Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TreasuryTag 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

TreasuryTag[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final: (21/50/14); closed by Kingturtle as unsuccessful at 18:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) – It's been a while since I've nominated someone for adminship - or even really participated in the process that much - so forgive me if I'm a little rusty. I've seen TreasuryTag around many places and he always seemed so clueful to me that I made an off-the-cuff mark that he ought turn this page from a redlink into a blue one. He asked me privately if I was serious, and I said, "of course, why not?" and offered to nominate him. I then looked at his last RFA (something I vaguely remembered, but only because of the signature issue) and was surprised to read through opposes which didn't seem to describe the person I knew as TreasuryTag at all! What I'm trying to say (and I'll try to do so without broaching TL;DR) is that people can change, and it seems that TT has, for the better. He active in the Doctor Who Wikiproject, as well as at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, the noticeboards and the deletion process. He just needs some extra buttons to help out a little more! –xeno (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: I was very glad to see TreasuryTag considering adminship again. While his previous RfA was something of a disaster there were two specific points that nearly all opposers shared: Civility problems, and an overall unhealthy liking for drama. I'm quite confident that he's overcome both of these in the following ten months. He's made many intelligent contributions to a variety of project discussions and has, without any real exceptions that I could find, kept a cool head and dealt with issues maturely and civilly. He's been very active at WP:AFD and while I do not always agree with his viewpoints, he always backs them up with sensible reasoning and I'd be entirely confident in his judgment when it comes to dealing with most kinds of tough call. In short, what we have here is a dedicated and sensible Wikipedian who has taken criticism on board and become a real asset to the project; and one who could greatly benefit from the additional tools. He's demonstrated that he's now knowledgeable enough to use them effectively in many areas, and sensible enough to tread carefully in others. ~ mazca t|c 18:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. At this point, I would just like to say: since my last run for adminship, I have cleaned up. I have addressed the points I was given, I’ve been civil, I have maintained my record of no-nore-blocks!, and I feel that I can now be 100% trusted with the tools.
I’m dedicated; I reformed well under the splendid mentorship of Dweller, and taking into account the advice of those dissenting in my previous RfA. I believe I have the capability to develop further; I’m open to criticism. I would hope that these characteristics would be essential for a candidate to have before the community place their trust in him/her. Thank-you. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:05, 27 March 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I’d aim to cut down backlogs: in my capacity as a vandal-watcher, I often come across disturbingly large build-ups that are a consequence of such a large project. In particular, WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:RFR, and CAT:RFU. For more than a year now, I’ve kept WP:AN/WP:ANI on my watchlist, and would aim to step up my input there.
In some administrative areas where I see I have problems (speedy deletion being the most obvious example; I’m often overruled for being too hasty, and that’s OK, the beauty of CSD is that it’s a two-peson process, tagger and deleter) I wouldn't dive headlong into. I'd wait, think about what I'd do, see what others do, and not move into anything until I feel confident that I'd make a decent decision. For example, closing AfDs is a tricky business, and I’d aim to watch and gain experience before attempting anything too controversial.
I would hang around in IRC to stalk the !admin call-out, and would join the admins’ channel for the convenience it offers in preliminary discussion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’m proud of the three Doctor Who soundtrack articles (here, here and here), as well as generally my work in the Who WikiProject, which has collectively (unofficially co-ordinated by Sceptre) brought lots of its more recent articles up to GA/FA status.
In particular, I try to keep articles up-to-date. The program is one that generates an extraordinary amount of speculation and original research/CRYSTAL violations, and by jumping on news straight away and sourcing it properly, I help stem the tide of less experienced editors creating a battleground. An example of this is when the title of The Next Doctor was released; I made sure the article was renamed and cited very swiftly! Also, these two edits today.
I also do a fair amount of general clean-up, using AWB and my rollback right. I watch recent-changes, tag (rather a lot of!) pages for speedy deletion, tag pages unreferenced, and so on.
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: The most recent serious conflict I’ve been in has been with a user who joined Wikipedia to right the obvious bias in articles on Judaism, and ensure that the word of God in the Torah was listed as a reliable source of historical narrative. This user now (after a 1-week block which resulted from my starting and contributing to a noticeboard-thread on his activities, which also included homophobic abuse and revert-warring in addition to the original research and POV issues) behaves fairly nicely, discussing their problems on article talkpages. I received a barnstar, on my userpage, for keeping on top of what was going on.
More generally, I think the approach I took to that incident (polite discussion, point to policies, make suggestions of approaches; discuss with the community, make proposals, discuss them; keep an eye out following block) – of course never blocking in an instance where one is involved! – would cover most circumstances. And I think I am capable of applying such principles in a consistent and fair manner.
4. Can you explain your transition from the old you into the new you, i.e. what have you learned from your old ways, why have you changed your ways, and how can we trust that your metamorphosis is on the up-and-up?
A: Very interesting question, I had to think a bit there!
I basically made a concerted effort to change for three reasons: first, the last RfA really brought it home to me that people didn't like me. We all like to be liked, and I was seen as a crank and a troublemaker, people groaning when they saw me edit ANI etc. Secondly, and related, losing that image meant that I was more able to instigate and participate in constructive discussion, often leading to a better consensus. Third, increased civility means that things get done better, we're all happier, it defuses situations and so on. Much as I protested at my blocks when they happened a couple of years ago, they definitely acted as a stimulus to my realisation that everything's rosier if I'm calm and civil.
And I think that I've made a real, noticeable difference to my interactions with others, across Wikipedia... which can be no bad thing! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from User:Arcayne
5. Should administrators be held to a higher standard of conduct than normal editors, due to the larger potential for abuse? If elected, what sorts of conduct would you feel would be the dividing line between voting to keep or de-sysopp a fellow admin- - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you've opposed already in no uncertain terms, I don't quite see the point, I'm afraid. Sorry. If, however, anyone else wants to assert interest in these questions, I'll be happy to spend time going into them. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your answer might affect my vote. What have you to lose by answering? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it likely that it will affect your vote. As I said before, if anyone else is interestesd, then I'm happy to put time into answering. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator, you would have to interact with people who you personally do not like, or who do not like/trust/have confidence in you. The ability and willingness to answer these questions - or any question posed to you - is one of those tests of your potential as an admin. Are you saying that you are unwilling to even try to answer the questions to demonstrate your views on fellow administrators? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously decided and thus I see no reason to reply unless anyone undecided would be interested. Likes and dislikes don't enter into it. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Do you feel administrators should for a specified period of time before being re-elected, and why? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Would you consider being Open to Recall? If so, under what conditions would you be subject to recall? If not, why not? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-prepared answer:
Basically, no. The recall category has caused much more drama than it’s worth. While I will not take a risk by adding myself to a list that’s been the source of such trouble in the past, I’m going to outline my plans to ensure full and proper accountability to the community.
I will undergo a editor review within 4 months of promotion, specifically to assess how the mop-usage is going; I will generally seek guidance from more experienced admins if (and I obviously intend not to) I generate controversy and dissent; if they advise reconfirmation then I will seriously consider that option. This seems to be a broadly similar yet technically enough different recall system to satisfy the community and avoid hassle. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I am to understand you correctly, you are saying that if experienced admins tell you that you should step down, you will only "seriously consider that option"? That seems to say that you - and you alone - will decide if you wish to step down in the face of criticism. I appreciate your candor, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I will not go in for the Recall system, and I explained why. I believe that the majority of administrators are not in the recall system, and most of them aren't autocratic, power-hungry lunatics, yet still are ultimately in control of if/when they step down.
The "default system" is that administrators cannot be removed except in exceptional circumstances by the ArbCom, unless they voluntarily join Recall. Random, but respected, admins not Open to Recall (taken from the top of the block-log) include NawlinWiki, Ged UK, J.delanoy and Beetstra.
Currently, 181 out of 1,635 admins are in the category, which is just 11% of current sysops. I would be going with the 90%, which is not the revolutionary sentiment you seem to be implying. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:07, 3 April 2009 (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/TreasuryTag before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - though this looks fairly set, I'd rather it wasn't closed early, if that's possible. I find the criticisms helpful, and can still have some hope... Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support as nominator. ~ mazca t|c 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, of course. –xeno (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I'll assume good faith in that this users mistakes are a thing of the past.--Giants27 T/C 20:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support No blocks in rather more than 12 months plus civil talk is enough to give me some confidence that you've turned round, the speedy tagging mistakes would get you an oppose from me; Except for your acknowledgment of being too quick to nominate to delete and not intending to work in CSD; But you need to realise there are three participants in the process not two; the third party being the author, who way too often is a bitten newbie. NB It wasn't easy to find a link to your recent archives (you might want to update your archive box). ϢereSpielChequers 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. My interactions with TreasuryTag have all been positive, and from his contributions it is easy to see that he has developed into a mature editor that can be trusted with the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This seems unlikely to succeed, but I definitely think improvement of this sort should be encouraged and rewarded. Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - thought: he hasn't been blocked since '07 (the April '08 block was a mistake). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Looks like he's really turned a corner. If he had gone out and created a new account after the last RfA with the same contributions that he has made in the ensuing time (which he easily could have done), I think people would be comfortable supporting. So, I say, let bygones be bygones. Cool3 (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support despite not knowing this user too well. I've seen TT around, and his work seems solid here and he seems fully reformed. Wikipedia is supposed to be the land of second chances, and I'm more than willing to give my support to someone who has spent over a year with an impeccable record. What the community has given can be taken away if necessary, let's give some benefit of doubt here. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support I like to think users can change :) I havent seen anything too recent (yet) to suggest not supporting so i ll give my support at this time Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, this user has a lengthy block log, that's true, but the most recent serious entries in it are from 2007 - ancient history as far as I'm concerned. Just be more careful with the A7s in the future, please! Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  12. Support Lots of history but I think that TT has done enough to put that behind him. Only seen positive contributions from TT around the place. And as for the suggestion he might make mistakes with the tools, so might every admin. BencherliteTalk 11:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support' Reformed. I trust this user not to abuse the tools. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support What's he done for us lately? Quite a bit I think. This nom obviously will not succeed, but I urge TT to keep plugging away.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support- Cool3 makes a good point. If this were a different user, one who'd signed up just after TT's last RFA and done all the same stuff TT's done in that time, this RFA would probably be on track to succeed. I think TreasuryTag can be trusted to use the tools responsibly. Reyk YO! 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Fruitless support. Recent good far outweighs historical bad. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: Oh, absolutely love the guy. South Bay (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, for what it's worth given the number of opposes. My only experience of this user is as someone who's honestly trying to help, and I don't recognise the picture of a disruptive editor seen here. People can change.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per Cool3 and S Marshall. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Not enough administrators currently. iMatthew // talk // 22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Treasury Tags is a great editor and a fine peacemaker when necessary. I think he'd be a well balanced admin. Erikeltic (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Long, long, long history of blocks, sock puppetry, civility issues etc. Prodego talk 18:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that is a fair point, I forgot to mention (aside from my lack of any such issues for ~16 months!) that I have a statement on my userpage regarding username changes etc. for transparency. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Long list of accounts with too many incidents of blocks, incivility, and vandalism. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you examined the user's conduct in the past 12 months? How long would it take for you to consider him a suitable candidate? –xeno (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have examined their behavior over the past six months, and still find it wanting. Less than six months ago, they came within a whisker of being blocked for incivility; a simple relaxed method of being uncivil doesn't excuse incivility, and the underlying problem remains. Additionally, the guy is unwilling to answer any (reasonable) questions posed; that tells me that their answers might not be palatable to the community, or that they are willing to avoid questions from detractors. Again, a bad thing. too many warning bells, Xeno. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sockpuppetry? I'm sorry, but more than a year of space between that and an RFA is required. Fine, then. Also, per rather poor CSD work. Ceranthor 19:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - it's been since November 2007, which is a year and four months... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Don't trust him with the delete button. User is active in the CSD area but has recent incorrect deletion tags - don't want to see clearly notable articles or articles asserting notability deleted under CSD#a7assertion of notabilityassertion of notabilityfictional characterworld cup winner not blatant advertclear context a7 Journal among others. Edit warring and incivility are valid concerns even if the issues are way back in history - it reflects a person's temperament. Capricorn42Talk 19:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose the examples of Capricorn42 are enough, even without the history of past sins. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Huh? As I just glanced at your last RFA, you introduced yourself as not only Porcupine, but also many many socksindividuals such as Rambutan, Circuit Judge and many others with the impressive block record (over 18 times!). I remember one case among your many dramas, so I will say "No thanks".-Caspian blue 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, these weren't socks, but previous names, fully disclosed (as you can see with the null block at the start of each new account). –xeno (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Really poor CSD work. The first effort should be put into improving articles, not deleting them. RxS (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Poor understanding of appropriate deletions e. g. this, this, this, this and so forth - examples pile up quickly. Giving Treasury Tag access to the delete button would cause far more problems than it would solve. WilyD 20:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per my criteria. While I think that this is a well-meaning Wikipedian, the discussions I have witnessed this editor taking part in leave me with concerns. - jc37 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per WilyD. Very shaky recent AFDs from what I saw (heck, I might have agreed with you in one or two of them, as well). MuZemike 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. An editor I've only enjoyed positive interaction with, hard working and seems to be on the right course after the early, shall we say "problematic" history. However, and even noting you did not specifically state C:CSD in your Q1, I still feel you are likely to cause too many issues with the delete button (examples by colleagues above). Not at this time I think. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Capricorn42. We don't need more too-quick-to-delete admins who won't give a new article a chance. Sorry, TreasuryTag - I'm sure you have good contributions elsewhere, but I can't trust you with the delete button. Robofish (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a general CSD-related comment... I'm not asking to be trusted with the delete button, at least not at first. I recognise that I have problems (I'm sure that almost all potential admins have areas they're less sure in) and would intend to learn. You all see that I've had the capacity for improvement: give me a chance to help out more and improve more. Please. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 22:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose - I'm certainly glad to see that you've reformed tremendously. However, it is counterproductive to grant tools to anyone where it would be likely to cause more harm (being dragged in front of ArbCom, being forced to constantly defend yourself at DRV) than any potential gain (a few reductions in backlogs here and there). Also, the fact that you say you're not asking to be trusted with the delete button is not encouraging, considering that you will be granted the delete button if given admin rights. You are given all of the tools, not just a few that you select. Jd027 (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's not quite what I meant. I meant that I don't intend to use the delete button until I'm confident. And I hope that you can all see I recognise areas where I'm not confident, and could trust me to use my judgement to avoid dabbling in them until I'm ready. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 23:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Poor CSD work. I can't trust you with the delete button at the moment, sorry. Steve Crossin Talk/24 23:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sorry. Avruch T 00:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I am in agreement with the previous statements regarding the editor's multitude of problems. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. This, for example, was less than a year ago. Individuals can change, but the concerns shown by others suggest that TreasuryTag still has tendencies that would be of concern, and unfitting of an administrator. Furthermore, the statement of acceptance seems vaguely defensive, almost as if saying "I'll be good, honest", and that worries me a bit. Esteffect (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it wasn't a year—it was only 11 months ago. Come on. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per above. Lack of civility, sockpuppetry, and poor CSD taggings are not the qualities of an admin. Sorry - perhaps next time - Fastily (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "sockpuppetry", could I perhaps direct you to Xeno's comment above? Thanks... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose I share the concerns of Capricorn, Wily, and Esteffect, and I cannot conclude with any confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. I do, though, commend TT for his continued willingness to change certain of his behaviors in order that collaboration should be more successful (if not always successfully) and for his evident desire to help the project, and I do not foreclose the possibility of my supporting a future RfA. Joe 02:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Too many blocks in your history.--Rockfang (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are aware that his last actual block was in November 2007, right? Opposing on this seems a little ridiculous. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am aware of that. I counted the number of blocks this editor has received on his/her various accounts. I got 13. This could be slightly lower or higher based on interpertation of the blocks. Regardless, I think someone with 13 blocks in their history should not be an admin. Even if the last block was 1-2 years ago.--Rockfang (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several admins who are reformed vandals, actually. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. If they had roughly the same block history as the editor being nominated here, I may have stated Oppose on their RFA's as well.--Rockfang (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) So in your eyes, people can't ever change? Vandals can't ever reform? Wikipedians should never forgive, no matter what the time frame? It's one thing if they were Willy on Wheels (does anyone remember him?) These were blocks that no one had to know about; he could have just started over with a new account and tried to make a run at it. But no—he came clean, right at the beginning, and he has been a productive editor for some time. Why not forgive him? Do you really think that he's going to revert the vandal he once was? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think some people can change. Apparently, a couple examples are the admins mentioned above. I just think the 13 blocks is too many.--Rockfang (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do want to emphasise Cool3's point in the support section. Imagine if TreasuryTag had taken the dishonest, easy way out and just abandoned his previous account after his last RfA, kept quiet, and started again. If he'd been remotely subtle, nobody would have ever known that this contributor was that guy with the massive block log; and he'd have ten months of generally good contributions to show. While I'll concede that there are some deletion-related concerns that would still have been raised, I personally applaud the honesty shown in disclosing all his former activities; and it really serves to demonstrate how effectively he can take criticism on board given time. At this point I'm worried that this RfA will fail, TreasuryTag will go away and sort out his overenthusiastic speedy deletion problems, and then come back in six months with a great record of them: and there will still be enough opposes based on his past block log to sink a third RfA. It really seems we are encouraging previously-blocked individuals to disguise their past and deceive the community if a 16-months-clean block log is still not enough to forgive. ~ mazca t|c 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Diffs above show us what kind of articles he would have deleted if able. — CharlotteWebb 07:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Given the somewhat concerning CSD edits, coupled with the block log, I don't feel completely comfortable in supporting. In a few months, certainly, but not just yet. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Too many issues, specifically the block log -- a block doesn't mean a lot to me by itself - it is entirely possible to do something out of character and be blocked, but a string of blocks requires more time for me to see that the user has moved on from the behaviour that has led to their blocks. Worrying CSD taggings, too, but that isn't the be-all and end-all of administratorship. I have little doubt that this user is well intentioned, but there are too many issues, and too much to worry about for me to support. — neuro(talk)(review) 09:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck part, misread block log dates. — neuro(talk)(review) 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose: I'm confident that the tools would not be intentionally abused, but I don't believe TreasuryTag is just quite at the level where he could use the tools without some element of accidental/unintentional error. The past behavioural problems, of which I'm well aware, do appear to be firmly in the past, once TreasuryTag can demonstrate a little more knowledge with regards to using the tools, I'd be quite happy to support. I will say, TT deserves at the very least, a degree of respect for not vanishing into the ether, returning with an entirely new account not linked to his past account, and sailing through RfA; judging by his behaviour over the past year or so, I think he could done that. Nick (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Sorry, but as per Capricorn's oppose earlier, way to many recent mistakes with CSD tagging means that I am hugely worried about deletions. Try again in a few months without the CSD errors, and I'd support. --GedUK  11:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Per Capricorn and Wily; most of those mistakes are just within the last month, and I agree that they're mistakes and not just judgment calls. I'm on the fence about the other issues, but we need more admins active in CSD tagging who know what they're doing, and I can overlook a lot 3 months from now if the candidate is doing a lot of good deletion work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you possibly elaborate on this ? Nick (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He already has, numerous times. Search his contribution history. ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) DougsTech's opinion that there are too many admins (and his opposing of every candidate) is being discussed here. Reyk YO! 21:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive520#Need_help_with_article_patrollers. I don't like Inspectors as admins, their "swift" moves causes more drama than necessary.--Lenticel (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose because I do not trust him with the delete button. Thanks to Capricorn42 for researching those links. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Sorry, just too much trouble in the past fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 12:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Absolutely not. A few days ago Treasury Tag tagged an article on a female international cricketer exactly one minute after its creation, claiming the subject was not notable and that the article wasn't referenced when it clearly stated she was an international cricketer and was referenced to her page and stats on cricinfo [1]. I agree with most people here that he shouldn't be allowed within a hundred yards of a delete button. Nick mallory (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per CSD work. Yes, I read that he said he did not want to get there but I expect at least a basic understanding of important policies from every admin. Treasury's tagging has major flaws, apart from WilyD's examples, we have a G11 for describing, not promotional text, an A7 for a band signed by a notable label, an A7 for the founder of a notable company, an A7 for a band with multiple indications of notability and an A7 for a World Cup winner. While I don't expect perfect tagging from a candidate, I don't think such mistakes can be tolerated. Hasty taggings might scare away newbies - hasty deletions will surely do so. Regards SoWhy 13:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per Pedro and a few others. I'm a proponent of putting past poor behavior behind us and moving; however, poor CSD work does not instill a great amount of confidence. GlassCobra 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose per above. While I most certainly believe in the ability for users to reform, I still am not entirely comfortable with this user's "promotion". I would consider supporting in the future if TreasuryTag continues to exhibit positive site behavior in the coming months. One (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per Capricorn42's list of examples. These are not ancient history (like the block log); they are all within the past 30 days, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of CSD policies. Horologium (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose All users with a troubled past, be they former vandals, trolls, or just plain uncivil, are capable of reform and redemption. You are a prime example of this, and I commend you on your great contributions and honesty. Unfortunately, I just can't get beyond Capricorn42's examples of CSD mistagging. One of the main functions any admin will deal with is deletion - responding to CSD tags and closing XfD discussions. Your history of edits in this area makes me seriously question whether you have enough of a handle on these policies to effectively enforce them, and makes me lean towards WP:NOTNOW for the time being. Read up on, and more importantly, start abiding by the deletion policies, come back in a few more months and I'll gladly and enthusiastically support. -Senseless!... says you, says me 03:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose I trust that this user has developed and changed substantially since his last RFA. However, some more experience with AFDs will be needed to more precisely take on the responsiblities of an admin.  Marlith (Talk)  16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose I appreciate the improvement, but he doesn't seem to have a full grasp of all of the policies and guidelines just yet, especially those for CSD, as noted by many above. hmwithτ 06:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Too much history of sockpuppetry and blocks, as well as recent mistakes in AFD lead me to think that this user will not be able to fulfill the role appropriately. Razorflame 06:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to interfere yet again, but I have not done sockpuppetry - what do you mean? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block log here shows a one-week block on November 14 2007 for sockpuppetry and trolling
    If you look into my talk-archives for that time, and the ANI thread(s), you'll see that it was not actually sock-puppetry. I had an alternate account (Circuit Judge) which was totally open and above-board, links to my userpage and so on. It was considered disallowed, but I (and a few others) didn't and don't consider it socking, since there was no element of secrecy about it. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose for all the reasons listed above. Plus, the constant oppose-badgering gets a bit annoying. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose I was wondering why he had been nicer to me recently, especially after numerous blow-ups in Doctor Who-related articles. I don't see any real improvement. As well, the socking is far more disturbing than the blocks; everyone loses their cool (I certainly have in the past), but socking implies a 'go fuck yourself' attitude towards the wiki rules that should never, ever be found in an administrator. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Regretful oppose, but maybe leaning toward neutral, per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Good nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft, but weak votes at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft (use of WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Jacqueline Eales (a WP:JNN), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction (more like a reason to merge than delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (2nd nomination) (needlessly mocking; if we assume good faith, we should provide more respectfully written arguments rather than two word one liners), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Ukrainian political crisis (some articles, such as those on presidents, will also “always attract edit warriors”, but that is the nature of the beast as it were and not a reason for deletion, because if so we could not cover everything from presidents to articles about atomic bomb drops). The editor’s old username had quite a few blocks back in 2007; however, the new account has avoided being blocked and so I will not hold these against the current account. If someone has reformed, we should be forgiving and encouraging. Also, I do like seeing the two barnstars, so there are certainly some positives here. I am nevertheless concerned with AfD participation that I am not comfortable with how the candidate might close deletion discussions as in those we participated in I see one good argument versus several weak or non-arguments. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose per concerns raised by Prodego, America69, and Capricorn42. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose, because of CSD issues. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. oppose per CSD issues. I am opposing only for that. This needs to be clear: Other issues are not compelling since the user has clearly reformed. But I have serious reservations about how the user would use the delete button. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose - Other than a slightly less snobbish 'tude, I don't see any significant improvement since TreasuryTag's last RfA. Even more worrying is his disregard for Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Matthew (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose - This user has a dodgy block log, and has already placed forward a near-identical request, which failed. They have also failed to show an ability to work well with people who they dislike (which is, in my opinion, an important part of being an admin. I can't trust him with a delete article button. Spacevezontalk 20:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Weak oppose - I was optimistic about this at first, but then I noticed the three block logs. Not just yet. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose per Hersfold on block logs. This user should try again later. It is too soon. Neutralle 11:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose - though I find something I can like (Q3, for example), I am afraid the attitude shown in Q5-6 is a deal-breaker for me. An admin must often deal with those who oppose them for any reason - or even no reason other than simply for being an admin. Ultimately, not much improvement over RFA#1 in this regard.  Frank  |  talk  12:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral, leaning toward support for now. Recent editing history looks good at first glance but needs closer inspection. Camw (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to stay neutral due to the CSD tagging issues mentioned by Julian below. I admire your openness in regards to your past and your efforts to improve, I'd be happy to support in a couple of months with some evidence of more accuracy in CSD and a continuation of the good behavior and dedication that had me wanting to support this time around. Camw (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now, pending the answer to question #4. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Remaining neutral due to CSD-related concerns in the oppose section. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral  Lots of progress during the last year - I applaud you. Knowledge of policy and ability to make good decisions at CSD and other quasi-administrative venues a bit shaky. If you continue along this path, I will support in a few more months. --StaniStani  02:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I want to believe that Treasury Tag has turned a new leaf, and I want to put in a vote of support to hope that Treasury continues that upward route but I am concerned on several levels discussed in the oppose section. Spinach Monster (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Does a lot of good work reverting vandalism but there a number of points people have made above to leave me pretty unconvinced he would make a good admin. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Due to poor CSD work. Would love to support in a few months if you can shape up in that area. — Jake Wartenberg 05:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. I would have otherwise supported, but I can't shake the concerns expressed by the opposers, particularly with respect to CSD. Sure I've erred on some CSD's myself, but I also am not trusted with the delete button. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Although he has improved, I still have several concerns about his recent CSD tagging. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I'm not not going to pile on to the delete !votes but the evidence of his poor judgement at WP:CSD means TreasuryTag 2 is not suitable for the mop at this time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I want to support, but the CSD is preventing me. Sorry. Sceptre (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moral support but cannot move to actual, real, bona fide support. TT is as close as I've ever seen to a model of reformed problem user. He still has his lapses, but he's come a long, long, long way. That said, I'm actually inclined to oppose, based on the speedy tagging raised by Capricorn, which to my mind is a genuine and substantial cause for concern, but I'll stay here as this RfA will not succeed and I only wish to encourage TT to continue to develop and contribute positively. I think you're almost there. Eradicate those very occasional relapses to incivility, learn the ropes of deletion policy and continue your excellent contributions to mainspace and I'll probably nominate you myself in a few months. But for now, you're not ready. My top tip to you, as to any other editor wishing to become an admin: starting now, behave in the way that you would expect an excellent admin to. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral Could see supporting, but CSD issues prevent my vote in that respect.

    Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

    04:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  13. Neutral Dr. Blodfeld outlined my own personal thoughts very well. Sorry Treasury. BlodedEdge Sign Here/Contact 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral Too many concerns raised, although answer to Q4 is very good.--Res2216firestar 13:52, 31 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TreasuryTag_2&oldid=1091461857"