Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thomas.W

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

Thomas.W

Final (54/28/4); ended 17:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC); withdrawn.

Nomination

Thomas.W (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to present Thomas.W (Tom) for your consideration. I've encountered Tom in many places over the last few months, including at AIV (which is frequently backlogged) and SPI (which is semi-permanently backlogged and chronically under-staffed). In all our interactions, he has struck me as diligent and thorough—indeed he was able to help in a recent SPI concerning a large sockfarm by identifying a sockpuppet I had missed. He is well versed in policy, having had an account since 2006 and having been active consistently since early 2011. In that time, he has made almost 500 reports to AIV and I don't recall declining any (nor seeing any declined by other admins), a great many contributions to SPI, and accumulated a total of some 24,000 edits. While he is not a prolific content writer, he is not a simple button-masher either, as can be seen from his involvement in several articles (and, importantly, their talk pages) over a period of several years, where he fends off not just obvious vandalism but also POV pushing and other unhelpful edits. He has shown himself willing to do the requisite digging to prove or disprove a statement, and to explain himself on the talk page in the event of disagreement.

I believe Tom has the balance of contributions that voters at RfA like to see and which produce good admins, and that he will make a very useful addition to the admin corps, especially in areas that are (contrary to the popular meme) crying out for more admins. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gracefully accept the nomination. WITHDRAWN Thomas.W ^talk 16:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
And, in case anyone wonders why I made very few edits during the first five years (2006-2011) and then all of a sudden became very active, it's because I retired in 2012, and all of a sudden got a lot of spare time. Thomas.W ^talk 14:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would start by helping out at WP:AIV, which at times is understaffed, particularly before noon European Time (when there's a lot of vandal activity, both by night active editors in the western parts of the US and by editors in Asia), and would also offer my services at WP:SPI. I have previously been asked if I wanted to clerk at SPI, but chose not to, since I, not being an administrator, wouldn't be able to check all evidence needed to find links between masters and suspected socks, such as looking at and comparing deleted contributions. And thorough investigations are needed before endorsing or declining CU-requests.

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

A: Judging by the handful of other RfAs I've looked at after being asked if I would be interested in becoming an admin, most candidates list articles they've brought to FA or GA status, but a quick look at my contributions would show that all I have to boast about is a couple of DYKs, and that I, even though I have created a number of new articles, am not a heavy article creator. Which is a deliberate choice, because having an online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit requires having both editors creating content and editors preserving content. Without the former there wouldn't be an encyclopaedia, and without the latter the articles created by the former would quickly be trashed, or altered in an unacceptable non-neutral way, by vandals, POV-pushers, fringe-pushers and others, who are not interested in creating the kind of neutral/unbiased encyclopaedia that I feel Wikipedia should be. So I primarily fight sneaky vandalism (editors making small, often incremental, edits changing numbers, dates, names etc, which is a far more damaging form of vandalism than four-letter words), POV-pushing and fringe-pushing, a timeconsuming "job" that requires a lot of work with sources, both finding sources, checking sources and evaluating sources. Which, since both vandals and POV-/fringe-pushers often are very persistent, requires "adopting" an article, and watching over it for extended periods of time. As can be seen in the list of my most edited articles. My best contributions, and the contributions that I am most proud of, would therefore be the many cases of particularly sneaky vandalism, and POV-/fringe-pushing with fake and/or deliberately misquoted sources, that I have exposed and reverted. Such as the sneaky vandalism on Glock that resulted in this discussion. A recent example of POV-/fringe-pushing that I helped stop would be the fringe edits on Bosnia and Herzegovina repeatedly made by 109.175.45.101 and 37.203.115.171, and the POV edits by Overdtop on the same article that quickly followed, where I was then able to find a direct connection between the IPs and the named account (as can be seen in this discussion; this support for what I did, on Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina, might also be interesting).

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 kind of "job" that I have chosen to do here on en-WP regularly involves reverting, and confronting, editors who are out on a mission, pushing political or religious POV or very fringe ideas, and who are willing to do just about anything to get whatever message they want to spread into the articles they target, so I have been involved in a number of conflicts over the past couple of years. I have also had totally frivolous reports filed against me at both WP:AN3 (the latest one being this) and WP:ANI; none of those reports have however found me guilty of anything, and most have resulted in a boomerang against the OP. And none of the conflicts, or reports, have caused me any stress, even though dealing with particularly persistent and obnoxious POV-pushers have occasionally made me feel a bit frustrated.

Additional question from Samwalton9

4. You nominated List of infantry weapons of World War I for deletion in June, an AfD which was closed as speedy keep. What did you learn from that AfD and do you still believe this article should be deleted?

A: As it was when I nominated it I felt it should be deleted, yes, but it has been totally rewritten since then (286 edits by 26 different editors). Because such lists should IMHO only include weapons that were standard issue, not whatever weapon someone brought with him, as well as only including countries that actually took part in WW I. Which wasn't the case when I nominated it for deletion. It's still not a great list article, though, with just a handful of books mentioned as references at the end, not a single inline citation, and quite a few very dubious entries. British Bull Dog revolver is one such dubious entry, since it was totally obsolete by 1914, being a black powder weapon from 1872. What I learnt from it was that I shouldn't underestimate the interest for, and devotion to, list articles. And AFAICR I haven't nominated any since then.

Additional question from an unregistered (yet) user 41.190.36.250 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

5. Do you think it's appropriate for any editor, let alone an administrator-to-be, to routinely provoke other users by appending unnecessarily inflammatory statements to your messages to them? You may find the following examples of things you said on your user page over the last month helpful as you formulate your answer:

• "Do you have a decent honest job or do you spam Wikipedia for a living?" diff from 12 Nov 2014

• "Oh, and by all means feel free to report me to "the main admin", whoever that would be (...)" diff from 25 Sep 2014

• "So follow the links I gave you above, and read what it says there, before making any more edits, or you'll get warned again (...)" diff from 25 Sep 2014

• "No, there's nothing to discuss, not for the time being at least," in response to a request by another user to discuss something rather than repeatedly reverting the user's edits. Clearly there was something to discuss, or else the user wouldn't have proposed discussion... wouldn't you say that saying "there's nothing to discuss" in such a situation can be seen as inflammatory, regardless of who was in the right? diff from 12 Nov 2014

A follow-up question, do you agree with Bishonen's comment that "Passive-aggressive sneers hurt the project ambience worse than four-letter words?" Do you believe it was okay for the IP user to be punished for his/her "passive-aggressive sneers" while you were allowed to get off scot-free with yours? See User_talk:Thomas.W#Do_you_have_a_job.3F for context.

• Reply: Taken totally out of context and with very selective part quotes, as you have done, anything can be made to look bad, so let's take it point by point:

a) (link to full discussion). The quote is part of a response to this comment: ("Hi Tom, question in the subject is self explanatory. You clearly have way too much spare time on your hands - I would like to advise you to seek employment, or in the case that you do have a job - seek one that has a lot more meaning and worth to the one you do have. Regards, Barry"), from a spammer I had reverted.

b + c) (link to full discussion). The quotes are both parts of a response to rude posts and attempts to intimidate me, made by an IP who I had reverted for unsourced inflation of numbers, and trying to sneak the false numbers through using a fake reference. As can be seen from the full discussion.

d) (link to full discussion. The quote is part of a response to a sock of an indefinitely blocked user (Alexyflemming), a sock that was blocked soon after. And there really wasn't anything to discuss.

As for the follow-up question, which is directly related to point a, I suggest you ask Bishonen why she "let me off", but yes, I agree with her about "passive-aggressive sneers" being worse than just a four-letter word.

Additional question from TheQ Editor

6. You said you were going to help out at WP:AIV. If you were made administrator, and you see a vandalism only account that so far has not been given a warning, will you give a 4im warning first, or block immediately? Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 02:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply: That would depend on what kind of vandalism it is. If it's "plain vanilla vandalism" they should be warned before reporting at AIV (since, in my experience, most vandals stop after being warned, even vandalism-only accounts), at least to {{uw-v3}} (which includes a clearly worded warning that they're in serious risk of being blocked), but if it's an editor making grossly insulting/degrading comments on BLPs or gross personal attacks I would block even without a warning (as is allowed by the blocking policy). There are also other cases that merit a block without a warning, though, such as VOAs tag-teaming on an article, obvious socks (per WP:DUCK) and others, so it must always be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Additional question from Taketa

7. Dear Thomas.W, thank you for applying! In AFD you voted to (speedy) delete articles 96/100 times, and the result was to not delete 30/100 times. You are free to your opinion, but I would like to know how you would act as an admin. Can you give your views on how to judge consensus, and give one or two examples? Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply: I haven't been particularly active at AfD, preferring to concentrate on other areas, but when !voting I seem to have adhered more strictly to the various notability guidelines than many others, which doesn't mean that I've been right and others have been wrong, but rather that I have been a bit out of touch with what the current praxis is at AfD. When judging consensus you go by the validity of the (policy based) arguments given, not by counting the number of !votes, and in order to be able to correctly evaluate that you need a lot of experience. So if I pass RfA I would stay away from potentially contentious AfD-closes until I get that experience, and have seen enough AfD-closes made by others to be able to judge how the Wikipedia community feels the notability guidelines should be interpreted.

Additional question from Dusti

8. Thank you for coming forth and asking for a mop. There are some obvious concerns about your treatment towards others and being a little bitey. Do you agree that perhaps some statements made were a little rash? What will you do going forward to alleviate these concerns regardless of whether you get the mop or not? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply: I listen, learn, and adjust. Which I'm good at. The first example in Q5 was admittedly a bit over the top, but I was surprised by the IP's question ("Do you have a job?" etc) since it was just an ordinary run-of-the-mill spammer, a type of editor who seldom take things personally and post snide remarks after being reverted, and overreacted. The website the spammer was adding links to was for an outfit called "Party Hard Travel", arranging "booze cruises" in Magaluf, Spain (a place known for rough night-life, binge drinking, prostitutes and muggers), BTW, so maybe I should have expected it.

9. A user below mentioned that some could possibly interpret the box on your userpage as showing intolerance towards LGBTQ individuals. Could you comment on your choice of verbiage in the box? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply: I can assure everyone that it has nothing whatsoever to do with intolerance, it's just something I added when I felt that I couldn't really keep up with all the neologisms that were/are popping up all the time. I prefer to be referred to as he/him but respect that others don't, but just like I respect the wishes of others, and use the personal pronouns others prefer, I expect others to respect that I want to be referred to as he/him. The comment was triggered by a debate in the Swedish press (I'm bilingual by birth) where some people more or less demanded that all instances of "han"/"hon" (he/she) should be replaced by "hen", a new construction, in kindergartens and schools, which I saw as an attempt to force others to use a new politically correct term, whether they wanted to or not.

That's a ludicrous interpretation. Absolutely ludicrous. Normally, a nominator should say their piece and shut up, but I'll make an exception here because I think people are reading something that just isn't there in an attempt pick holes (or create them where they don't exist) in a strong candidate. I read that statement as a rejection of the singular they, but expressing a preference for gender-specific pronouns and a dislike for neologisms has absolutely nothing to do with intolerance. Other people have other pronoun preferences, and Tom has indicated that he respects those, as is basic courtesy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I actually agree with you but I wanted to hear it from @Thomas.W: to clarify any thoughts that anyone had. As a gay individual myself I'm not offended and I didn't even realize that there could be a cross connection there until it was pointed out and I thought that was a far stretch myself - I didn't want this to hurt him so I asked ;) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Jim Cartar

10. Do you think that admins should be polite towards vandal and should give second chances? And do you think, admins should not quickly snap when newbies throw personal attacks and should assume good faith? Do you believe that Bitey editors doesn't make good admins?

A:

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. As nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
2. No concerns. Have run into this editor frequently around the place, doing good work and being friendly and helpful. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support. I see no issues. Deb (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Perhaps the only editor I know of who was blocked mistakenly by JamesBWatson. Brilliant positive to the project. Will be quite beneficial as an administrator. Wifione ^Message 17:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Candidate has earned the community's trust and giving him the mop would be beneficial. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support precious: chasing vandals --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Wait, you're not an admin? Well, this is a surprise. → Call me Hahc21 17:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
8. Support. Seems to have fairly good judgment. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

   Support. Q5 convinced me. (Yes, I know that it has not yet been answered at the moment I write this, it's the question that convinced me, regardless what the answer is going to be). --Randykitty (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Moving to "oppose". --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

9. I have never come across this editor before. So I looked around. The answer to Q3 had me excited: 'The kind of "job" that I have chosen to do here on en-WP regularly involves reverting, and confronting, editors who are out on a mission, pushing political or religious POV or very fringe ideas'. I like the sound of that. Then Q5 came along which, without even waiting for the answer, made me even more fond of the candidate (I note I've edit-conflicted here with Randykitty making exactly the same point). Then I did some digging. And it is clear that this editor knows a shit edit when he sees one. Examples: [1], [2], [3]. There'd be a great many admins who'd not have seen the problems with these edits that you saw. And it's also clear that while you've never written peer-reviewed content, you clearly know, understand, and can apply all of the relevant policies and principles. The most valuable administrators are the ones who have the intelligence and intestinal fortitude to recognise and deal with bad editing and POV-pushing. So it's a big "yes, please" from me with thanks to HJ for finding you. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
10. Absolutely Always thought well of this user. Mild tempered, level headed, clear communicator.--v/r - TP 20:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
11. Support No problems from this end. --John (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
12. Support - refreshingly frank. St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
13. Support ///EuroCarGT 21:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
14. Support An editor nominated by a trustworthy administrator is already a proof that he can be trusted with the extra privileges. I'm interested by his answer to Q1. He mentioned that "before noon European time" is understaffed in terms of vandal blocking; which is fine but I reckon that he could also be valuable during the mid-afternoon period, especially during weekdays, as I believe it's one of the most active times because that's when a lot of US school vandals come here. Minima© (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Support A very experienced user who I trust will be able to use the admin tools well. Also, the quotes given by the IP were taken completely out of context. Quote A was given after Thomas.W had been the subject of a personal attack while the rest, when taken in context, were just him firmly reiterating Wikipedia policy in response to problematic users. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
16. Support. Good candidate, and I'm confident that he will not abuse the tools. It is true that he's blunt, but most of what he says is admittedly true. Besides, he usually just does it to trolls, vandals, and socks, and speaking bluntly is probably the only way to get your point across to those sorts of people... --Biblioworm 23:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

    I find it surprising that you support troll-feeding. I don't think Wikipedia has a policy or guideline against doing that, but in my experience it's a bad idea. Perhaps you have seen giving abusive idiots the fights they crave to be a winning strategy? Townlake (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    Perhaps my statement was poorly worded, because I did not intend to imply that I support "feeding the trolls". However, being active in anti-vandalism, I can understand how Tom feels. There have been times when I have been tempted to say not-so-kind things to persistent vandals, but I make an effort to avoid doing it. On the other hand, some person coming over to my talk page telling me that I am unemployed (which is not true) and wasting my time on Wikipedia is likely to make me somewhat upset. The problem with ignoring those people is that when you do, they'll be persistent and post messages like, "WHY ARN'T U REPLYING 2 ME!!!!!!!????????". So, while I do believe in civility, I also believe that it is sometimes necessary to be firm. I must admit, however, that Tom overdid it with the person seeking adoption. --Biblioworm 16:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

17. Support I've seen the candidate around, and believe that he will be even more helpful with the mop. Miniapolis 23:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Support I don't see why not st170e^talk 23:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
19. Support Dedicated anti-vandalism user. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
20. Support Should be an asset to the community.– Gilliam (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
21. Support Great help at AIV, and as none of his submissions there were declined, it shows that he really has good judgment on when to block vandals and when to not block vandals. He certainly has great use of the tools, and given that he was nominated by a highly trustworthy administrator who also has great judgment with many things (such as at WP:PERM), I think that he'd be a great vandal fighter. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
22. Support As per HJ Mitchell and a clear netpositive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
23. Support: I have worked with Thomas.W; he has a good understanding of policy and seems to care about the project and its editors. Now, I will say that the "IP responses" are over the top, and they show a side of Thomas I didn't know. It is not enough for me to oppose or move to neutral, but let me just say, hey, it may feel good for a while but it's not helpful. Anyway, in the end, I support this RfA, and I hope that Thomas will take the comments here by various editors in the various sections to heart. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    Support. I trust HJ Mitchell's take on the candidate, for one thing. Q5 (b, c and d) aren't a concern for me; Q5 (a) is a concern, and I hope you're taking the feedback on board. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

    Striking support over diffs by Inks and others. I have realized recently that civility issues over Wikipedia as a whole go over my head; I'll let someone else make the call here. (My instincts are better suited to well-functioning wikiprojects and other projects.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

24. Support - Giving this editor the admin bit is a net positive for the community. The candidate is mature, has a cool head, and is able to communicate clearly. The editor has a positive history of overcoming difficult/conflict situations. I also agree with the reasoning presented by Mkativerata. - tucoxn\^talk 03:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
25. Support. I also have 100% confidence in Harry's nominations. The issues brought up by an IP in Q5 have indeed been taken very much out of context particularly when dealing with the kind of users Thomas was addressing. While not ideal comportment for an admin candidate, it's nevertheless the kind of comment I would have made in my 'younger' Wikipedia days, and although touched on in my RfA it did not prevent me from getting the bit. Thomas, calm down a bit, even when you are having to deal with blatant spammers and uncivil trolls (gosh, but I know how difficult it can be to exercise restraint with such people), but remember that the rest of your work on Wikipedia more than sufficiently qualifies you for adminship whatever might be said and piled-on in the oppose section. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
26. Support. I am not at all influenced by an IP with 4 edits to articles for deletion who poses a distorted question in an apparent effort to encourage opposition to a diligent, extremely knowledgeable and careful reverter of vandalism, POV pushing and dubious, unsourced edits. I have read the four edits. I note that the candidate often reverts vandalism or deals with issues and questions from Asian editors, a plus in my opinion. The question and quotations are indeed not only out of context but unrepresentative of his usual remarks. As for his rather few bold font comments, they appear to be for necessary emphasis, mostly to those who do not accept the guidelines and policies or are provocative. Since his few strong comments have been straightforward statements of the policies or guidelines, even if very infrequently accompanied by a mild retort, I do not see them as disqualifying or even out of line. I have read through Tom's talk page and some of his archives. He is very instructive. I see his work as patient, knowledgeable and diligent, especially with those who appear to need instruction, but who wish to learn. As for Question 5, I see it as in his favor. Also appearing to make the same point, see the briefer and more subtle support comment of Randykitty. I have looked more closely at many of Tom's talk page interactions. They support and provide insufficient grounds even to a strict !voter to oppose a candidate of this quality. We will have few successful candidates who do good work and have had much interaction with vandals, trolls and POV pushers if we cannot support a candidate who does such a good job and is extremely helpful to the project. Tom does not need to take much, if any, extra care but I am sure he will be diligent in not running off good faith editors, whether new or not. I think he has the clue to use all the tools carefully and in clear support of the project. Nomination by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? is a big plus for me, as are the votes of support already given by Wifione ^Message, Gerda Arendt, TP, and Biblio; indeed, the votes of all those with comments above. Donner60 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
27. Support Sure. Eurodyne (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
28. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
29. Support Seems to know what he is doing in difficult areas. Can't imagine him abusing the tools, and think he'd be an asset if given them. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
30. Support Noteswork (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
31. Support Can definitely handle things under pressure, will make a great admin.  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 13:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
32. Support Superb, reliable track record, intelligent, productive, unbiased, ample diplomtic skills,... Wow !! Exactly what is needed !!OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
33. Support - Worthy admin candidate per HJ Mitchell's nomination statement and comments by Mkativerata, Drmies and Kudpung. Oppose rationales based upon Question 5 and typical shenanigans by IP user strike me as nitpicking of a strong candidate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
34. Support a good candidate. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
35. Support Thomas and I haven't worked on an article together, we have worked in different discussions before. I'm not sure if we have been on different sides of a debate or not, although that is very likely. The fact that I don't remember kind of says something, as there are no "bad memories" in working with him. What I do remember is seeing insightful and thoughtful comments, his asking meaningful questions, and trying to dig down to the facts, not worrying about the personalities. I could probably dig into metrics and find imperfections, or find a diff or two where he grumped louder than he should. I have a collection of my own; we all do. On the whole, I find him very thoughtful, dedicated and focused, with a very high clue factor. This easily offsets any minor imperfections. Unquestionably, Wikipedia would be improved if he had access to some extra tools, so I'm glad to offer my support. Dennis - 2¢ 15:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
36. Support, per review. Kierzek (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
37. Support Q5 does not bother me, those diffs are all reasonable in context. Being firm with poorly behaved users is not incivility. I suggest people read the actual discussion instead of just the quoted text as context makes a difference. Great candidate. Chillum 17:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
38. Support No doubt that the user will make good use of the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
39. Support Anti-vandal work is stressful, and this editor/admin-to-be is still a bit too WP:Bitey at times. As somebody who has done a lot of anti-vandal work, I know what it can be like to almost always be in a mode of confrontation with other users. To counteract that, spending some time contributing content and collaborating on articles may provide a needed mental break and reminder that there are a lot of positive, productive users here. The comment "newfangled gender neutral politically correct fad-of-the-day word/term" from the user page User:Thomas.W might come off as intolerance to LGBTQ users, which is concerning, since admins should be goodwill ambassadors of the project. Overall, I think User:Thomas.W will be a tremendous asset serving as an admin. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
40. Support I don't find anything that is troubling enough not to support. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
41. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
42. Support I think this editor would make a good admin. I took the "newfangled gender neutral politically correct fad-of-the-day word/term" on the user page as a symptom of grammatical pedantry rather than intolerance to LGBTQ people. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
43. Support per Dennis and TParis Secret ^account 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
44. Support A clear net positive for the project. To bury the candidate's entire track record under the responses to a couple of spammer trolls is ridiculous. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
45. Support Sure. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 22:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
46. Support Net positive. Not phased by the opposes. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
47. Support Most of the opposes tend to center around Q5, but I don't really see anything there worth opposing, and I don't think there are any other major issues. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
48. Support I take civility very seriously, and expect nothing short of it from an administrator. I get what the opposers are saying in that regard, but I think there's a lot more to the candidate's behavioural repertoire than what meets the eye. He doesn't appear to be your average Wikipedian, and as such many of my normal ways of judgement don't seem to apply. To be frank, I'm amazed how the candidate has dedicated himself to combating the undeniable abundance of discrete, destructive POV-pushers and long-term socks. Much of this goes clear under the radar of the average patroller. Dealing with it is meticulous, diligent work, that many of us simply don't have the patience for. Anyone working in this area is going to be subject to backlash, so it's no wonder the candidate may seem ill-tempered at times. In actuality, I think he's more so leveling with these sly-mannered abusers. I will also have to agree with Kudpung in that I can trust anyone Harry endorses – and we're not just saying that because he made both of us admins ;) It takes a good admin with behind-the-scenes experience to know one that can fit the bill – Harry is one of those admins, and I think Thomas will be too, helping fill a deep void amongst the corps. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
49. Support I've seen this candidate around, and he seems like an all-around good guy. The things he does that nobody watches amazing. Therefore, I'm going to support Thomas. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 03:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
50. Support – I find it absolutely repugnant that this candidate's temperament when dealing with those who vandalise, is being questioned by some whom I'm quite sure do not even participates in the anti-vandalism side of the project to at least see where this editor is coming from. Sure, Thomas doesn't serve responses to those who vandalise on a golden platter – but neither do they bite their heads off. I've seen this editor time and time again, trust them and know that they will work even more wonders over at AIV. I wish you all the very best Thomas! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
51. Support – Found no serious problems. Make sure you stay professional in your communication with vandals. Good luck. - Taketa (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
52. Support - It bothers me quite a lot that a good editor like Thomas is having his RFA derailed by the fact that he has supposedly been mean to vandals and trolls. Meanwhile, an editor like NA1000, who has made problematic NAC at AFD, and makes a TON of pointless edits that inflate his edit count to such a degree as to make scrutiny nearly impossible, seems to be on track to get the tools. Something is very wrong with this picture. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
53. A good candidate, but I am a bit concerned about Q5. So, weak support. Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
54. Support. User:Donner60 puts it well above: I too am not influenced by the distortions in Question 5 above. Tom is something of a fiery character, and occasionally he has overstepped. (I disagree, then, with User:TParis, above, that he's "mild-tempered".) In fact I've caught him up short about it a few times. But I believe he has become sufficiently mellow over the years, and I certainly don't blame him for his snappy comeback to 5.71.47.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ("Barry's") unprovoked nasty sneer. (Q5 A) I might not have said what Tom said (though compare [4]); people have different styles; but I think it's actually fairly mild, in context, of course. (Note, that's a permanent link to the context in question, unlike the link supplied in Question 5.) I offered my original comment about passive-aggressive sneers as an explanation of my block of the IP, and to try to apply it to Tom's response is ridiculous IMO. Incidentally, if you didn't notice yet that the "Barry" character is a troll, take a look at his unblock request here. Thomas.W is an extremely useful and helpful editor who helps keep POV-pushers at bay in controversial articles, one of the most necessary activities here — even though it is also an activity that creates enemies. And Wikipedia badly needs admins, especially admins with experience of working in the trenches. And, (edit conflict) with Lithistman; I totally agree, something is wrong with this picture. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC).

Oppose

1. The diffs in Q5 don't seem to be meaningfully "out of context" as candidate contends. The candidate doesn't seem to understand when to walk away from an argument instead of pointlessly escalating. Townlake (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

   First diff was in response to the question "Do you have a job". I think candidate's response was valid.--v/r - TP 21:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

   "He started the fight, I just punched him back!" might be a somewhat valid excuse as the fact someone else threw the first punch is certainly a mitigating factor, but let's not forget that responding to incivil behaviour in kind is conduct unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor, let alone an administrator... as is defending such. The very recent quotes from Thomas.W's talk page used in question five may be just the tip of the iceberg and thus jumping on the hype train is ill-advised. I strongly recommend looking through the candidate's contributions before casting a vote. 129.21.90.23 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

   I'm not an idiot, TP. I checked the diff. Townlake (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose Knowing nothing about this editor prior to his nomination, I've spent a while now reading the candidates talk page and its archives. In general, I would describe the tone the editor takes when engaging in discussion as abrasive and brash. This is perhaps exacerbated by the candidate's penchant for using bold words for emphasis. Many discussions in his talk archives are from editors who are puzzled why their edits were reverted, which often seems to stem from the candidate reverting material/giving warnings with insufficient discussion or grace period for sourcing. I found the discussion over Archive_3#Zhufan, sparked in part by undo's during active ending over trivial punctuation issues and ending in an acerbic manner, to be typical. In this case it may have turned off a potential new editor. My impression is that the concerns raised in Q5 have merit. The candidate is no doubt a valuable editor but I don't know if the role of administrator is a good fit. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose - the user seems to be a bit too hot-headed when it comes to dealing with vandals and trolls. These instances, in particular, are of concern to me: [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. It is clear that in each of those instances, Thomas.W was provoked by a vandal or troll, and I had planned on asking a question regarding these instances, but an IP has since asked Q5 (albeit in a less diplomatic and neutral way than I would have). The answer to Q5 is unacceptable in my opinion, because Thomas.W seems to think that his response is OK because it was made to users who provoked him. I realize that different people respond differently to being provoked; however, I have significant concerns about having an admin who hits back and uses the excuse, "He hit me first!" I believe that admins need to be held to a higher standard, and I think if the user was given the mop, he would end up fanning the flames too often, especially considering that he wants to work at WP:AVI. I could see myself supporting the user in a few months or a year if he can show that he can remain civil even in the face of trolls and vandals, but for now, I am opposed. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose The diffs brought up in Q5 are a concerning point for me, not just by the content of the diffs but how recent it is. Whilst it is true that in those cases, the original poster was first to try and light the fire, administrators shouldn't lose their cool that quickly in response. Insults aside, the people posting on his talk page look generally frustrated, and I personally believe a good user can take a user in a mood like that and genuinely help that out. For me, that quality of being able to talk down an angry new comer as opposed to acting in a manner similar to said newcomer is a must have quality, and until I see that I cannot support. —Frosty ☃ 00:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose - mediocre CSD record, with a few obviously wrong among not many requests. Atrocious AfD record. Chooses to seek out conflict (Q2), can't admit when they're wrong (Q4). In an era of declining participations, admins who would contribute to this are a net negative. WilyD 12:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

   • The CSD-log only includes nominations made during the last few months, that is since I started logging them, but I've made a lot more CSD-nominations than that (of the 46 CSD-nominations in the log two were rejected, i.e. 4%, three have since become redirects and 41 were deleted). Thomas.W ^talk 12:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

   Oppose "Do you have a decent honest job or do you spam Wikipedia for a living?" concerns me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Eh, after a second thought, moved to neutral, perhaps it was taken out of context. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose As per Inks.LWC and Frosty. If he gets so stressed now with vandals - just see what happens when you get the admin bit and start deleting items - you get a whole raft of editors complaining on your talk page and you need to be very cool and objective, even thought the other editors won't be so cool. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose Given the current focus on civility, I can't support a candidate who appears to have weaknesses in this area. This reluctance is enhanced by the lack of a functional recall process here. Intothatdarkness 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose based on the same reasoning of several users above. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 21:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
9. Oppose The List of infantry weapons of World War I AFD indicates that the candidate has a poor understanding of our deletion policies and, to nominate this topic in the centenary year, seems quite rash. The candidate's record of content creation is weak and they don't seem strong in any other area. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, Andrew, I generally don't reply to voters on my nominations, but your comment they don't seem strong in any other area is bang out of order in my opinion. I can live with most of the opposers; if people think it's more important for editors to be nice to each other on talk pages than to write the encyclopaedia (or in this case defend it from socks, trolls, vandals, and spammers), we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know which one will still be valued in 10 years' time. I know the darker side of Wikipedia is not an area where you spend a lot of time, and I don't blame you, but it's somewhere that I've spent a lot of time and I can assure you that there are no end of people who would trash Wikipedia for the "lulz" and an only very slightly smaller number of very persistent abusers who wreak havoc by rapidly changing their IP address and posing libel and other grossly offensive material all over the place. That you don't have to deal with that kind of crap is because of people like Tom, so please don't assume that a track record in areas you don't focus on is the same as no track record—it's a big project. Please (re-)read my nomination statement and the answer to question 1 and reconsider that remark, even if you won' reconsider the side of the fence you come down on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

   Harry's nomination statement doesn't contain any examples or evidence so I start looking at the candidate's contributions for May. Immediately, I find a case where the candidate reverts someone who seems to be adding good faith content. The reason given is that it is unsourced. A few edits later, he's scolding and reverting someone who had removed some content. But the content in question was unsourced too and the article had a template saying "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." This was inconsistent behaviour which failed multiple policies. And, in neither case, did the candidate stick around to improve the articles in question. From such examples, it appears that the candidate is here mostly for the thrill of the chase and bases their actions mostly on their personal opinion. They have lots of time on their hands so, to give them the tools now would be a big risk. Andrew D. (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I feel strongly that admins should be more calm and polite than average, particularly when faced with good-faith new editors. A number of users, including Jason Quinn and Inks.LWC, have presented diffs strongly suggesting that Thomas.W, despite his valuable contributions, doesn't meet this standard. I'm particularly concerned by this exchange with a new editor who's genuinely asking for help, if a bit testily. But it's not a permanent disqualification: if Thomas works hard on his communication style, I could definitely see myself supporting him in the future.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
11. Oppose, regretfully, due to civility concerns, although several editors I respect are supporting you. An administrator candidate breaking one of the five pillars is not acceptable. I'm willing to grant some mulligans, as anyone can lose their cool now and then (I'm guilty of that myself), but the consistency of poor tone in talk page comments given in the several examples cited above is a show-stopper for me. Sorry. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose Due to concerns about the editor's knowledge of key policies and judgement, as evidenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of infantry weapons of World War I and more recently, this exchange. During which, the candidate not only displays a glaring lack of ability to deal tactfully with a scorned IP, but also shows a benighted understanding of WP:V and WP:RS, as well as considerable arrogance using the line "but don't bother trying to contact "Wikipedia's owners", because I most probably know the rules that apply here on the English language Wikipedia at least as well as they do." Apparently not... Bellerophon _{talk to me} 00:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Sorry but I can't support someone who tends to get uncivil and bitey with everyone fairly easily, I know for a fact I'm no angel here and at times we can all be uncivil but even on your talkpage your replies seem more bitey than not, All in all It's not what I expect from an Admin. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose I have to admit that I'm a little off-put by the obvious pleasure this editor is taking in confronting bad guys. Removing people from the conversation is an unfortunate fact of internet-life, but I'm concerned this editor is taking a bit too much enjoyment in being on the right end of the stick. A look at his talk page shows how often he's acting on instinctive feeling, and while I'm sure he's right about vandals more often than not (as there are many vandals). I don't see enough indications that this editor is tempering his hunches with recognition those hunches could be incorrect. I noticed a date-change edit he challenged that he was calling vandalism, when it still could have been an honest error, or good faith difference in interpretation. In isolation, I might not have thought that a big deal, but it takes on some significance in an editor asking for more powers in that area. I know many SPI cases are determined by intuitive evidence, but I would be concerned with anyone who believes a hunch should be considered a settled fact. After spot checking a bit of history, things like this makes me wonder about the editor's grace under fire. I'm concerned that this editor might not be asking for a mop, but a bigger stick. A situation like this, doesn't show that the editor is wrong about policy, but that they can be arguably too abrasive in the sharing of it (rubbing someone's nose in being a "newbie" should be one of the last things we want from admins). Other concerns are the admitted basic inexperience with AfD, and lack of content creation. none of which would be deal-breakers on their own, but are damaging taken together. Maybe this editor can mature in their editor interactions, and develop some experience in areas other than vandal-hunting. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose Nope. Bitey and arrogant[10][11] [12]- not the qualities I want to see in a member of the admin corps.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose Firstly thanks for offering to be an admin. I'm oppposing due to the diffs posted above in this section, arguing with vandals can be hard to avoid but I'd expect long-term editors (and especially admins) to be able to disengage when appropriate. The tone and bolding of some of the replies is also unnecessary. I'm not a huge fan of the userpage banner, perhaps to avoid any misunderstanding you could say "I'm Thomas call me he" and leave it at that. benmoore 09:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose for reasons I state here Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thomas.W#Talk page manner. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose Strong oppose. I looked around. Independently found the Archive_3#Zhufan exchanges before reading JasonQ's oppose. Jason was too kind. New editor Decmanterp asked for help and received a reply that reads, in part, "I have neither the time nor the genuine interest in it that being a tutor requires. So I suggest you find someone else." No link to WP:ADOPT or WP:CO-OP or WP:TEAHOUSE was offered. No help at all for a new user who asked for his help. No wonder Wikipedia is losing editors. Decmanterp made just 4 more edits, none in 2014. Please read the last two paragraphs of that exchange for yourself. Look at User_talk:Thomas.W/Archive_3#Polite_notice where neither was polite. One apologized; the other? Won the WP:BATTLE? In User_talk:Thomas.W/Archive_3#You_need_to_read_my_edits_before_accusing_me the new editor Viknguyen7895 removed redundant text along with the associated references. WP:REFBLOAT was the result of Thomas.W's solution. After the acerbic exchanges with Thomas.W, Viknguyen7895 made just one more edit to Wikipedia, none in 2014. Reviewing contribs, I see long strings of undid, reverted and warned making up almost all of the article stats. The majority of the reverts were correct but the communication with new users was not what I want to see from an experienced Wikipedian and definitely not from a sysop. Rarely is there an actual contribution to article content. Articles created are 16, all within eight days in Sep 2014, all translated from the Swedish Wikipedia, all stubs consisting of four or so sentences and a taxobox, all with a citation immediately after the bolded name rather than at the end of the sentence, all about the same genus of catfish. Although valuable additions to the English Wikipedia, I would like to see regular contributions of content to show an understanding of what it takes to contribute. Helping newcomers at the WP:HELPDESK or WP:Teahouse rather than driving them away might sway me to support at some time in the future but for now, I must oppose. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 10:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
19. Oppose at this time. Likely to support at some later date if Thomas is willing to adjust his approach. I would have been willing to support this time around if there was Thomas had made some indication that he thought people in the oppose section had a legitimate concern, but I don't see that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC) (rephrased for clarity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC))
20. Oppose—Let me offer my thanks as well for your willingness to subject yourself to this process. What I'm seeing in the several links above is that when you get (rhetorically) hit, you occasionally hit back. What I'm looking for in an admin is someone who defuses confrontations. I expect that once you get the mop you're going to be the subject of even more abuse than you have to deal with now. Prior to that I'd like to see a few months where you demonstrate that you can't and won't be provoked into a non-constructive exchange. If this RfA doesn't succeed I hope to see you back here again sooner rather than later. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

    Why would Thomas willingly subject himself to such a process again, willingly put himself at the mercy of the civility police, who oppose based on being "mean" to vandals and trolls? LHM^{ask me a question} 16:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

21. Oppose - Thank you for the courage to endure this process and for your contributions to the project. Unfortunately, based on past interactions and the replies to questions about those interactions, I don't believe that the candidate is suitable for adminship. Admins have an incredibly difficult role in this project, but they must exercise patience and cool-headedness almost all the time. I see too many similarities to another user who became an admin four years ago and is now the subject of an Arbcom case.- MrX 12:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose Though a close call here, one ought not interpolate such comments as "finding reliable sources for stuff like that ought to be easy. Provided the claims are true, that is." into an AfD discussion [13] - it shows, firstly, a belief that AfDs should default to "delete" and, second, that those editors asserting facts about the topic may be prevaricating. The first is troubling, the second is worse. That said, I specifically disagree with a few of the other "oppose !votes" above. Collect (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
23. Oppose He's blunt apparently. So am I, apparently. Difference is I do not wish to wield authority here and if I did I would like to think I have the capacity to do it with an appropriate manner. Nothing convinces me that the candidate is ready. Leaky Caldron 15:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose The comments placed at various talk pages are not appropriate conduct for administrators. It particular, the one linked by Scott Quinn (oppose #3), where he says "I haven't agreed to be your tutor, and have no intention of doing so either, since I have neither the time nor the genuine interest in it that being a tutor requires. So I suggest you find someone else." Even if an administrator considers themselves unable to be a tutor, they should tell the editor where to go for help. Helping new editors is everyones job, especially administrators. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
25. Oppose: and strongly so. I am just allergic to biting, snark, hostility and lack of courtesy. I have just fallen out with a wiki-friend here over this very issue (hotheadiness), and neither of us are admins. I am here almost three years and some of the negative retorts by this editor set me on edge. Please don't pursue adminship until you can demonstrate patience and courtesy. Fylbecatulous talk 15:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
26. Oppose. I admire and applaud TW's contribution and obvious commitment to the project and long may it continue. However, admins need to remain cool-headed in all situations, even when defending WP from obvious, proven, bad-faith vandals whose only objective here is to disrupt the project, and I am not convinced that the candidate understands that at the present time. — sparklism ^hey! 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
27. Oppose, a strong oppose for what it's worth. General unwarranted incivility has been pointed out by many editors before me. I'll add: this question from a newbie who Tom was reverting. Tom's reverts were appropriate, but his gruff response quickly led to this DRN post which Tom flippantly dismissed with "I have more important/interesting things to do than this cr*p" (asterisked in original), and replied to the new user on his own talk page with "Grow up,kid." I get that sometimes it's necessary to drop the gloves with IP vandals and trolls and I support admins who do so, but this new user was neither - they were editing in good faith and requesting an honest clarification, and they haven't edited since. Users who behave this way should not be admins - it's an absolute no for me, I'm afraid. Also, re: Q9, I have a bit about gendered pronouns on my user page too, but I didn't feel the need to use language casting negativity on the use of different terms, which many people prefer, when I wrote it. With respect to HJ Mitchell, such language is disrespectful to some people, and there's no need for it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Moving to oppose from support. I have no problem with an editor being stern with trolls and vandals. However, it seems like Thomas does not always limits his sternness to them. I myself have also found that remaining polite and friendly, even in the face of abuse, not only gives you the high ground, but actually makes it easier on yourself to handle these situations. Anna's comments on the talk page have convinced me. Thomas, please take these comments to heart and I hope to support you next time. --Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Though I'm fairly certain the user will use the tools sensibly, I'm concerned that his tone is often less than helpful when speaking to new or inexperienced editors, as pointed out by Jason. I'll be investigating further before making up my mind. Sam Walton (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to support. Sam Walton (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Anti-vandal work is stressful, but this editor/admin-to-be is still too WP:Bitey. I'm also trying to get my head around "newfangled gender neutral politically correct fad-of-the-day word/term" from the user page User:Thomas.W. How is that for POV? —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to support. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Neutral But leaning support, so may change vote. Q5 is a concern, although probably not as much as first appears (going by Thomas.W's answers). So I'm going to do a bit more reading before deciding whether to support. -- Shudde ^talk 05:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Neutral I'm still a bit concerned about Q5. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Clean block log and sufficient tenure, but I am leery of a generally bitey attitude and the really bad deletion nomination mentioned above, which indicates to me an insufficient understanding of our General Notability Guideline and the deletion process. On the other hand, this seems to be an excellent candidate as a front-line vandal fighter who really does need the tools. So I'll land here so as not to undermine the candidacy but still to record my misgivings with the hope that work on improvement in these matters will take place. Carrite (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Neutral I will stay here for now. Jim Carter 10:19, 21 November 2014 (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.