Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TomTheHand - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (43/1/0) Ended 17:47, 2006-08-23 (UTC)

TomTheHand (talk · contribs) – TomTheHand has been working quietly in the background for some time (his first edit was on the 8th of January 2005), and has done a lot of work on vehicle related articles, most recently warships. He has made over 8000 edits and has demonstrated an ability to work with others. I think it is time we give this trustworthy editor the mop. Prodego talk 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Thank you. TomTheHand 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would like to help out on WP:CFD and WP:RM, because they seem to get less wiki love than WP:AFD. I think they must be less glamorous. I'll happily help out with AFD and C:CSD when there's a backlog, but I feel like on most days things there are under control. I'm also interested in copyright issues and I'd like to lend a hand at WP:CP, though things there are often less than clear cut and so I understand why backlogs develop. With some recent sockpuppet issues I've had, I've become interested in WP:SSP, and I'd like to help out there if I can. It's like detective work, which is a lot of fun. Of course I'll also keep an eye out for vandalism and watch WP:ANI and WP:AIV to see if I need to step in.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I joined WP:SHIPS at the end of May, and since then I've been working hard on a general cleanup and categorization of all naval articles. It's been a big project, and I've got a long way to go, but I think some great progress has been made. I've touched hundreds of ship articles and gone a long way toward populating and sorting Category:Naval ships by country, Category:Ships by era, and Category:Ship classes. It's my hope that this will be a big help to people with an interest in military history.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I certainly have had some wiki-stress in the past, but I believe for the most part it's been handled reasonably. I tend to debate hard for a couple of days to try to get my ideas out, which is a little stressful for me, and then I try to go where consensus takes me, which is a big relief. Some of that can be seen on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and its archives: I come up with a proposal, argue in its favor for a few days, and then head back to work, implementing the compromise. I hope that I can continue to do this in the future, and be more aware of myself in the process; I tend to get wrapped up in the debate in the first few hours and lose sight of how by tomorrow morning, we'll have a compromise worked out.
I've also had less productive conflicts. Most recently I've had run-ins with sock puppets of two banned users. In those cases, I feel that I stuck to my guns, followed Wikipedia policy, and in the case of User:Copperchair's socks, went through the procedure to have the banned user's new accounts blocked. I'm not really proud of that, but I suppose that's sometimes the only way you can deal with such issues.
Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user TomTheHand (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 66 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 18, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 12, June, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 90.23% Minor edits: 98.3%
Average edits per day: 107.21 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 475 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 1 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.4% (20)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 57.42% (2871)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 1 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 37.58%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 2.42% (121 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.06% (3 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.06% (3 edit(s))
Edits to "copyright problems" pages: 0.06% (3 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Edits to RfAs: 0.1% (5 edit(s))
Marked RfA votes: 0.04% (2 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 0.96% (48 edit(s)) (24 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.36% (18 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0.24% (12 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3389 | Average edits per page: 1.48 | Edits on top: 40.78%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 47.22% (2361 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 30.96% (1548 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 9.54% (477 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 11.8% (590 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 64.28% (3214) | Article talk: 3.7% (185)
User: 2.02% (101) | User talk: 3.92% (196)
Wikipedia: 4.36% (218) | Wikipedia talk: 3.06% (153)
Image: 0.02% (1)
Template: 2.08% (104)
Category: 16.42% (821)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.14% (7)
Total 8530
Distinct pages edited 4736
Avg edits/page 1.801
First edit 09:08, 8 January 2005
(main) 5614
Talk 645
User 145
User talk 348
image 1
image talk 3
Template 104
Template talk 6
Category 1055
Category talk 4
Wikipedia 401
Wikipedia talk 204
Support
  1. Support, as nominator. Prodego talk 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Martin 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, per nom. Looking good. Bigtop 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support' looks good to me. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support civility did impress me :) - Glen 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Rama's arrow 20:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -- Szvest 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  10. Support This user is an asset to Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Doesn't have a large user Talk edit count. This will have to rise as admins talk to many users on a variety of subjects.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: has found positive niche here on ships, and looking through edits does not shy away from controversial subjects. Flexible approach to maintenance task areas also good. Stephen B Streater 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Yanksox 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Taram wishes you a happy Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Edit conflict Support. Très solide. Themindset 22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Assert to Wikipedia, and just nice Wikipedian. Daniel's page ☎ 22:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. "No big deal" support --ZsinjTalk 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Copperchair Sockpuppet good editor :). Maybe should add some more info on ships of the Napoleonic era (my own personal interest). Cheers. --Tbeatty 23:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - lend him a(nother) hand, give him the tools! Agent 86 00:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Agent 86 said it just fine -- Tawker 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - satisfies my criteria abakharev 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per good answers and above. --Musaabdulrashid 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Ohnoitsjarnie 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinitely blocked as an impersonator of User:Ohnoitsjamie.--Kchase T 04:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Impressive, definately an asset to Wiki.--EVH 05:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Merovingian - Talk 07:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - looks trustworthy and experienced. Metamagician3000 08:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, deserves the mop and bucket. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. A good contributor. Zaxem 09:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support It looks like TomTheHand is a solid candidate. Good communication & enough edits. Wiki needs more good admins. Also, this candidate failed to meet Masssiveego's criteria. Very Good. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per above. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. —Khoikhoi 03:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I can see no reason to not give this nominee the mop. Masssiveego's "criteria" looks like a bunch of conversations about nothingness to me. Maybe time for a little ego deflation.--MONGO 04:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, no reason not to support at all. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 08:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per all of above. Highly qualified, no issues. There is a nice string of strongly supportable candidates on RfA today, which is a pleasure to see. Newyorkbrad 20:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support wow, that's three awesome uers lined up at the top of the RfA page. Very nice! — Deckiller 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support appears to be an experienced and qualified user who will use the adminship well.-- danntm T C 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per above. Michael 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per above, and passes my criteria. Aranherunar 05:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per nom. Stubbleboy 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support with my respect for the nominator and the nominee. --Alf melmac 09:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 06:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to elaborate on the criticisms you've provided on the talk page? 400 Wikipedia space edits certainly demonstrates an adequate involvement in the community; moreover, it seems bizarre to me that you'd oppose someone because they don't post at the Village Pump (say what?). Finally, is this user's choice of a "vanilla" warning template over a "-n" one really a big enough deal to oppose adminship over, given that the "-n" variation isn't required by any policy or guideline? RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 08:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
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.