Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tnxman307

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

Tnxman307

Final (47/21/1); Closed by Rlevse at 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tnxman307 (talk · contribs) - I have been editing here for almost ten months now. I have found the entire experience quite enjoyable and want to continue to help as much as possible. With that in mind, I thought I would see if the community thought I was trustworthy enough for adminship. As for my contributions, I focus mainly on recent changes/new page patrol and answering questions at the help desk and new contributor's help page. I work at UAA commenting on various reports and leaving messages for users whose names are borderline violations, as well as removing false positives. I also contribute to AfD from time to time. I look forward to this entire process and welcome any and all opinions. TN‑X-Man 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I want to focus on the areas I am already active in. This includes processing reports at WP:UAA, closing AfD's, and working on the log of pages listed for speedy deletion. These are the pages with which I'm comfortable and feel like I could make the most contribution towards. I have no intention of wandering outside those areas without doing some investigating first. For example, I would not start looking at WP:IFD without a thorough read-up on the appropriate policies and contacting an admin already active in the area. TN‑X-Man 13:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

A: My best contributions are the numerous edits I've made on the new page patrol. I try to catch pages as they are created and review them. I think Wikipedia should be a good encyclopedia all the time and try to remove junk as it gets added. I am also quite proud of the contributions I've made to the help desk and new contributor's help page. I needed a lot of help when I got started and enjoy pointing others in the right direction. TN‑X-Man 13:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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: My two biggest stresses were from WP:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lance de Masi and WP:Articles for deletion/The Mana World. Editors in both cases thought I was maliciously trying to remove articles. I tried to engage the editors to work towards a consensus and explain my reasoning. In the future, a good idea would probably be to ask a neutral third party to offer comments and suggestions. TN‑X-Man 13:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from David Fuchs

4. Say you're ready to close an AfD on a fictional subject. Ten editors showed up, and after a great amount of discussion, they all voted to 'keep', using as their rationale that the article was 'clearly notable.' Before the close another editor shows up and votes to delete, voicing concern that no one was able to produce secondary sources that meet the WP:GNG, and that attempting to find such sources himself, found little to suggest the notability of the subject. The final tally stands at 10 keep, 1 delete. How would you close the AfD? (This isn't a gotcha, and without giving you an actual AfD I'm not expecting you to give me a 100% definite answer; I'm more interested in your process and rationale.)

Hmm, interesting question. Well, one of the most important thing to consider to verifiability. If there are no sources, how can we be sure a subject is notable? However, if ten editors have discussed the subject, there must have been a reason they !voted to keep. I would close the debate as keep, while making the suggestion that sources be added right away. I would also watchlist the article to keep an eye on it. If nothing was added soon, I would consider relisting at AfD for further discussion. TN‑X-Man 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

5. As you state you would use your admin tools at UAA, AfD, and CSD, can you provide us links and diffs which show constructive edits in the areas listed?

Sure thing. Here are some links for UAA - [1], [2], [3]. At AfD, here are three - [4], [5], [6]. That last one was pretty nifty, as User:Sticky Parkin did a lot of good work with it. As for CSD, I'll provide links to the deleted articles - Asia Kaleah, Persecute the Faith, and The Bilz. TN‑X-Man 15:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Cyclonenim (talk · contribs)

6. Can you point me in the direction of an RfA you have participated in during your time here on Wikipedia?

A: I participated in J.Delanoy's RfA here. TN‑X-Man 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer too? This tool is very useful -- Tinu Cherian - 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. I had forgotten. Thanks! TN‑X-Man 11:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Have you made any edits to Wikipedia articles that you are particularly proud of? If so, why?

A: I have kept my eye on the Xavier University article (as a proud alum). When I first looked at the article, the notable alumni and faculty sections had a lot of redlinks and non-notable entries. I cleaned it up and have watchlisted it ever since. As many good memories as I have of school, it's important to remember to stay neutral. TN‑X-Man 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Standard optional questions from NuclearWarfare

8. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ or User:NuclearWarfare/Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: This is a tough one. It's best to assume good faith and lift the block. Of course, this comes with some caveats. I would immediately begin monitoring the contributions from the IP to ensure they are no longer vandalizing. I would also let users Alpha, Beta, and Delta know, as they were involved in the warning process. The more eyes on the IP's edits, the better. If the IP vandalizes again, I would reinstate the block. Who knows? Maybe with some encouraging words and guidance, this person could become a contributor. TN‑X-Man 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the real user in this case did indeed go on to becoming a helpful user, according to Xeno. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

9. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. I would consider both if I were approached by other admins. Admins are, by default, people in which the community has expressed trust. If they thought I was no longer worthy of the same trust, that would bear serious consideration. There are also other users which I trust that are not admins. Their opinions would be valuable as well. TN‑X-Man 18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

10. Please define notability in your own words

A. A subject is notable if its significance is verifiable in reliable sources. As I mentioned in an earlier question, if there are no sources, how can we be sure the subject exists/is what it claims to be/isn't a complete fabrication? I could claim that I can run a forty yard dash in 3.2 seconds, which would make me notable (and the quite probably Flash), but without verifiability there's no way to be sure. Secondly, reliable sources keep everyone honest. The Tnxman blog about my speed is probably not going to be truthful. My upcoming article in Sports Illustrated would be. TN‑X-Man 18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

11. _{(Stolen from Skomorokh)} How would you close an AfD in which 40% of the responses were to delete, 30% to merge and 30% to keep, where you felt each outcome was equally well-argued for but personally favoured deletion?

A: I think I would close it as a no consensus, which defaults to keep. If someone was able to successfully rescue the article or build consensus for a merge after the closure, that would be good also. If I'm closing an AfD, my personal opinion shouldn't play into the decision. I would be there to neutrally evaluate the various opinions. If I felt that I couldn't divorce myself from the subject, I would let another admin handle the closure. TN‑X-Man 18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

11a How would it effect your decision if the article in question concerned living people, fictional entities, or very recent events?

A: I don't know if it would affect my decision. I feel, using the example outlined above, that it would still be no consensus. Any BLP concerns would have to be examined with care, but if 60% of the participating editors feel that keep or merge is the appropriate action, I would think those concerns would be minor. TN‑X-Man 18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from RMHED

12 Which policy is more important WP:IAR or WP:V ? please choose one or the other, no further explanations are required explaining how you reached your decision. RMHED (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A:WP:V. TN‑X-Man 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(now for the fun bit....) Why? —Giggy 06:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Giggy - why? :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's changing the question! :-) Well, both are important policies. I feel that WP:V is more important because it helps weed out a lot of false claims (see my example above). It applies all the time. Don't get me wrong, WP:IAR is still important, I just think that verifiability is the key to maintaining a credible encyclopedia. TN‑X-Man 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:-D Xavexgoem (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question by Sandstein

13. Are you at least eighteen years old? (For part of the reason behind this question, see here.)

A I am indeed over the age of 18. The link you provided makes for some interesting reading and I am sad hear that this happened to PeterSymonds. I have had nothing but positive interactions with him in the past. TN‑X-Man 22:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat-Kurt-Weber-Additional-Question-and-more-fun from Erik the Red 2

14. What is your opinion on cool-down blocks?

A: Well, let's see. The technical answer: the blocking policy says that cooldown blocks should never be used. That being said, I'm sure cooldown blocks are issued with various other reasons given. I can only say that I would issue blocks for events that actually happen, not events that may happen. The better option is to try to reason with an editor before it gets to a point where blocking is required. TN‑X-Man 01:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

15. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: A block is a technical way of preventing users from editing Wikipedia. It may be put in place for breaking the 3RR, to prevent vandalism, or to stop spamming. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges. A block may used to enforce a ban. However, where a block prevents editing everywhere, bans may be restricted to certain areas of Wikipedia. For example, a user may be banned from editing articles relating to subject Z, but is free to edit articles about any other subject. TN‑X-Man 01:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

16. Define in your own words what a reliable source is.

A: A reliable source is a publication one that editors can turn for either accurate reporting of facts or solid, sourced presentations of opinion. For example, the New York Times is generally considered an accurate reporter of facts. Books by historians about World War II may have opinions, but are usually presented well. Sometimes reliable sources must be defined using our best judgment. To quote Justice Stewart, I know it when I see it. TN‑X-Man 01:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now for the story problem: 17. There is a large debate on a talk page about the inclusion of a topic in the article. The article is fully protected because of edit warring. The extreme majority favor the inclusion of one sentence, however, a lone dissenter favors a different sentence, one that is backed up by several reliable sources. The {{editprotected}} template is placed on the page and the majority asks you to insert their sentence, citing WP:CONSENSUS, but the dissenter tells you to put in his sentence instead, citing WP:RS and WP:V. Which sentence do you put in?

A: I'll give my answer, but I think this why Vegas oddsmakers put a half-point in spreads - so there's no middle ground. But I would make the case that both sentences could be included and here's why. Logically, if both statements concern facts, they cannot be opposites of each other. Either one is true and the other is false, both are true, or both are false. Several reliable sources couldn't be wrong and surely the "consensus" editors would not support a falsehood. Two facts can both be included in an article. If the sentences concern opinions, well those could be opposites. However, (in interests of presenting both sides for a neutral article) again both sentences could be included. One is well sourced and a majority of editors support the other. But to be clear, I would ask for input from both sides before implementing such a solution. TN‑X-Man 01:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Frank

18 Sorry to pile on yet another question, but can you please discuss the place of truth on Wikipedia?

A: Hey, no problem, bring them on! :-) To quote a somewhat infamous historical figure, what is truth? I can't really answer that question. People have a lot of different definitions of truth. Some people think it's unchanging. Some think it's relative. What I know is that Wikipedia is a place for verifiable facts. Inasmuch "truth" can supported by facts, it belongs here. Otherwise, it's a debate whose place is elsewhere. Sorry to get a little philosophical, but I hope this answers your question. TN‑X-Man 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at is I'd like to hear a bit more about your answer to Q10. You mention that a blog (self-published, but could be any blog, I'd say) is probably not going to be "truthful". What I'm wondering is this: suppose your friends also saw you run at whatever speed you claimed, so it really is the truth. Does it belong in a Wikipedia article or not, and why? Also, it kind of seems like you're suggesting that Sports Illustrated is truthful and that's why we use it as a source. Am I misunderstanding that?  Frank  |  talk  20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion. "Truthful" was a poor choice of words. "Reliable" would have the better choice in Q10. Sports Illustrated has been around for many years, has a staff of fact-checkers, and is relied upon as a source in other publications. My (fictional) blog is/has none of those things. If my friends all saw me run that fast, I would think they would have to testify to that in the public record before it could be included on Wikipedia. A claim that "my friends saw it, so it's true," is a no-go. TN‑X-Man 21:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:Stifle

19. I know these questions have ceased to be optional a long time ago, and join Frank in apologizing for piling on. With that said, when is it permissible for a non-free image of a living person to be used on Wikipedia?

A.Like I said to Frank, I welcome any and all questions. This question is probably the toughest so far, but (deep breath), here goes. Your question appears to break down into two parts. Is it permissible to use non-free images? Does the fact that the image is of a living person affect its use? Images without are free-content license are permitted to be used, so long as it meets the requirements laid out at WP:NFCC. This is important, as there are ten separate points listed there. Images of living people are allowed to be used, as long as they meet WP:BLP. The key point there is that content inappropriate in text form remains inappropriate in image form. So I would say that, yes, a non-free image of a living person can be used just like any other image, as long as it meets those requirements of both the image policy and the BLP policy. TN‑X-Man 11:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That, with due respect, doesn't answer the question. I'm not referring to BLP, I'm referring to the NFCC specifically. Please try again, in your own words. (Hint: criterion 1 is the important one.) Stifle (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, strike one for me. Let's give it another shot. I re-read criteria 1 and it said non-free images are only acceptable if a free equivalent cannot be created or is not available. A free picture of a living person can always (theoretically) be taken, so a free equivalent is available. Available free equivalent would seem to equal no use of non-free images of living people. TN‑X-Man 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

20. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A:I have to say verifiability. It's one of Wikipedia's core policies. Also, (quoting from WP:V), the burden of evidence lies with the editor(s) who add or restore material. So, in this case, I would start a discussion on the article's talk page and ask the consensus editors if they have any reliable sources. Also, I would drop a note on the new editor's talk page and invite him to participate. If he's a new editor and already providing reliable sources, he sounds like a valuable contributor. The important thing is to get both sides talking. TN‑X-Man 11:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

21. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A:I don't know about "successfully" aided, but I can point to a debate where I did my best. Mentioned earlier was an AfD debate (WP:Articles for deletion/The Mana World. User:Platyna was upset with my actions. I did my best to reasonably argue my position with the user on my talk page. I even got a thank you from him/her when I fixed a layout issue on his page. In my (humble) opinion, I think I can talk to any user civilly and try to reach solutions. TN‑X-Man 11:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

22. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: My current activities will continue. I enjoy contributing where I do. I look into taking on more responsibility if I receive the mop, but initially would not stray too far from my comfort zone. TN‑X-Man 11:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Tnxman307's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Tnxman307: Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tnxman307 before commenting.

Discussion

• Okay guys, the number of questions is beginning to get just a bit ridiculous. Try and think of how it feels to first off be under all the pressure of RfA to begin with, then on top of it see 3 new questions every time you log on to check how your RfA is going. I really think 22 questions along with the users contributions is enough to adequately judge this candidate, so lets give him a little break. Tiptoety ^talk 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. See no problems. Seems to be very helpful around AfD (which always could use the help), and no civility issues from a quick glance through.And #1, yay! Xavexgoem (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Support I see no issues that would warrant an oppose. Frequent activity at the Help Desk, UAA and around XfD's seal the deal for me. PerfectProposal 13:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I have looked through the user's contribs and have found him a very helpful editor, who does participate in many needed areas. I am quite confident that he will be a good admin and trust that he will learn to use the tools before rampaging through AfDs and CSDs. I only found one occurence that placed a minor question mark in my reasoning - in this case the CSD tag was wrong and he might have googled the text first (and the fact that the article still exists shows that it was not CSD#A7). But that's the only thing I noticed... SoWhy 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support The user is experienced and I see no reason to oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 14:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. He'll be a fine admin. Axl (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - Good work at AFD and UAA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Not likely to abuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 15:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Good work in AFD's. Good luck in this RFA. America69 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Looking through his contribs (especially at UAA, AFD, and his deleted contribs), I'm confident that Tnxman307 would make a good admin. Useight (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. No reason to doubt that he will use the tools wisely nancy ^talk 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Sure, makes a clear case for how he will use the tools, and I have no reason to believe after looking thru contribs that you'll abuse or misuse them. Looks good! Keeper ǀ 76 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Support--LAAFan 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - Good work in admin areas. X! who used to be Soxred93 18:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - demonstrates need of the tools and provides good evidence of competence along those lines. Also provided decent answer I respect for optional question, and no major things popped out on a spotcheck of contribs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Support RMHED (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Protonk (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Will be a great admin. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Hello, I'd like to report a lost camel -- his name is Sheldon, he has two humps and...oh, wrong queue. While I am here: Support Ecoleetage (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Definitely no reason for opposition. I like your prompt response to my inquiry at WP:HD, as well. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC).
21. Support an admin candidate who actually has AfD experience- gasp. Also per answers to questions. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 11:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Support will do fine. If the RfA passes, the much discussed oppose of Roi below should be taken as a reminder that trigger-happiness is a major source of mistakes by admins. I say that as someone who's probably more inclined to deletion than the average editor. So do remind yourself that in doubt articles should not be speedy deleted but tagged with prod or sent to AfD. The only cost is a bit of extra work for the community but it avoids a lot of frustration. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Satisfactory answers to the questions, especially honesty about lack of strength in article work. This user demonstrates sufficient clue. GlassCobra 16:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Support No reason to oppose. LittleMountain5 ^review! 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
25. —Giggy 01:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. This candidate is ready for new admin school. — Athaenara ✉ 19:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Support. I'm semi-familiar with your work as a Wikipedian (I think I wannabekated you once) and I came away impressed. You will have little need for content building as an admin, and I trust you with the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Weak Support Supporting but encourage the candidate to work more on article writing.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Weak support - Although I trust this candidate, and a good attitude is conveyed too, I would recommend extensive practice at the new admin school and a good reading of the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list too. Lradrama 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. While I hope the answer to Q8 is merely a function of the candidate trying to straddle the fence, I see no reason to oppose. Seen him around, no problems here. Tan ǀ 39 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
31. Support, no good reason to oppose. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - meets my standards, see no strong reason to oppose. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Support, candidate seems to have a sufficient knowledge of policy and procedure, and seems trustworthy. Shereth 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Support: Net Positive and WTHN ? . This was impressive and I hope you may use the delete button only with good reasons and understanding. A good attitude and fair answers. Please do work on article improvements further . I trust you. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. After watching this debate over the past few days, I'm going to hop in under the Support column. I think the candidate has comported himself well, and I'm unconvinced by some of the reasons for opposition. Looking at the editor's contributions, I think his adminship would bea net positive to the project, and that's enough for me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Support: Great history, but talk about beating a dead horse. Geez. How many questions can you legitimately ask a candidate who has already competently answered about eleventybillion questions? Credit given to Tnxman307 for calmly answering some of the more absurd, or downright lazy questions I have seen in an RfA. I just remembered why I don't usually read that section of an RfA. Honestly, I want the last ten minutes of my life back. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. over 7000 edits in 10 months, surely that's more then enough experiance. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Support: Everything looks fine and dandy. And Q16 rocks my socks off. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. I was somewhat unconvinced either way, and I suspect that I wasn't the only one who felt this way (possibly?) which is why there are so many Q&A. But when it comes down to it, the opposing reasons do not convince me at this point, and I feel that you are trustworthy (and will offer something positive when you're granted the tools). Don't let us down ;) - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
40. support Not much in the way of direct article work, but the edits he has made to article space have been fine. Moreover, his work in non-article space suggests a decent understanding of policy and general community procedures. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
41. No real issues here, should be fine. user:Everyme 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Net positive. Justice America/(5:15) 18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
43. Support net positive. Here's hoping this will tip you over the consensus margin. ;) Best of luck, --Cameron* 20:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
44. Support - all of his edits that I've seen are excellent edits that definitely show a good grasp of both policy and, more importantly, what's right. His work at the Help Desk is always top-notch, as well as his participation in AfDs. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Support solid answers to the questions and seemingly plenty of edits.--danielfolsom 01:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. Projectspace edits are good, that's all that concerns me. Wizardman 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Support, no reason to believe that user would abuse the tools. The thoughtful and polite response to Kurt's oppose below sealed the deal for me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Oppose

1. Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Mata Nui, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCKUP, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lance de Masi. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   I noticed a trend in the three links you included above. In all three, you said keep or merge, and Tnxman said delete. Are you opposing because Tnxman disagreed with you? America69 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   I am not trying to be rude or mean, I just noticed that trend. America69 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   It's probably not that cut and dry, but if we're going to be honest here, if somebody disagrees with you at AFD, it probably means you feel that they have a misunderstanding of policy since you're on opposing sides (that how opinions work unfortunately), or you're an inclusionist and the other is a perceived deletionist. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Yes. The opposition is a protest vote against editors with higher notability thresholds than Roi. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   I disagree with it being a protest vote. I don't think Roi is trying to make a point. He is consistent in his !votes on RfA with regards to AfD, and has strong feelings against certain rationales. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   I dropped a note on his talk page. Hope he will clarify and clear things up. - Mailer Diablo 19:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   I agree with Wisdom. I have seen several RfA's where Roi has !voted the same way. If I'm not mistaken, Roi is very much an inclusionist, as well a very good contributor. He has his own standards, which is cool. No harm, no foul. TN‑X-Man 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   I disagree with the candidate's interpretation of policies and guidelines regarding inclusion criteria and as such I am concerned with how the candidate might close AfDs. I believe our primary purpose is to write an encyclopedia and when we delete articles that are not overwhelmingly ones that should be deleted, we have a potential to diminish our comprehensive coverage as a reference guide and even turn away editors, readers, and donors. Therefore, I focus a good deal on how admin candidates have voted/argued in past AfDs as indicative of how they might closes discussions, i.e. what they do and do not find persuasive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   I'm afraid that disagreeing with someone at AFD is not really a good reason for opposing. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that either lacks knowledge of policy. It just means you disagree. And agreement with others at an AFD is not needed to determine consensus. Just knowledge of policy and experience discussing it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Dlohcierekim, I agree with you that it's a poor reason (oppose just for the sake of disagreement) - I was just attempting to rationalize the thought process behind his oppose - of course, the best thing to do would be to just let him answer for himself. However, the point I was trying to make was that when two people are in disagreement, whether it be at AfD or just having different opinions on a topic, let's be realist for a moment, one thinks the other is wrong. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I agree with you (wisdom). I don't think Le Roi is being pointy or a making protest. I'm just not terribly enthusiastic about his reasoning. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Guys, can we keep policy interpretation off the main RfA page? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Boy, it seems like there have been a lot of points made lately on RfA. It's not disruption to disagree with the user running for adminship. Actually, if Le Grand disagrees with Tnxman's deletion views, he probably doesn't trust him with the delete button, one of the main things the admin bit is about. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   This is exactly why his rationale does not work for me-- I don't look at whether of not someone agrees with my notability views, and it is not a measure of one's ability as an admin. For instance, I don't always agree with User:DGG, but he is a fantastic, knowledgeable admin. He's a good person to bounce ideas off of because we see things differently. I also like and respect Giggy. I'm more deletionist than he, but I still respect his judgment and seek his advice. I would likely support him again in an RfA. Consensus building is more important to me than labeling "good guys" and "bad guys." And while Le Grand and I may wind up hissing and spitting at each other (in a nice way) here, that's sometimes what it takes to build a consensus. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   If there are no objections, I would like to move this discussion to the talk page. I do find this debate interesting and wouldn't mind continuing it there. TN‑X-Man 03:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose : Lacks article building skills and hasn't contributed significantly to any controversial/disputed articles. Lacks consensus/dispute resolution skills. You do have your help desk work going for you though, that's good. — Realist² 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per a general lack of experience. For someone who wants to do work in an admin role at AfD I don't feel that this user has enough experience in that area. --T-rex 21:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose since this user does not meet my criteria for adminship because of insufficient article work. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose because of answer to Q8. For that kind of vandalism, a one week block is perfectly reasonable and should be upheld. I like my sysops to be firm with vandals! John Sloan (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   As a primarily anti-vandal slayer myself, I would disagree. A helpful user who is sorry about his or her past is far more useful than retribution. I think you ought to reread WP:Block's second sentence: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   I see no reason to believe the IP is finished vandalising and keeping the IP blocked prevents him from vandalising for that week. Now, while I was typing this 260 vandals attacked Wikipedia, I could have stopped them with my anti-vandal tools, but I had an orange bar to respond too! Only joking :D Thanks for bringing your comments here to my attention :-) John Sloan (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   I know it is sometimes hard to assume good faith to vandals, but I have noticed that a significant percentage of the time when I give a level 4 warning, IPs stop vandalizing. Perhaps the same could be applied to blocked vandals. Who knows, perhaps there is a chance that they will turn good. And if not, it is a simple matter to block them again. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose as unexperienced. Also does not know that blocks are preventative and not punitive. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Move to Support after looking a bit harder.

7. Not enough content building experience or experience in areas to demonstrate yet we can trust him with the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose I do not trust in this user's ability to correctly close AFDs. Questionable interpretation of policies, including the purpose of blocks. Article work is also very weak. SashaNein (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose I'm not worried about deletionism being relevant here. I am concerned that the amount of article work is too minimal to indicate a sufficient experience with the actual problems that confront people writing articles; an understanding of the actual contributors is important in making correct decisions as an admin. DGG (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    I appreciate your input Kurt. If you don't mind me asking, are there any other reasons why you would oppose? I'm always looking to improve as an editor and have already taken into consideration the opinions of other oppose !votes. Thanks in advance! TN‑X-Man 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    If you were an RfA regular you would know that that is Kurt's stock oppose. A lot of people don't like it, but he makes a valid point.  Asenine  14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

11. Per DGG. When you're asked twice for significant contributions, and you can't mention even a single article you've worked on (unless I'm misunderstanding the reference to Xavier) then that is a problem in an RfA candidate. You seem like a reasonable and intelligent guy, and with some article background I'd be happy to see you as an administrator. Avruch ^T 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose Tnxman has made more than 4,000 mainspace edits, but he has made ten or more than ten edits to only four articles. He should focus more on article building. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose As an admin, Tnxman307 will have broad powers to decide the fate of articles and other Wikimaterial at XfD. My review of the nominee's edit history shows that much of the mainspace edits are vandalism reverts with very little meaningful participation in creating and expanding articles. Greater involvement in building the content of this encyclopedia can only lead to an admin with a better understanding of the XfD process and I cannot support a candidate with such minimal experience in this area. If this does expand, and if there is an answer next time to the question of what articles you are proudest of, I will be more than willing to reconsider my opinion in a future RfA. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Too deletionist for my taste; I'm afraid I'd rather not have another admin who is willing to go around eliminating valuable information from the mainspace. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose believe it or not, per RMHED's question, 12. WP:IAR is the most important rule on Wikipedia, by far. Prodego ^talk 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

    I agree, though I can understand why someone who's main work is around XfD would say that V is more important, and he does say why V is more important. Doesn't mean he knows the intricacies (or utter simplicity) of IAR, but I think it's something to consider. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

16. Weak oppose - Per Q12.  Asenine  03:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose needs wider experience. --Stephen 00:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose Needs more experience building content. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose needs more article work. AniMate 20:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose - Per Q12. Tiptoety ^talk 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose for now (changed from neutral). You will make a fine admin one time, but you lack the article writing experience that I also look for.  Sandstein  08:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Seems uninterested in content writing; this is a red flag for reasons I've elaborated on elsewhere. east718 // talk // email // 12:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Pending answers to additional questions Opposed —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 16:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I am generally supportive of candidates who wish to use the bits in areas in which they are already active, but in this instance I think the candidate is just too unfamiliar with the sysop remit. I think the editor needs to get involved in a few other areas of Wikipedia, so they get a better understanding of the "big picture". As this currently looks as if it is going to be successful, I suggest they anyway do look to expand their interaction with other areas of the encyclopedia to enable them to be a better admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for your input. I'll definitely look around at more areas than the ones in which I'm currently involved. I enjoy doing gnomish type stuff and I know articles can always use good references. Maybe I can start there. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

   (Changed to oppose,  Sandstein  08:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)) Thank you for your reply to my question. I am currently neutral because I have not yet seen evidence of the substantial article writing work that I feel is (also) required for adminship. Maybe you could point me to it?  Sandstein  06:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   I appreciate the opportunity to offer some evidence before you register an opinion. I can't point you to any substantial article writing, however, I point out some other things. I was approached by User:Mark J Richards about an article he was creating (Marchmont House). I went over the article with him, pointed out improvements, and helped him get the whole thing ready in a sandbox before publishing the article in the mainspace. He did the heavy lifting and the article was selected for a DYK. You can see our interactions on his talk page. I have also set up sandboxes for other users and offered to guide them in writing articles. Finally, I work to maintain the quality of existing articles. My best contributions there are probably to Bill Simmons, Seabreeze High School, and Xavier University. I know this is probably a much more long-winded answer than you wanted, but I hope it helps. TN‑X-Man 12:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   You list Seabreeze High School among your "best contributions", though all of your edits there appear to be reversion of vandalism or removal of non-notable content. Can you point to articles that you yourself have created or meaningfully expanded as examples of your work? Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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.