Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/TomStar81 3: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:41, 2 July 2008 editXeno (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators103,386 edits →Oppose: question to kurt← Previous edit Revision as of 12:42, 2 July 2008 edit undoXeno (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators103,386 edits →Support: supportNext edit →
Line 145: Line 145:
#'''Support'''. An excellent article contributor, and excellent coordinator for the Military History Project, and an extremely active contributor to Misplaced Pages. You've got my vote! ] (]) 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC) #'''Support'''. An excellent article contributor, and excellent coordinator for the Military History Project, and an extremely active contributor to Misplaced Pages. You've got my vote! ] (]) 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Yes. ] (]) 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Yes. ] (]) 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 12:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


=====Oppose===== =====Oppose=====

Revision as of 12:42, 2 July 2008

TomStar81

Voice your opinion (talk page) (40/5/1); Scheduled to end 06:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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


Optional questions from User:Filll
6. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
A. If I had the answer to this question I would be a lot happier. As it is, these have a reputation for being high stress areas, so the best I think we could do would be to remind contributers to stay civil, remind questioniers not to bite the candidates, and remind the rfa man or woman that failing an rfa will not contribute to any forsable end for the world. On the issue of the P3, I remain neutral on its appliaction since I have not had a chance to dog into the back story for its creation.
7. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
A.
Very optional question from Hiberniantears
8. I will not oppose you for your spelling, but can you at least explain your deficiency in that area? There is a long history of you acknowledging your struggles with the language. Since clear communication skills are key for an admin, and since this is an entirely text based project, it would be helpful to know if you would be willing to proof read any posts you make when wearing the admin hat.
A. The problem is four-fold. First, I have always had a hard time spelling. I can read and discern the meaning of words with ease, but spelling was something that always seemed to escape me. I think that part of it the fact that as a photonic alphabet, English words should be spelled with the letters those using the language think are being used rather than the letters actually being used. The second part of the problem is the keyboard. Big people like me have big fingers, but these keyboads have tiny letter button klacker things that the manufacturers expect woul to be able to hit with prescion without hitting any of the other letters on the keyboard. Thats hard for me to do. Lastly, like all americans, I have a tendancy to rush type for no apparent reason. In such situtations my brain often thinks four or five words ahead of where my fingers are currently typing so that I can get an idea all down before it leaves me. By its very nature this sort of behaviour lends itself to the inclusion of spelling errors that would otherwise not be present if I were to slow down (I should note, for the record, that I do make an effort to copyedit messages I leave if the subject matter of such messages nesscesitates that they be correct for the sake of peace and civility). Fourth, I spend a lot of time adding and subtracting content to my sandbox, and by a lot of time I am talking about monthes, like 6-8 if not more. After a while (as I am sure we have all experinced before) one stops reading what is actually there and reads what the brain assumes is there. This explains why articles I have rewritten come out with a butload of spelling issues, and why I request copyedits for articles recently moved into the article mainspace by me after having been rewritten. I will disclose that I consider something to be well written if others can read it despite the spelling errors. As to the extent that this effects admin work: for RC patrolling the problem is larged checked through the use of templates (test, warning, db-, etc) which already have correct English spelling. For afd matters the problem is somewhat mitigated by the fact tha I can site one of the afd criteria for deletion and let others do the checking to see what I have cited.
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
9. Should cool-down blocks ever be used?
A. Absolutely not. Not for any reason, not for any purpose. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Additional (extremely loaded) question from Icewedge
10. I am sorry Tom, but, when you have answered an RFA question and users have used that answer as part of the grounds for their oppose !votes how do you really feel that it is acceptable to simply "trim" out the parts they objected too?
A. If one makes a mistake and is called for it would it not make sense to correct the mistake rather than allow the mistake to exist? I have made several mistakes onsite, and when such mistakes are pointed out I endoveur to correct them, rather than leave them in their place. As a matter of history, it still exists, bound to this page in previous version of the edit history; it has not been deleted, simply relegated to the past. If I have made a mistake by correcting my mistake here then I apologize, as that was not my intention, but to my knowlage there is no line anywhere here that says users can not trim there answers if they discover they provided an incorrect answer or a partially incorrect answer, so I was under the impression that I was free to correct my answer(s) as I saw fit.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Son of a *&@^&!! Hiberniantears (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ;-)
(After I quickly and sneakily added the missing apostrophe from my post :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Precisely. It puzzled me too but nothing like as much as Filll's extraordinary AGF Challenge 2 question. How does this determine trustworthiness?--ROGER DAVIES  19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It's the trend lately at RfA, and it's keeping 'em away in droves (candidates, that is). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked question 4 because I noticed that the user has not made a single edit to WP:RPP and I wanted to evaluate his knowledge in that area, it is true that he could just go look up the policy but then by writing it down the editor would have learned it. As for question 3.5, that comes from a joke on my talk page; User talk:Icewedge#Re Optional Question. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification
    First, let me state unequivocally that TomStar81 contacted me for feedback in this RfA in accordance with my explicit request that anyone with whom I have interacted is requested to do so. This should NOT be construed in any way as a violation of WP:CANVASS. Now for the rest...
    I resent being hammered in such a public manner. I am sorry TomStar81 found our discussion "an unpleasent encounter", but that does not warrant dragging my name through the mud and miscategorizing in such a public setting. To begin with, I never contested the subject's notability (in fact I defended it in both the AfD and the FAC). My problem was that the subject had a total of four unique sentences and that the subject didn't need its own article and another featured article already covered this subject adequately. I believed a simple redirect and incorporation of the data in the parent article would be sufficient others agreed, but majority opinion (which I'm fine with) was to the contrary. In the FAC, I felt it didn't meet FAC criteria and gave an extensive review and rationale for my objection with very little direct rebuttal from the nominator (see the bottom of the second FAC nomination). It was not personal in any way. Others disagreed and the article was promoted. I'm fine with that; it's what Misplaced Pages is all about. I haven't brought it up since, until now).
    I think an admin should know the difference between a discussion and hostility and be able to keep the two separate. Now, I have had two featured articles on the main page and I understand the internal pressure to get a featured article through the FAC. I am perfectly willing to accept an apology and put it all behind us and TomStar81 should be commended for asking me to talk here. Should he do so and renounce his hasty reactions (which we all have sometimes), I think all this should be put behind us. But until he does so, I fail to see why it should remain in the past. An emotional gut reaction is not what we should have from our admins, IMHO. — BQZip01 —  03:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
First off, I apologize for any hammering in public that this rfa may have brought up, as it was not my intention to turn this into an inquisition for you (or me, for that matter). I have this disturbing trait to tell the truth, and the truth of the matter is that the Illinois fac was not handled in the best possible way, and if you recall your rfa came up at about the same time as that fact I posted some rather unpleasent remarks there that spilled on to your talk page and the FAC, hence the mention here. Its just that I took that FAC a little more personally than the others, and acted somewhat outside CIVIL, so I put your name up here figuring that your comments or !vote would be more critical than the others. That was, for me, an unpleasent encounter, but I can not speak for you, nor can affect your descions or opinions on the matter. And I do apologize for any hasty, emotion based replies, so if you are willing to accept my apologize I will honor your request to put this all behind us. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Good enough for me! I'm moving my !vote to neutral for now. Please address concerns in the objection section too. I'll have a few questions for tomorrow. I hope all our future discussions can end so amicably! :-) — BQZip01 —  04:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support as co-nom. -MBK004 06:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support, I've "known" TomStar81 (and his "famously idiosyncratic spelling" :-) for about as long as I've been on Wiki; he is a solid content contributor and a civil, collaborative editor. Happy to support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support as co-nom. --ROGER DAVIES  06:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    Support - Solid. Wisdom89 (T / ) 06:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Switching to Neutral. Wisdom89 (T / ) 07:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support for now. It'll take me a bit longer to go through my review of this candidate because he has 17,000 edits, but I wanted to get my current thoughts down before I fall asleep. Anyway, TomStar81 is an excellent content builder, but according to Q1 he wants to work with vandalism, AFD, and RC patrol. Going through his contribs, he has exactly three edits to AIV, and one of those was adding his sig to his previous edit. Depending on what I find tomorrow when I have more time to go through his contribs, my !vote could change. Useight (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, upon further review, the ruling on the field stands. Weak support. Not a whole ton of work in admin-like areas, but I found many quality contributions at AFD. That, along with his excellent mainspace work and tenure as an editor are enough to warrant a support from me. Also, his spelling errors give something for us WikiGnomes to do. Useight (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    Lol! --ROGER DAVIES  06:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Tom is a great editor and I am very pleased to support his nomination. In particular, I'd like to highlight the extent to which Tom seeks to gain consensus when writing articles or discussing issues. A particularly good example of this is that he nominated the article USS Illinois (BB-65) for deletion shortly after he sucessfully guided it through a FAC as several of the editors who commented on the FAC stated that they didn't believe that uncompleted ships deserved to have articles and Tom wanted a ruling one way or the other. Based on this behaviour I think that there's no danger that he will miss-use the admin tools. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support per reasonable stance at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Homunculi of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga and his userpage shows an impressive degree of featured article contributions and barnstars, which shows clear effort and knowledge of building the project and cooperation and appreciation from fellow editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 08:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strongest support. —Giggy 09:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - Have met this user several times and have always thought him to be fair and non-judgemental. Also thought he was already an Admin. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support I have always found this user to be approachable and fair in his actions on this wiki. Whether under extreme pressure on his FACs at times, or under pressure from other editors, he has always acted fairly for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. Not every admin will be extremely active on all policy areas, indeed active at all at admin functions. But I do think he will benefit from the tools where needed and it would be a benefit to the project. Woody (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Hardly as if blocking vandals at AIV is difficult. Naerii 09:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Weak Support - the contribs look OK, and there are no serious issues I don't think, but the answers to the questions aren't very impressive really. I still feel that we have a decent admin in the making though. Lradrama 10:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support I've seen your work at WikiProject Military History, and its great! Keep striving to do well! --Meldshal42 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Tom's work speaks for itself, and he's always been a fair and civil editor in my interactions with him. No reason to think he'd misuse the tools. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. Tom is a diligent and dedicated editor; I have no doubt he'll make an excellent admin. Kirill 12:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support. Candidate has demonstrated significant growth as an editor and contributor. Good judgment, trusted. BusterD (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. TomStar81 appears even-tempered, dedicated and clueful. I've admittedly only taken a superficial look, but pending further findings and per all of the above, I believe the candidate can be fully trusted with the tools. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support. · AndonicO 13:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support, nice editor. --Mizu onna sango15/ 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Weak Support Mainly per Useight. As he said, when I look more closely as this continues, my !vote may change. America69 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Tom's a level-headed article writer who's exercised good judgment in the past. I trust he'll continue to do so as an administrator. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  23. Yes--Serviam (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  24. Sppuort. Rudget (logs) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  25. Week Support. Much more activity in AIV needed before I feel comfortable with you beong able to block, but being the coordinator of arguably the biggest Wikiproject on Misplaced Pages shows your commitment and communication skills. Good luck. weburiedoursecretsinthepark 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support I am going to trust him. MBisanz 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  27. Weak support - Spelling doesn't bother me much, since spelling does not affect use of the tools - any editor can edit an article or talk on a talk page.  Asenine  18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  28. Good user: not bothered about a low report count to AIV. After all, I only had two edits to requests for page protection when I ran for adminship, and I said in my RfA that I wanted to help out there. Acalamari 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support - Actually intended to support when I left my question... Just forgot! Great editor, great skill, and great work. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support. No trust issues, long running track record of useful contributions. I'll support for that alone. The limited reports to WP:AIV and the like do not concern me with to an editor who's done this much work. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support: He's a blessing to MilHist.--Bedford 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support - I have taken the necessary time for closer inspection, and I find that the good completely out weights the relative inexperience at AIV. You have my support. Good luck. Wisdom89 (T / ) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support, we need more admins with strong experience in content writing. Also, Tom is polite and dedicated, and is already a coordinator at the Military History WikiProject.--Aldux (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support, excellent MILHIST / WP:SHIPS editor, I have no doubt that he will use the tools fairly and responsibly. The process at AIV is not exactly complicated, I have no doubt that he can figure it out regardless of how many times he has used it in the past. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    Note: I've indented and struck this; you've already supported at #22. --Rory096 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support- Has shown no predisposition to abusing the tools. Also, we need more syops working the afd and aiv backlogs.--Finalnight (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support - Impressive edits, candidate also shows patience (time between RfA 2 and 3), sense of honor (RfA 1) and clear understanding of what he wants to do (Q1).--Lenticel 02:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support. To anyone concerned about spelling, if you have the time you might enjoy: "Why Stevie Can't Spell". On other matters, Tom is somebody who I've noticed is a helpful guy and smart editor. All things considered, I thought he handled the USS Illinois (BB-65) situation with a lot of aplomb. I probably would have thrown the towel in had I been in his shoes--that he stuck it out is a tremendous credit. --JayHenry (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    That was the greatest thing I've ever read! Thanks for the link, I will keep Stevie in mind the next time I submit an article for FAC :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support per nom. Good contributor, can't see any reason why you would abuse the tools. - Shudde 04:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support. An excellent article contributor, and excellent coordinator for the Military History Project, and an extremely active contributor to Misplaced Pages. You've got my vote! Cam (Chat) 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support. Yes. Epbr123 (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support. –xenocidic (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose Not everyone is a naturally gifted speller, but spellchecking is out there for a reason. The candidate seems aware of this apparent shortcoming, and yet three words are misspelled just in the first sentence of the Q3 response. Overall, I feel like more effort should have been put into this RfA, and I think the candidate lacks experience in some critical areas. Weak oppose with regrets, candidate seems like a good guy, and if he happens to not get the mop this time, I'll be rooting for him in the future. Keepscases (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    You're opposing him because of a lack of experience in some critical areas, right? Would you mind being a little more specific? Which areas are weak in your opinion? A side question, do you actually think correct spelling is what makes a good administrator? Mahalo and thanks. --Ali'i 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    I doubt anyone thinks correct spelling is what makes a good admin, but I would like to see all administrators be able to write coherently. There are constantly opposes on various RfAs for lack of substantial article-writing experience. Can someone really be that good of a writer if they can't spell basic words? In short, I doubt anyone would support a candidate because the candidate is a good speller, but poor spelling and/or grammar is a red flag. Enigma 20:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, disagree; I know of at least a couple of prolific FA writers who depend on others for basic copyediting. (And that's without mentioning people like me who make a gazillion typos in spite of preview and spellcheck because of eyesight.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    I would agree, Sandy. I know various article writers who do brilliant work in expanding, sourcing, and making prose flow brilliantly that don't always get their spelling perfect. Good thing there is a website format out there that allows other people who are good spellers to come along and fix their typos. Where would these so-called WikiDragons be without their WikiGnomes? ;-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Regretful oppose This user is an excellent contributor, very civil communicator and there is no chance that he would intentionally abuse the tools but I do not see that he knows what to do with the tools really. Per this edit where he submits the username "Islamn" to WP:UAA he admits he knows nothing about the username policy. "I find this well written compared to other article that I have seen here" is a very poor keep rationale. He has never made an edit to WP:RPP and his answer to my question (Q4) about page protection was rather inadequate and shows a great deal of misconceptions.
    • Full protection is not the correct response to vandalism.
    • "the mainpage article, which is to remain unprotected", incorrect. Discussion related to this issue has been about whether or not the mainpage article should automatically be protected just because it was featured on the main page, no one has ever stated that the mainpage article should not be protect if it is experiencing heavy vandalism.
    • The correct response to copyright violations is to delete them, not protect them.
    Also, in question 1 he states that he would like to work anti-vandalism and RC patrol. Those are basically the same, are they not? CSD participation and knowledge is lacking, in this vote he advocates speedy deleting an article with poor writing as patent nonsense, CSD G1 explicitly state that "This does not include: poor writing". And while this is not RFB all of his RFA !votes are like "He will make a good admin, of this I am certain.", or similar.
    I want to support but I just do not feel that he knows enough policy. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 23:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per answer to #9. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    Heh. Should've known this was coming when you asked it. Enigma 04:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    Curious kurt, you opposed the last candidate you asked this question to because s/he referred back to policy. This user, however, from their adamant statement seems to have a personal opinion that they should not be used and is (seemingly) not blindly following a rule. –xenocidic (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose User's question responses are almost robotic. I am weary to promote somebody who won't bring a fresh perspective to the encyclopedia. Juppiter (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    "You are a philosopher, Thrasymachus, and well know that if you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibit him whom you ask from answering twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, 'for this sort of nonsense will not do for me,' —then obviously, that is your way of putting the question, no one can answer you." -Socrates, Plato, The Republic TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, July 2, 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - switched from neutral. Insufficient grasp on policy per Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral - Changed from support above. Neutral for now per Useight above and the answer to question 4, which just isn't really fleshed out. In conjunction, I'm beginning to have fledgling doubts. I need to take a closer look at the user's experiences, but I cannot do this tonight. Wisdom89 (T / ) 07:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Supporting. Wisdom89 (T / ) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral towards oppose - unconvinced grasp on policy is sufficient. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Switched to oppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Neutral pending responses to Icewedge's concerns. — BQZip01 —  04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TomStar81 3: Difference between revisions Add topic