Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tassedethe

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

Tassedethe

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (58/5/2); closed successful Andre (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tassedethe (talk · contribs) – This is very similar to my path to adminship. Tassedethe does a lot of work in the disambiguation arena, which I'm very familiar with. Tassedethe identifies and fixes many Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages, sometimes those fixes involve page moves, and sometimes the moves can only be performed by an admin. Access to the tools would help in Tassedethe's work there. Tassedethe also contributes in other areas of the encyclopedia that I'm less familiar with, but I could find no problems in the edit history. Certainly an editor who could use the tools, has not been involved in any drama that I can find, and would be beneficial to have as an admin. JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm pleased to accept the nomination. Thanks to JHunterJ. Tassedethe (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As indicated in my nomination I do a lot of work with regard to disambiguation pages. The principal Admin tool I would be using would be the ability to move pages to titles with an edit history. I am aware that this is not a tool to be used lightly, and that care needs to be taken if there are cut/paste moves involved. Disambiguation pages are generally not plagued by persistent vandalism but they do suffer from non-notable additions. I have therefore nominated pages using WP:CSD, WP:PROD and WP:AFD. While I don't see myself patrolling those areas full time I feel I would be able to make useful contributions, for instance at clearing CSD backlogs.

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

A: I feel my best contributions have been to the WP:WikiProject Disambiguation, fixing links to dab pages, cleaning per the style manual etc. I think an examination of my edit record shows that I have made a net positive effect to Wikipedia. While I am not a great article creator (great in terms of number and great in terms of quality) I have created stub articles and understand the requirements of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.

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: I am generally a pretty laidback person so the few (minor) conflicts I have had have not caused me a great deal of stress. I feel I am able to communicate calmly and effectively with most people. I find that the ability to compromise usually enables progess to be made, and if that is not an option, I prefer to bring more people into the discussion. As an Admin I would not be immediately launching into blocking vandals, or mediating in disputes, although I do think I have the temperament to do those sorts of tasks without undue drama.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. How come you have never had a user page?

A: I've always been concerned with the release of private information on the internet and have always tried to separate aspects of my online 'footprint'. So, for example, my username here isn't the one I use for email, which isn't the one I use for other networking sites etc. As I wouldn't want to put any identifiable personal info on my user page (e.g affiliations, politics, sports) what is left would probably not be very interesting. I very rarely look at other user pages (User talk pages, yes) so I've also never seen one where I thought 'Hey, very nice, I'll pinch that'. The single link that exists on my user page at the moment is for the precise same reason as the statement on your page!

Optional question from Looie496

5. Your dab contribs are so massive that it's almost impossible to tell whether you've made any other type of contribs. Could you summarize the nature of any other work you've done, if any? In particular, have you contributed to the content of any articles, and if so which ones?

A: I tend to go through phases, doing a tasks in different places but always ending up back at disambiguation. For instance I spent a bunch of time making and populating film director categories e.g Category:Films directed by Basil Dearden. Or populating unpopulated categories e.g Category:Fellows of the British Computer Society. I did spend a lot of time going through {{Lists of heads of UK diplomatic missions}}, correcting red links, disambiguating and adding some new biographies. The articles List of Ambassadors from the United Kingdom to Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, and Bulgaria (and more) were all created by me at that time. As I mentioned above not great articles but encyclopedic with reliable sources. I doubt there is not a single blue link on that template that has not been edited by me. Some AFDs I started Joshua Kopel, Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures, James C. Andrews. A couple I made (I think) concrete contributions to, James Watson (author), K-Lite Codec Pack. My file upload record shows I've added film posters to over 100 articles. Another area I've contributed is to Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery, e.g here and here. I hope this shows some positive non-dab related contributions.

Optional questions from Jennavecia

6a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I do believe that Biographies of Living People needs special consideration on Wikipedia, and that we have a legal and moral duty to protect such articles from attacks. However from my viewpoint I don't feel that vandalism or the addition of unsourced negative statements are outstripping the ability of other editors to remove or correct these changes in a considered and timely manner. That being said, I don't have a lot of BLPs on my watchlist, nor do I spend much time following Recent Changes. Perhaps I would view the problem differently if I was performing admin tasks. I have always assumed that the escalation of an article to semi-protected and fully-protected status was the best way to check constant BLP-violations.

6b.' What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: The use of the phrase 'trusted editor' makes me immediately suspicious of Flagged Revisions. The idea that a single editor would get the right to tag a version as 'right' or 'correct' seems to go against a guiding principle of Wikipedia i.e. WP:CONSENSUS. I would be more comfortable if a 'correct' version was flagged as such after discussion, and agreement, on the talk page. Also I feel that some of the most pernicious BLP violations could easily be included in a correct version e.g piping to hide an obvious negative link, or the use of alternative neutral names that might not be familiar to an editor, not to mention the subtleties of certain religious, ethnic or nationalist disputes. The idea of the Flagged protection and patrolled revisions proposed trial is something I would support though. I would consider, depending on the results obviously, a flagging system if it could be shown that it prevented BLP violations, or that they were reverted more quickly. The trial doesn't seem to mention having a control group i.e a set of unpatrolled BLPs. This would give information on the rate of BLP violations, and how fast they were reverted without a flagging system. I don't agree in Semi-protection for all pages, this would stymie the growth of Wikipedia for I feel that the majority of BLP are not subject to attacks. Increased use of semi-protection (almost a 1 strike and you're protected) I would agree with.

6c. You're patrolling recent changes and you come upon a BLP that has just seen the addition of an unsourced, mildly controversial change regarding the subject's career. While reviewing the edit, you see that the article is wholly unsourced. There are no other controversial claims, and the subject appears to a notable sports figure, but again, there's no source to establish notability. You then remember you have an appointment you need to get going to. What do you do with the article?

A: Lots of caveats in the question, so probably lots in my answer. I would assume a mildly controversial claim would be something like "Was seen at a nightclub the day before a game", rather than "He takes drugs and sleeps with prostitutes". Would I be comfortable rushing to my appointment if it was the first claim? Yep. If it was the other? No. I would want to revert that immediately and place an appropriate warning e.g {{uw-biog1}} (or higher if necessary) on the user's talk page. For a 'minor' BLP violation, in this hypothetical case, on returning from my appointment I would still revert the change but might content myself to an edit comment depending on the mildness of the controversy. As the article is unsourced I would add a {{unreferenced}} template if I was confident that the person was in fact notable.

Questions from Letsdrinktea

7. A user displays the following userboxes:

hateThis user is a Template For Hate

wtcThis user thinks Osama bin Laden is the greatest man on Earth.

^_^This user eats dog

What is your judgment on these boxes, and what action would you take?

A: As you can tell from my user page (Re: question 4) I have no experience with user boxes but I realise that this question is not really about my judgement on the appropriateness or otherwise of the boxes but more on what Wikipedia policies exist in relation to them. Looking at WP:UP#What may I not have on my user page? I can't see the topics in the user boxes being specifically prohibited. The statement about bin Laden would seem to be allowed per "It does not, however, include statements that support controversial groups or regimes, that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence." There is a general catchall on Inappropriate Content but seems to rely on the personal judgement of the editor (and not necessarily an admin). However at WP:USERBOX there are more "Content restrictions" outlined including "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." Whether those particular statements can be described as such is again the personal judgement of the editor. There seems to be no discussion space equivalent to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for user pages. If I felt particularly strongly about these userboxes (and I don't) it would seem I should bring it up with user on their talk page in the first instance, and if necessary take it to WP:MfD.

Question from Hobit

8. Did you realize that "wtc" in the 2nd box of question 7 likely stands for "World Trade Center"? If you did not, does that change your opinion in any way?

Yes I did realize that. In the same way that I noticed that Korea was piped with dog, and that graphic could be thought to represent 'slitty eyes'. Two people have commented that my answer to this Q was good, and two have felt it was poor and been part of their reason for opposing my nomination. It makes me think that there isn't a right answer to this question! I hold to my opinion that there is nothing (that I can read) in the userbox guidelines that specifically states that these boxes are forbidden other than general catchalls for "inappropriate content" or "inflammatory or divisive [material]" but they provide no examples (except for that of pro-pedophilia advocacy). The only thing that is clearly banned is statements of violence, but as I noted in my answer support for groups/organizations "that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence" is not banned. I have not been involved in discussions at WP:MfD so I have no idea what standards are actually applied to user pages. Where is the line in the sand, how offensive must something be? The Opposes clearly feel that this line has been crossed. I have added the discussions at WP:MfD to my list of Wikipedia areas that I follow. Only by observing what does and doesn't get deleted there will I be able to clearly understand the 'unwritten rules' on userboxes and userspace content. If I might make a more general comment, there are a number of Wikipedia areas in which I don't have extensive experience. If I was promoted to Admin I wouldn't be launching myself into these areas without following the discussions, reading the help pages etc. When I did start in new areas I would do what I have done with all my editing - start with the easy/simple/clear stuff and gradually move on. I am not too proud to ask for help and advice if something is not clear, nor too arrogant to feel I have nothing new to learn.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: As it could be deleted as WP:CSD#A3 ""No content... consisting only of external links" or WP:CSD#A7 "An article about a... company... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" I would say not long, no more than an hour from the tagging. The {{underconstruction}} tag earns some time per WP:AGF but I feel that if an editor knows how to add a template they should know the minimum requirements for a stub article.

9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Not really. I would be less likely to look for other reasons not to immediately delete the article.

9c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: I would say that if Editor2 did remove it again that would a 3RR violation. It would seem that this was promising to become an edit war and intervention in a friendly way to encourage users to start discussing on the article talk page would be the first step. If a particular editor did not engage in discussion and continued to revert edits I would consider blocking them, but if it involved multiple editors (again who were not discussing the problems), it might be necessary to temporarily protect the page, to force the editors to discuss on the talk page and build consensus.

9d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: I think they are different in that deletion really only can have two clear results, delete or keep. It's difficult to only delete half an article (if only half an article was the problem that should have been discussed at the article talk page). This means that consensus can be clear (a vast majority vote one way, with arguments based on policy etc) or unclear, where there are arguments on both sides. The latter case is more difficult as it requires the closer to weigh arguments, perhaps dismissing some votes (e.g. WP:SPA or WP:ILIKEIT), and make a final arbitration, remembering that is not just a simple tally of votes. On article pages there should always be attempts to address the concerns of all editors, even those in the minority. As long as everyone is basing edits on WP:RS there should be no need to declare that the majority rule.

9e. Should Foo (disambiguation) be moved to Foo if Foo is redlink or a redirect to the dab page? And if moved should the dab page be deleted?

A: As long as there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Foo (perhaps Foo (bar)) then yes it should be moved per WP:MDP. (If Foo (bar) was the primary topic then it should be moved to Foo with the hatnote {{otheruses}}). Foo may also become a redirect to an article with a different title also per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (e.g Elvis redirects to Elvis Presley with hatnote {{redirect|Elvis}}). After moving Foo (disambiguation) to Foo some editors delete the redirect as a cleanup. However WP:INTDABLINK recommends that deliberate links to disambiguation pages that do not have (disambiguation) in the title should be made via the (disambiguation) redirect. This ensures that anyone cleaning up links to dab pages (i.e. this project WP:DPL) can see that the link is intentional. In that case the redirect should remain.

General comments

• Links for Tassedethe: Tassedethe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tassedethe can be found here.
• Promote Tassedethe (if RfA is successful; bureaucrats only)

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it's appropriate or fair to the user to host those userboxes above under question #7. It gives the impression upon first glance that they were taken from the userpage, leading to the question of "Why do you have these on your userpage?" - this is the most common reason for referencing userboxes, after all. I understand, after reading the Q&A, that it's not the case, but wouldn't a link to each by sufficient? The middle one is especially ... for lack of a better word... liable. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 11:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It took me four readings to realise that it was a hypothetical question -- I thought it was saying that the user had them on their userpage. To be honest though, since there are no opposes based on them I would imagine that it just means that I was a little silly reading it too fast. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Defaulting to support, seems like a good candidate. Not seen any issues in a quick rundown of your recent contributions. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support seems like he's already taken the mop on with his disambiguation work. Great contributor, trustworthy, let's see what he can do... -Senseless!... says you, says me 14:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support no reason to oppose. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, does good work, has a huge amount of edits and no problems on his talk page, no incorrect speedies in the last two months, and will make good use of the buttons. --Amalthea 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
6. I really like what I see on the candidate's talk page, although that's the most minimalist userpage I've ever seen from an RFA candidate. Everything about this candidate says "good worker, no drama". Btw, for people wondering how to pronounce that username, I'm assuming it's "tasse de thé", "cup of tea" in French, roughly /tass d' tay/. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yep, and I could go for one of those right now... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Support, I'm a fan of his work. ;) -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong support Wizardman :  Chat  17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Contribs look good, I see no problems. FlyingToaster 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Extremely active editor (especially considering that only ~10,000 of their edits are automated). No reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Why not. America69 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - an excellent editor with 61k edits who I have never noticed before. Upon a review of contribs, it's because he's been busy doing excellent work competently and undramatically. Clearly someone who can be trusted with the admin tools to help them out in their everyday work on Wikipedia. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - More admins of this sort needed. Spacevezon^talk 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support No issues here. Keep up the good work! GlassCobra 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Of course. -download | sign! 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Dean B (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I've often seen his contributions and found him totally trustworthy. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Here to improve the project w/o drama. Appears to have clue. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support No problems LetsdrinkTea 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Hard working and productive. Looks good to me! -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Obviously a sensible, dedicated editor here for the encyclopedia, not the drama. Nick mallory (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support A very level headed editor who understands that discussion is paramount. I particularly liked your answer to question 7. I think you would make a great admin. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support — Jake Wartenberg 03:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Looks Fine! - Fastily (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support This user has 69,000 edits they must be a good user. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 04:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Certainly. No issues showing up. --GedUK  10:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
29. SupportSeems like a good candidate. Pmlinediter (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. Your answer to Q7 was very good, and I can see that you do have a legitimate need for the tools. This one is a no-brainer. Malinaccier (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Look good to me. hmwithτ 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support A dabber after my own heart. Quick scan of the recent contributions doesn't raise any flags, no block history, and a good communicator on their talk page. Can't see any reason not to support, and I know all too well how useful the tools could be for someone whose work involves page moves. I'll be watching this one closely, as a successful candidacy might push me over the top toward considering a run of my own. Mlaffs (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Trustworthy? Definitely. Broader experience would be nice, but to each his/her own. Steven Walling (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support and glad to do so. I can definitely appreciate the need for the tools to handle page moves to get things in better working order. Good luck! JPG-GR (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Weak support - Candidate doesn't understand the severity of the BLP problem on this project, though it shouldn't take long to realize it upon performing admin tasks, as was pointed out in an answer to one of my questions. Candidate's willingness to support trials and tighten protection on BLPs does, however, inspire some hope; thus my support, albeit weak. لennavecia 06:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support No strong reason to oppose. Can definitely trust him/her(?) with the tools. Antivenin 07:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Weak support I would like to have seen more drawn-out and in-depth work on a single article or set of articles, which I believe is important experience for an editor to have...but at the same time, the candidate seems to have an understanding of the basic policies anyway, and besides will probably mostly use the admin tools in areas like disambiguation, where I imagine this wouldn't be a problem. (Also, if you do have some in-depth article work, please correct me; it's possible that I just didn't see it amidst the sea of dab and cleanup edits.) Also, has a clear reason for wanting the tools—you can get by for only so long asking an admin friend to delete/edit a protected page for you, and eventually it gets annoying. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Erik9 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support No problems I see with candidate. FunPika 16:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support: Almost 90% of his/her 69,611 edits are to the article namespace (which still leaves over 1,500 edits in the adminy area). Answers to the questions were thoughtful and on point demonstrating a knowledge of policy. No known civility problems. A value to the project. Good luck with the mop!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I've had plenty of interaction with Tassedethe at Malplaced dab pages. He clearly knows what he is doing there and seems to have a good common sense for areas in which he may lack admin experience at the moment, so no worries from me at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Looks good. Ray^Talk 01:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
44. The user's enormous contributions to the dab pages is very impressive, and getting the admin tools will definitely benefit in his work there. As an aside, I've also seen him around, and I like his temperament, civility, etc. on talk pages. Xclamation point 04:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support I like his work and trust him. prashanthns (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. Not enough administrators currently. (You know, that's some f-ed up grammar there. If one was going to boilerplate something and use it indiscriminately, you'd think it'd be less awkward). Tan | 39 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support per WP:AGF, i.e. no memorable negative interactions and no blocks, but I wish the candidate had more on the userpage. There's something nice about knowing where admins are coming from when you deal with them and it kind of puts more of a "face" on them than feeling as if you are just dealing with an account. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. older ≠ wiser 00:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, 49 supports is a good sign. And no, there are still not enough admins in my opinion. --candle•wicke 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support  iMatthew :  Chat  15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - Definite need for the tools (although he'll probably put me out of a job over at WP:MDP) Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support I think de facto those userboxes would be deleted. But policy doesn't seem to justify doing so, and he did a good job of researching and justifying the decision to leave them alone. Good skills in an admin, see no other issues. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. 70,000 good edits without causing any trouble sounds good to me. Cool3 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support (I'm a tea addict, but I think I can be unbiased here. *grin*). I've encountered Tassedethe here and there, and always been impressed with the calm, thoughtful demeanor. Although I don't quite agree with the answer to #7, I'd much rather have an admin who declines to take an action than one who immediately indef's someone they don't agree with. (After all, we are never required to act here.) No worries about the mop in these hands. Back to my darjeeling FTGFOP1 now.
56. Support Res2216firestar 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Weak support. Though DGG did bring up a valuable point down in the oppose section, I don't necessarily believe the answer about the userboxes suggests bad judgment on Tassedethe's, as it's a matter of opinion, and probably won't effect other admin areas. — Σxplicit 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Support good answers to questions; seems to know policy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   Troll alert LetsdrinkTea 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   LDT, that was completely and utterly uncalled for. DougsTech has expressed his opinion at WT:RFA, and whilst I disagree with it, he is in absolutely no way a troll. Please remove your attack. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 00:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   "completely and utterly" and "attack" seem a little harsh to me. If I were responding to this, I think I'd say "WP:ANI is the place to discuss any actual evidence of trolling, not RFA." I can't say whether DougsTech is a troll as defined on Wikipedia because I don't keep up with ANI and ArbCom; I can say that successful trolling involves picking a position calculated to be divisive and pursuing it relentlessly, with the goal of causing friction among the regulars, so whether he's trolling or not, it's best not to "fall" for it. One crat has said he won't count this vote; should we ask more crats so that we know for sure? Would that reduce tensions over this !vote? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Well, it was completely uncalled for. This was in absolutely no way such a thing. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   I completely agree with LetsDrinkTea. More than you can imagine. All politeness aside, DougsTech is a troll. No point denying that. Antivenin 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   The only editor who is fair game for personal attacks at RfA (apparently) is the candidate. You make yourself look foolish and inconsistent by your ill-considered response to what appears to me to be DougsTech legitimate viewpoint. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   I concur with Malleus here, Doug has justified his viewpoint. Antivenin, you should know better. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Doug has not justified his viewpoint. And nor is it legitimate (witness the backlog). He's got some baloney about adding admins to some chaos on Wikipedia. He is, effectively, punishing current RFA candidates for actions of past administrators. I find that disgusting and detrimental to this project, and if it's detrimental to this project then I cannot tolerate it. DougsTech does not offer any constructive criticism either. There's no way a candidate can improve from what DougsTech said. They're too many administrators? What's someone supposed to do about that? Convince an admin to leave Wikipedia so he can get a successful RFA? It's ridiculous. Moreover, I'm not the only one who thinks DougsTech is a troll. A quick glance through WT:RFA will show you that. Antivenin 07:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   If the goal is to make points you all want to make, I don't have any good advice. If the goal is to resolve the DougsTech question, then I'd like to point out that WP:ANI is thataway → They deal with questions of who's a troll and who's not all day long; we don't. Also, if uncertainty about how crats are going to treat this is causing tension, then we can ask them. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   I would advocate simply supporting the candidate with an emphasis on there not being too many admins and it not being an exclusive club, etc, if that is the belief held. Getting into disputes with the opposition would appear entirely unhelpful. If the opposition is attention-seeking they are receiving their very desire, if they are simply stating their belief, then state yours in the appropriate section. For that is only my humble approach to such things on this page. We must work together to resolve our differences. --candle•wicke 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Someone who has never been involved in a serious dispute probably doesn't care about anything other than passing an RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Maybe I am reading this wrong, but are you saying that the only reason to not get involved in a dispute is to try and pass an RfA? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   No, not the only reason, but perhaps one of the more likely reasons. Everyone says that the life of an administrator is stressful, so I'd like to see how the candidate responds when placed in a stressful situation. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   That makes sense. Thanks for replying. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Couldn't the fact that the candidate has not had major disputes, be your answer to how s/he responds in stressful situations? I haven't looked closely at the candidate's history, but just hypothetically.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   No. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Sorry, but I would really like to see some experience outside of these areas. There are a lot of tools and it is hard to really tell how you would use them besides some of the theoretical statements. Many admin start off "specializing" then end up abandoning that and performing deletions, blocks, and the rest. I think you just need more experience in some of those areas (discussions about the matters, AfD, AN/ANI, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose I disagree with you that the middle userbox is acceptable. The admiration alone might be, but not with the "wtc" Perhaps you would get a better feel for this with some more experience in related matters. DGG (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose While there is much that I like about you as a user, your answer to question 7 and less so to others indicates to me that you are not ready yet for the broom. gidonb (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral im currently going to stay Neutral i see many positives and some negatives that may concern me particular in some areas of the userpage.Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 06:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   If you have a moment, could you clarify what the problem you see in Tassedethe's userpage is? It would help us better understand your concern. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   I have a feeling that he simply wants a better userpage than a link to a sandbox subpage. FunPika 16:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry for the misunderstanding that was per the question 7. with the userboxes and userpage rules as per above i feel that there should be more experience leaning in that area. Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral - poor answres to questions. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2009 (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.