since the last RfA. We should not deny people the mop simply because of previous attempts to get it with no regard to their actions in the intervening time. If you find something there oppose-worthy as I have, fine, but I've always felt "oppose per too many RfAs" to be a weak argument. Then again with my number I would :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise that point, but it's not the main reason for my oppose. I am more concerned by Roux's oppose, and the large amount of responding to opposers. 7 RfAs in itself is not a reason to oppose, but the general mistrust I'm feeling is a valid reason. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - came to support, but the opposers have convincing reasoning. Unfortunately, it's an oppose from me too...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sadly, the opposer's are too convincing. Alan16 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've seen way too much bad judgement (especially in the area of deletion) to trust TPH with the tools. It seems that you've gotten better with CSDs lately (the past month or two), but to me, a bit of improvement is definitely outweighed by a long history of mistaggings, poor research at AfDs, and a lack of general maturity. You're probably expecting this, but the numerous RfAs isn't a good sign either IMO; his seemingly pushy attitude toward gaining adminship has always left me very uncomfortable with granting TPH the extra bit. Also, although this is an off-wiki concern, I've never been impressed with his IRC conduct either. Sorry. JamieS93 18:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Xeno said. @harej 19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pastor Theo's support is a great example in microcosm of nearly everything that's wrong with RFA. By all means gather him round the campfire and sing Kum Ba Ya, but don't be giving him the extra buttons. Dedication is no substitute for competence. Friday (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And sarcasm is no substitute for intelligence. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And calling someone stupid is no substitute for meaningful discussion. If you want to complain about Friday's oppose, do so in a reasonable and logical way, don't just lower the bar further by resorting to implied personal attacks. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Your oppose was rather flippant in nature; isn't the point of an RFA to comment on the user and his/her contributions? Taken at face value, your !vote seems to have no substance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you agree with Theo, not me. Friday's comment did comment on you - it implied you were incompetent. Ironholds (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which, of course, is a great example in microcosm of nearly everything that's wrong with RFA. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all aren't used to Father Ward Cleaver's support-and-cut-down-the-opposition-in-a-"how could these people be so stupid/blind/heartless/ way"? I thought this was getting to be SOP here at RfA. Tan | 39 02:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - JamieS93 put it well. I have time and time declined speedy taggings by TPH, some of them while AFD was open and discussion ongoing. TPH is one of those users whose contributions I cannot laud enough but who I do not trust with the delete button because their contributions are too often stained by grave mistakes (even after six failed RFAs). Regards So Why 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On my list of people to oppose. Let me see if I can remember why. Probably something with bad deletion tagging. The six previous RfAs don't bother me since the last one was long ago. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unfair oppose IMO, and comes across as grudge-bearing. Could you please explain why, specifically, you oppose? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't put future RfAs on my watchlist unless I have a good reason to. Actually writing down negative things about people or committing them to memory, now that would be grudge-bearing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you must have a reason for opposing? It doesn't have to be negative. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reason is that I have observed a lack of clue in the candidate. Specifically, bad deletion tagging that indicate a fundamentally wrong attitude to Wikipedia, something that a few months of good behavior cannot solve. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you for the clarification. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per JamieS93. iMatthew ^talk at 20:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - dedicated yes - but hit rate in xFD does not look good. This is just a casual observation from running across xFD's randomly Agathoclea (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's a confirmed vandal at Uncyclopedia. I can provide more sockpuppets of his upon request. Syndrome (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know that's the same person as TPH? Vandals will often spoof well-known editors. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia has nothing to do with this project. There is also no known link between him that we know of. It could also be an impersonator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncyclopedia is not associated with Wikipedia, but I consider it a valid concern if wiki administrators are vandals in their spare time. He has confessed to it here; apologize for not providing the link earlier. Syndrome (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this edit, I'll ask you now: Are you RemmaHdnuoPneT? If not, why didn't you say so earlier? Did you vandalize Uncyclopedia? If not, how do you explain the vandalism caused by that account? Syndrome (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not remmaHdnuoPneT. I've only ever edited Uncyclopedia anonymously. Clearly remmaH was someone imitating me, as Dank said is common on Uncyclopedia. I didn't say so earlier because I thought it was obvious that it wasn't me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are really willing to oppose a candidate because they got blocked on Uncyclopedia? Something about that seems massively ironic. Shereth 21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand Uncyclopedia if you think it's just a vandal site. Wikipedia has a fine article on the subject. :) Syndrome (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would he also confess to being a vandal. I don't know anyone who would commit this kind of suicide in this way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Well, I have supported and opposed in the past and most recently I was neutral at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 6 back in August 2008 and so am only focusing on contributions since then for the purposes of this new RfA. And per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards, I cannot support or even go with neutral due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire lizard (use of a WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Sawyer (we should not go by speculation, but rather the results of actual searches), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-listened-to radio programs (nomination that closed as keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirage (Aladdin) (source searches show that these are verifiable, which means covered to some extent at least), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Skullhead (another nomination that closed as keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hanley (Peyton Place) (begins by commenting on another editor rather than the article), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Jean (no reason not to redirect at least), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reptar (the "sobbering fanboy" bit is over the top, even if a legitimate case could be made that a redirect would get overturned, no need to insult a class of our editors; after all, are we not all fans of something?), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Pickles (almost a copy and paste of the same "slobbering fanboy" line), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toothing (2nd nomination) (seems a bit antagonistic if not mocking toward those arguing to keep), etc. That is not to say the editor has no positives. He has been around for a while and has never even been accidentally blocked. Moreover, he has at times made contributions to DYK, Good, and Featured articles. All of these are commednable, but when it comes to an area of potential administrative use, namely the delete function, many AfD nominations and comments come off as either indiscriminate or overly zealous that I just cannot trust to close AfDs. I have at times in the past commented on this user's niceness and have had some pleasant interactions despite our obviously divergent inclusion philosophies, but the whole "slobbering fanboys" stuff is I suppose just disppointing enough to give me pause and go from my neutral of last time to oppose this time. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just not confident on the deletion front - still see him as quick on the trigger in this area. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No clue bat. And I mean that in a serious way. TenPoundHammer, you do fantastic work. However, you in fact have no cluebat if you fail to realize that cluebats are not used to hit people, they are to educate. Administrating the English Wikipedia is not an actual fight or contest, it is collaborative and in fact clueful. The idea of cluebat is meant to be integral, not external. The fact that I am in this opposition category with many users with whom I regularly disagree should be even more of a cluebat. Keegan (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As much as I appreciate TenPoundHammer's contributions, I can't comfortably suppose based on the user's XfD contributions. The one that stuck in my mind and was fairly recent was his several ways to get Atlantic Records discography deleted. He nominated the article three times for deletion. The first AfD was in November 2008 and the result was withdrawn, no troubles there. In May 2009, the second AfD was fully carried out and consensus was to keep the article. A month later, he redirects the article only to nominate it at RfD after another month passes by. A user revert to the revision prior to the redirect during the RfD and TenPoundHammer nominates the article for deletion a third time, which he withdrew when he was notified. This isn't the first instance, nor will it be the last. Either TenPoundHammer doesn't check the article history or talk page for past AfDs or he nominates articles until he gets his way. Either way, I would not confide in him to use the tools correctly. — Σxplicit 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firm no from me, per Ironholds, Xeno, JamieS93, Christopher Parham etc. I'm sorry this may sound blunt, but some people are just not suited for adminship. After six RfAs, and little to no change between them, I'd have thought this point would have sunk in. Majorly talk 21:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Xeno and Dekimasu. Behavior at various XfDs leaves a lot to be desired. JPG-GR (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ironholds. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - consistently useless in tagging articles for deletion, requests he places via that nasty IRC place are frequently turned down and result in much childish stroppiness, before frequently descending into arguments before it's eventually made clear just how TPH has erred in policy interpretation. It's not really getting much better either, but ultimately, the key reason for opposing this request is the fact that we would lose a significant amount of good quality new content (and potentially, good quality contributors both new and old) if TPH was entrusted with the delete button. Nick (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would have supported TenPoundHammer this time around, but recent interaction with regards to non-free content has shown me he is perhaps not the best admin candidate. A blanket belief that "Alternate covers are generally acceptable if they are significantly different" is not a positive (diff) and I got the impression he really wasn't interested in discussing the matter- he suggested "taking this to a noticeboard" because he had "been told in the past that alternate album covers are acceptable in most cases". Non-free content guidelines? Non-free content criteria? Who cares? Someone told him they were legitimate, and it's ok, he added some original research to the article describing what the cover looks like. Obviously, that means it's needed. Regardless of whether you feel that alternative album covers are automatically legit or not (amazingly, there are some widespread beliefs about how we should automatically be using alt covers, but I digress), you can at least see that this really isn't admin behaviour. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Based on some AfDs mentioned above, I have a feeling TPH would be too deletion happy which is what we need to avoid with AfD admins.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I value TPH's nominations for deletion, and assistence in cleaning up the rubbish, I feel the temptation of the delete button would be too great. There are too many articles that need to be rescued from TPH's nominations. ~~119,000 deleted contributions - the highest I have seen for a user!~~ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Oops they wer not deleted but the total - thanks for the alert, not such a fantastic achievement then, but an achievement of a different kind. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he has only 8,961 deleted edits and a total edit count of 119,510. NW (Talk) 00:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've trusted TenPoundHammer, but the opposition has shown valid reason for concern that cause me doubt. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though TPH does great work for the encyclopedia, I do not trust that they will not have an inherent bias at articles for deletion. We don't need delete happy administrators. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seeing how he acts in AFD I am strongly opposed to him. I'd also like to point out how odd it is, someone keeps trying for this, if they have been rejected this many times in the past. Seventh nomination? Dream Focus 01:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I came here very very sure I would be supporting, mainly because I already thought you were an admin. However, User:xeno's oppose shows a very large lack of judgment. Sorry, but I don't want an admin like that. Also per User:Majorly. I usually do not fully agree with him, as I think he is always a little blunt, but today I think what he has said is correct.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate is a dedicated and excellent content contributor. I disagree with him sometimes at AfD but would not oppose on that basis, and I was neutral at his last RfA. However. I wonder about his ability to handle the stress of having his actions challenged when I see him hinting to an admin that a user with whom he is in a disagreement should be blocked for a rather mild attack. But the main reason I oppose this RfA, I'm sorry to say, is that I'm not able to bring myself to trust him when it comes to deletion. In May 2009 there were many speedy tags he re-added to articles (reverting the other editors who removed them) and he agreed to stop only after it was brought to WP:AN and an admin was firm with him. He should not have been doing it in the first place, as this is the very kind of thing he has received feedback about many times including at his previous RfAs. He remains at times careless with nominations and speedy tagging, sometimes not even checking talk pages or histories; this this and this one stand out in my mind, in addition to the Atlantic Records discography redirect. Sometimes he accidentally misrepresents what others say; for example here saying "Last AFD closed as keep on merit of nothing but WP:ILIKEIT votes" which was not the case, since sources had been offered. I also agree with xeno that this nomination is not the sort of behaviour I would expect from an admin candidate. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The editor's commitment to participation is unquestionable, but it's unclear to me that this editor has interest in real improvement of the encyclopedia outside of a limited number of subjects that strike him as interesting, or in understanding issues and striking consensus when his edits are controversial or when they meet contention. In this respect his user name is fitting; his modus operandi seems to be to hammer away, rather than to reason, negotiate, try to understand varying perspectives or alternate points of view, etc. I'm also concerned about this user's support of drive-by tagging as standard operating procedure. To my mind, this controversial practice has had a negative impact on the encyclopedia by blighting articles, and does not realistically contribute to article improvement any speedier or more effectively than discussion on talk pages. I have concerns about how this user's adminship would affect the operation of the encyclopedia. Robert K S (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I've supported in the past, and I really want to here. It's hard to go a day without seeing WP:HAMMER and his content contributions are superior. Still, I find myself hesitating, because TPH's stated area of emphasis - deletions - is the admin area I am least comfortable in seeing him operate. I'm concerned that TPH's impulsive nature will lead to a substantial workload at WP:DRV reconsidering his closes. I don't have any one diff from the last year that bothers me, it's more a subjective feeling that an earlier pattern of ill-considered bold actions hasn't really changed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral He's a very productive editor and would get a lot of work done, but I don't think we need any more admins with bad attitudes. I'd debating at the moment. With all of the time he spends working here, I'd say him becoming an admin would be a net positive for WP, but the issues mentioned by users who I respect currently leave me unable to support. I will note that I can be easily swayed in either direction. hmwith t 21:14, 2 September 2009 (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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights