Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tiptoety 2

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

(18/27/10); Ended 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiptoety (talk · contribs) - Self Nomination (after much thought). Was thinking of waiting another 3 weeks, but now is as good as ever. :)Tiptoety 03:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A: Primarily anti-vandal work as i see to little admins preforming recent change patrol and reverting vandalism. Along the line of anti-vandal work i will continually volunteer my time at WP:AIV as i have much experience reporting users to it. I will also take part in eliminating the backlog of pages tagged for CSD, as i know that it can take a while for an article to get deleted. Of course i will volunteer my time at WP:AN/I as i beleive it is every admins responsibility to help out fellow admins and users seeking your advice. One area that i think needs more admin attention is WP:RFPP, so i will make it a priority to check requests filled there.

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

A:Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue. This was the first article i ever created and i believe and is has grown immensely. I am proud of my vandal fighting efforts and know that they have made wikipedia a better place.

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 only conflicts i have had over editing recently were with vandals who were upset about the warning i had given them. There were some users that have caused me stress, I deal with them the same way i deal with everyone else, Respect. I am polite and inform them that their actions were wrong, i give them the appropriate warning, and report them if they continue, when it comes to conflicts i try to not get to involved or worked up over the situation. If the situation looks as if it needs admin intervention i reported it on the appropriate outlet (primarily WP:AN/I). If i feel that the conflict can be resolved with out admin intervention i will simply leave a message on the users talk page.

4. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?

A: I would first discuss the block with the blocking administrator due to the fact that the reason for the block may not be 100% obvious, if the blocking admin can not be reached or we are unable to come to a decision I would discuss it at WP:AN/I. And yes I would adhere to this policy. Tiptoety 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 Optional Question from SJP Do you believe that newspappers are usualy good sources to use, or should they only be used as sources when needed? Thanks for your time.--SJP 02:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: It depends on the type of article, if it is an editorial than i say that it should not be used as a source (unless the wikipedia article is about the author of the editorial). I tend to beleive that with journalism comes a small amount of opinion from the author of the article, but that can be said about almost any type of information. I would not create an article based solely on a newspaper article, but would find it appropriate to use as a single source, noting that it is a mainstream newspaper. Tiptoety 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• I will be unavailable this weekend, as I will have not access the Internet. If you post and optional question please be patient and do not expect a reply until Monday. If I find an opportunity I will log on. Thanks! Tiptoety 19:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of--oh, wait a minute, sorry. What I meant to say was that I'm very impressed by your 200+ reports to AIV and courteous manner, though I do think you need to work a little more in the other areas in Wikipedia space, like XfD. Keep up the good vandal fighting, I think you'll be a great admin! GlassCobra 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. weak support Good vandal-fighter, more work in other admin related areas as well as article work would be helpful. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support This user is a great vandal fighter who is unlikely to abuse the admin tools given to him. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've seen you around, and, I see no reason why you can't be trusted. SQL^{Query me!} 09:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. No reason to suspect user is evil or mental. Neil ☎ 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak support per Hdt83. No reason to suspect misuse of the admin tools but a broader level of experience would be welcomed. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral.[reply]

6. Since this is not editor review, but a discussion about trustability with some extra buttons, I can only support: Obviously trustworthy. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. A smart vandal-fighter, with sufficient edits. Has some edits to new criminology topics, good answers to his RfA, and excellent comments at other RfA's. Bearian 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Tiptoety is a superb vandal fighter, and I personally don't believe he'd harm the project with the tools. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. I am sure Tiptoety will be a great admin. He works hard to make Wikipedia a good place! He has made many vandals turn into better people. Including me. He taught me how to make Wikipedia a better place. I totally support Tiptoety!Empezardesdecero123 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Weak Support Well there are automated edits as Pedro has pointed out, but in general you are fine, but more experience would not hurt. All in all great contribs to AIV. Phgao 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - Tiptoety is a hard working editor who cares a lot about making Wikipedia a better site and a safe place for those who edit. He writes articles, fights vandals, and contributes in admin areas of the site. Has he made mistakes? Sure, we all have. Has he learned from them and grown? Yes, he has; something which can't be said for many here. The most important criterion for me is whether an admin will abuse the tools s/he is given. I have the utmost confidence that Tiptoety will only use them for the betterment of the project. I am proud to support him in his adminship candidacy. Jeffpw 05:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong support Seen this user around many times while doing vandalism reverts. I would like to see a police officer be an admin on Wikipedia. NHRHS2010 talk 10:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've always been curious, since it appears the user is still in high school (I could be wrong about that), in what capacity he serves as a police officer (this is per the userbox on his user page). Tiptoety, could you clarify that? Katr67 11:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment More than that, it would appear that this user is also an emergency responder - seems bizzare to be both, and still in high school (by the looks of things). Having said that, I would certainly like to hear why NHRHS2010 thinks that we need a police officer as an admin on Wikipedia. A police officer, in my opinion, won't necessarily make any better an admin than (for want of a better expression) a normal person. _TheIslander 13:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: If either of you have any evidence or proof that he is, indeed, a high school student, hadn't you best provide it here rather than simply making it seem as though Tiptoety is fabricating his identity? Otherwise it would seem you're derailing this RFA with non-issues that could sway people in their support or dissent. Thank you. Jeffpw 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Whilst I totally agree with Jeffpw that this does not seem to be helpful in terms of this RfA, it is hard to reconcile this diff [1] with the assertions of being a law enforcement officer. Normally the police don't get grounded by their parents ...... Pedro :  Chat  13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Quite right, Jeffpw, I should have cited what Pedro just has. Appologies. _TheIslander 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I admit that dif is disconcerting. That said, it could have been a joke. Until Tiptoety is here to answer for himself, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was being playful when he put that on his page. Naturally, if it turns out he has misrepresented who he is, I will withdraw my support. Not for his age (I know other teen admins here who do a great job), but for the misrepresentation. Jeffpw 14:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, i am a student in a high school, but also serve as an employee of the Police Bureau as a Law Enforcement Cadet. I looked for a userbox that would state that but was un-able to find, so i used the next best thing. A police cadet does the same things as a police offices, except they are under 21 which means no gun, and can not operate and emergency vehicle with lights and sirens. Take a look here: [2]. Cheers! Tiptoety 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for clearing that up, Tiptoety. I was sure there must be some logical explanation for that. You seemed to have too strong an ethical code to have lied to the community. If you need help making a police cadet userbox, hit me up. It goes without saying you have my continued support for this nomination. Jeffpw 14:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Yes, thank you Tiptoety for clearing that up. I figured it was something like that, judging by your interest in search and rescue. I in no way meant to imply that being in high school is a reason to oppose, nor was I saying you attempted to misrepresent yourself on purpose. It is bothersome to know, however, you don't know enough about wikicoding to perhaps "subst" the userbox and then change the text to more appropriately reflect your status. Katr67 15:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Echoed - thanks for clearing that up, Tiptoety. Having said that, I still wonder about the Emergency Responder box... _TheIslander 16:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Response - Thank you to everyone who understood the situation! I am glad that is cleared up, and have fixed the userbox issue on my userpage. On the topic of the first responder box, I am indeed a first responder (it stems from my work with Search and Rescue). Cheers! Tiptoety 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In case anyone's in any doubt, Tiptoey has always been clear on this and isn't trying to mislead anyone - see this conversation for example. — iridescent 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiptoey I'm concerned by this "A police cadet does the same things as a police offices" which I highly doubt. Without going through the DPSST I doubt you can arrest anyone as a cadet (other than citizens arrest) or issue citations. Is this correct? Aboutmovies 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this really relevant anymore to this RfA? It's been cleared up that he wasn't intentionally misleading anyone, if you wish to argue what a police cadet can and can not do, wouldn't it be better to use email, or a talk page instead? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No it has not been cleared up. This user has a history of misrepresentation (I don’t care if its intentional or not) including where in the oppose section someone pointed out this user did this which is far more troubling than the userbox issue. But Tiptoey says it was a misunderstanding, but says they are basically a cop minus a gun. I don’t think that’s true. Simply put, Tiptoey made a mistake, now he just needs own up to it completely. It’s the same thing as the copyvio issue. He’s trying to wriggle around it and make it seem not so bad, which is not owning up to the problem. Own up to the problem, reform, and come back to RFA in a few months. And I’m not sure why you think this was resolved. The only action in this thread of the RFA contributed by Tiptoey since their comment I quoted, is that he removed the user box, that doesn’t address the other claim of being a police officer made by this RFA candidate, which seems to continue when you make comments about cadets being cops minus a gun. Aboutmovies 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this relevant to this RfA? That is what I am asking. How is the difference between being a cadet and an actual police officer relevant to this RfA? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's (possibly weakly) relevant 'cause it shows trust issues. There was confusion as to how a high school person could be a Police Officer, and Tiptoety cleared that up. However, since that things have surfaced where Tiptoety has claimed to be a Police Officer, yet he states here that he is not. There are definite honesty issues here, which is why this is being discussed. _TheIslander 01:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is relevant because as many people have pointed out, can Tiptoey be trusted with the tools.?To analyze this you start with the editors trustworthiness. The above issues demonstrate their are issues with that trustworthiness. Note, its not that there is from a WikiPedia editing difference, anything relevant to cop vs. cadet. It has to do with Tiptoey's response to this issue of misrepresenting himself as a police officer, and then when called on it trying to mitigate it by saying, well I'm a cadet so the only difference is I don't have a gun so really its no big deal. Yes, it is a big deal. I don't know about you but I don't go around WikiPedia telling people/implying to others that I'm a lawyer, when really I'm a law student. First it's border line illegal (impersonating a law enforcement officer is usually illegal), and second what good does it do for the project? Look, we all make mistakes, but if you want to be an admin you better own up to those mistakes, whether that be copyvio issues or saying you are a cop when you are not. Notice below the person who added the info about the claim of being a cop is apparently a law enforcement person, so I'll take their word that their is serious issue and difference with cadet v. cop. Aboutmovies 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Then the response to this issue has been (at least to me) more of a trying to avoid responsibility That raises issues of trust, and that is obviously related to being an admin.

    Ummm, I still don't get it, maybe it's how we are interpreting this section of the discussion, but Tiptoety states "I looked for a userbox that would state that but was un-able to find, so i used the next best thing." Also in this conversation he states that he is a cadet. So he couldn't find the correct userbox, that makes him untrustworthy? He made a mistake with adding content that was a copyvio. Mistakes happen, people are human. I dunno, this is just my 2 cents, but it seems like your consistent issue about this is very overbearing. He's made some mistakes, if you choose to oppose because of them that is your prerogative. But you seem to be making a big deal over the comment "A police cadet does the same things as a police offices, except they are under 21 which means no gun." What does that have to do with this RfA? I just don't get it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure whether it's relevant to this RFA or not, but in terms of the link above where Tiptoety says "I am a police officer" -- Tiptoety, please don't do that anymore. It's well-intentioned, but misleading. I don't think it reflects on your honesty or anything like that (particularly since you're kinda like a police officer), but it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons. That said, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting the candidate on here, so I'm not expressing any opinion of the RFA (and from all accounts he seems like a good guy). --TheOtherBob 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No you don't seem to get it, its not about the userbox, its about his responses after the userbox part was "fixed" if you will. Note, again, there are two instances where it appears Tiptoey has represented he is a cop, the userbox, and far more troubling the Admin noticboard incident. Those are both mistakes, and the problem I have is Tiptoey's response to the community's concerns about the userbox, and more importantly the second incident. I asked a simple question, you have decided that you wanted to say its not relevant, all I want is a response from the candidate. Now if you really want to analyze the userbox, its not that he couldn't find the right userbox, its how he responded to the concern, oh its no big deal since a cadet is really just a cop without a gun. Well a private citizen is really just a cop without the authority, but if I misrepresent that I am a cop when I am not, then I get a free ticket to jail. So the problem I have is that Tiptoey was trying to downplay these misrepresentations, instead of owning up to the mistakes. Changing the userbox is the first step, but this comes across as very insincere when you try to downplay the problem. Aboutmovies 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aboutmovies's comment was below mine, but I'm pretty sure it responds to the one above mine. To be clear, I don't hold any opinion here other than that Tiptoety shouldn't claim to be a police officer until he is one. --TheOtherBob 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. support seems to be a good vandalism undoer Stupid2 23:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support: Great editor. I've worked with Tiptoety on a few different things here and do not have 1 negative thing to say. Would make a great admin. - Rjd0060 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. As the others have said, a good vandal-fighter. I'm not bothered that Tiptoety hasn't got any articles to a GA or an FA; neither of those are relevant to adminship, and I don't believe that he will abuse the tools. Acalamari 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support: Excellent vandal fighter, will not abuse the tools. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose: I'm sorry, but I see very little other than vandalism reverts in your edit history. I don't have edit-count or project-space thresholds, but your contribs are a little too one-dimensional for me to think this is a good idea. At least half of your edits are marked minor, which is a bit odd as some don't seem to meet minor-edit criteria. Little seems to have changed since the previous RfA a couple of months ago. The bottom line is that I don't think an editor who's this lacking in experience building the encyclopedia or dealing with the sort of conflict and contention that arise here is ready to entrust with the tools. MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, no need to apologize as i take criticism as a way of improving myself, i would like to add that i have created articles 1 2, and have worked in other aspects than just vandalism reverts including WP:AN/I, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and intervened in conflicts [3], here, and [4] just to name a few examples. Tiptoety 05:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough, and I should emphasize that I think your contributions are valuable and I didn't mean to minimize them. I also think your intervention here was well-considered and thoughtful. I'm going to strike my comment about a lack of change since the last RfA; on reflection, it's inaccurate and unfair, as you have come a signficant way since then. I'm still on this side of the fence for now - the real thorny issues as an admin involve conflicts in which neither user is an out-and-out vandal or troll, and I like to see more in-the-trenches experience - but you're a good editor and making good progress, so keep up the good work and if this doesn't succeed, then maybe next time around I'll be on the other side of the fence. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you, i guess i see conflicts regarding editing as something that happens by chance and a user may never run into, and I am proud that i have not been involved in any heated or angry conflicts regarding editing as i take an approach to avoid them all together, now this is not to say that i will step out of a conflict if it arises, but i am saying that i try not to create them in the first place, which i hope every user does. I may have lack of conflicts between myself and other editors, but i have had my share of involving myself in others conflicts as a third party (like that userbox says: This user values third opinions, and often gives one.) I like to be that user. So whether it be a conflict that i created or one that i am helping to resolve, I think they both prove a demeanor of reasoning and civility. Tiptoety 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I saw the edit to ANI that Pedro mentions as well, and it leaves me with no confidence you can be trusted with access to the priviledged information that can occasionally be found in deleted edits. —Cryptic 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Cryptic. east.718 at 14:23, 11/1/2007
4. Oppose I've worked with this editor in WikiProject Oregon and though he means very well and is trying very hard, I have been troubled ever since he used copyrighted material in an article he wrote and then pretended he wasn't the one who did it, per Talk:Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue#Cleanup. That was in May, but because trust is the ultimate question in an Rfa, I think that the incident is far too recent for him to be trusted with the tools. I also think he lacks the kind of insight, maturity and judgment required of admins, and has far too little experience actually creating content. Please keep up the good work and wait for someone else to nom you next time. Katr67 14:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I personally beleive that as long as the editor proves his/her understanding of creating articles or content, it does not matter how much they have created or contributed, and i beleive i have proven that i am capable and competent in creating content. I will be honest, my knack is not for creating content (although i have), but vandal-fighting, CSD's, AN/I, AIV, helping new users, and resolving disputes. Thank you for your comment Kat, i will use it to improve my contributions to wikipedia. Tiptoety 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Tiptoety, people seem impressed with your ethical code. In light of that, could you explain the thread mentioned above where a copyright violation was pointed out, and you said that the person who did that should be more careful, when you were the one who added the copyrighted content? Katr67 16:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   After looking over my edits, it does appear that I copied content. But please keep this in mind, I was very new user to wikipedia, and re-worded the section that I copied. With my limited knowledge of policy I thought that simply re-wording seemed an expectable practice. I was really un-aware that you were referring to me as the person who copied content. I have learned from that experience and have never copied material sense. I have also done my homework regarding copyrighted material. Cheers! Tiptoety 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure who else I would be referring to, since this is your Rfa. My concern is not that you committed copyvio, which lots of people do when they are new, it is that you said "the person who is directly copying from the source needs to be more carefull", when SGGH removed the content which was from this webpage, as he did here, when you were the one who added it, here. Katr67 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose. Your vandal work is great but I worry about your ability to apply deletion policy. This speedy deletion tagging [5] was pretty hasty (only 1 min after the article was created by a new editor) and frankly "pilot in Dambusters Raid awarded the the DSO and DFC" is a pretty clear assertion of notability. I would have hoped someone's instinct would be to help clean up the article, not delete it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur (from a few days ago) really is astonishing - he was King of Assyria from 1076 to 1074 BC. Kings are pretty notable. Keep up the good work on the vandal front, but I think I your judgment on deletions could use improvement, sorry. WjBscribe 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for your comment, but the one speedy deletion you are referring to is only one out of hundreds that have not been deleted, i am not making excuses as i beleive that with more investigation i could have placed a {{cleanup}} tag in place of a speedy, but i have learned from that mistake and i think have proven it by my recent CSD noms. Tiptoety 18:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. I must echo WjBscribe above, the comment in reply to WjBscribe is highly unimpressive, if you have nominated articles for speedy deletion and hundreds (which you've probably exaggerated) are turned down, this shows a clear misinterpretation of the criteria for speedy deletion. I'm unimpressed by the answer to question 3, an user can only learn how to handle/deal with conflicts if he/she has been involved with one himself, learn how to resolve it correctly. I'm also rather worried about the sub-standard and bad grammar, I have counted several mistakes throughout this nomination, this is also unimpressive. Sorry, Qst 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I think Tiptoety meant that it's one out of a hundred that have not been turned down - at least I hope so... WjBscribe 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope so, the user in question may clarify this here. Qst 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, yes that is what i meant, i have corrected it. Sorry for the confusion! Tiptoety 21:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Qst, what do a few spelling mistakes and some bad grammar have to do with Tiptoety's use of the tools? Acalamari 02:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose per the above comments, plus the fact that you uploaded this image without a fair use rationale or a source, and you left it orphaned. I expect admin candidates to have at least some knowledge of copyright laws, and you do not appear to have that. --Agüeybaná 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   To be fair, that image was uploaded eleven minutes ago. I know I certainly don't provide 100% of the information when I upload an image; I generally do it in a later edit (generally not long after I upload it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's now been a half-hour. I'm tagging the image. --Agüeybaná 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yea, sorry about that, i was at school/lunch and was unable to add fair use rational/source. Have done so now. And i am aware of copyright policy. Tiptoety 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the explanation, but I still feel nervous about your knowledge of WP:NFC. --Agüeybaná 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Administrators need to show discretion and judgement. Vandal-reverting doesn't show this. I couldn't support, and per WJBscribe, I oppose this nomination. Daniel 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   How would i prove that i have judgment and discretion (so i can improve myself)? Tiptoety 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Shut down your automated vandal-rollback program, edit articles, get into content discussions, give input on policy requests for comments, etc. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur was Exhibit A for proving that you aren't familiar enough with our policies and guidelines to be an administrator. Daniel 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I have taken the day off vandal reverts, as i have recieved that same comment from multiple users, and i do agree that i could participate in RfC more often, but have do so before:[6][7][8][9][10]. I have recently created a new article Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, and have been working on Portland Police Bureau, and Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue, but as i stated above, i beleive that as long as the editor proves his/her understanding of creating articles or content, it does not matter how much they have created or contributed, and i beleive i have proven that i am capable and competent in creating content. I will be honest, my knack is not for creating content (although i have), but vandal-fighting, CSD's, AN/I, AIV, helping new users, and resolving disputes. Yes, the AfD request that i made was not done correctly, but i know that i have learned from that experience, have done my homework, and now understand deletion policy's. Thank you for you response, and i will try my best to improve my contributions! Tiptoety 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose – Content is the number one focus of Wikipedia in my opinion. Look at the main page, there is a counter for the number of articles in the encyclopedia, there is a spot to show off FA articles, the DYK section is meant to encourage new article creation, but note that there is not anything about vandals or vandal fighting. Now, vandal fighting is important, but us regular editors do it everyday, and most of us do not make a big deal out of it. Reports to AIV, sure in my 1 year 14,000+ edits I’ve maybe reported 5 users there. Being focused on vandal fighting, AIV reports, and then wanting the powers of an admin comes across as power hungry (especially since you have now twice self nominated), something akin to Cartman and respect my authoriti! Admins need to be well-rounded, this ensures that they know policies/guidelines forward and back. The only way to do this is by having your activities well-rounded. That means article creation, article improvement, vandal fighting, AFD participation, participation on policy talk pages, working out disputes over content with other editors, etc. The difference between vandalism and content dispute is a fine line, and in order to see where that line is you have to know both sides. Now, correct me if I’m wrong Tiptoety, but I don’t think you have participated in working an article up to GA or FA, or participated in GA reviews or reviewed FA candidates. Besides speedy deletes how many AFDs have you proposed? Speedy’s are usually easy to spot, that’s why it can be speedied. Knowing when an article should be AFD’d because it doesn’t meet WP:NOTE is a lot trickier and requires experience and knowledge of the process. Admins are looked up to for knowledge, and an admin needs to have that knowledge. You can get there, but you need to develop into a more well-rounded contributor. Start by going to the AFD candidates and reading some of the arguments and studying the articles up for deletion. Read the related policies, then jump into the debates. Go to FA and do the same. Then take an article you are interested in and work on improving it up to the GA standard. All of these and more will turn you into a great candidate for admin. Aboutmovies 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose I wouldn't want someone who tried to speedily delete highly decorated Dambusters pilot Les Munro (and then took it to AfD) to have admin powers. Editors who do nothing but delete vandalism don't understand the real business of the encyclopedia which is writing and improving articles. Nominating that one minute after its creation wasn't 'helping new users'. If this was an isolated incident then I wouldn't mind but trying to delete an ancient king of Assyria the other day because he didn't have many google hits is just bizarre. Other users have also noticed a lack of care in this RfA and above all administrators have to be careful. Nick mallory 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - I feel evil opposing, but I'm affraid that this whole RfA has the feeling of little effort being put into it. The intro paragraph is, well, non-existant, and the answers to the questions are a little brief at times. Also the grammar leaves something to be desired, another sign of rushing the RfA, which leads me to question how suitable this candidate is (i.e. an admin should be careful and take time in what they're doing). Sorry :( _TheIslander 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose– per TheIslander. The intro paragraph, as well as some of the questions, make me think that this user hasn't put a lot of effort into this nomination. I also question the motives for submitting a self-nomination based on the intro paragraph. Ksy92003(talk) 02:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Weakly Fails WP:BIO, google search only came up with 87 sources, most not related to topic - You get that with people who died almost 1000 years ago. — H₂O —  09:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And when I say 1000, I mean 3000. M'bad. — H₂O —  00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose - sorry - I was prepared to support for the article you highlighted but the deletion-happy nominations detailed above are a real worry. Too many deletion-happy people are causing havoc at the moment and I don't feel reassured that this will help matters. If I see a GA at least in your future contributions that will counteract this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - not ready yet. Miranda 10:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - I can't in good faith support, sorry, trust issues, you don't say police cadet here I too started out in a cadet type position, well we have Police_Explorers, I was an Explorer for 6 years, before being hired on full time, and I have been full time now for almost 5 years, I'll be vested with PERS in January, so I can understand where you are coming from, but remember your integrity(doing what is right, when no one is looking <- canned academy response), it is paramount. Dureo 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose you nominated an ancient Assyrian king for deletion because you felt he fails wp:bio. Then, you claimed the text of that article didn't explain his notability? SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose an editor of undoubted value to the project, but not yet ready for adminship IMHO. Best wishes, keep it up, and hope to see you back here in a while. Pete.Hurd 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. A bit more experience needed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose - I'm sorry, I'm not sure you're ready. I share the concerns above about your policy knowledge and judgment. Please don't let this discourage you. I'm sure that with more time and familiarity with policy, you'll do fine. - Philippe | Talk 02:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - This user is not a neutral member of the community. 66.8.200.116 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose. This speedy deletion tag is the first reason I notice not to support. Before nominating pages for speedy deletion, I check Google to see how notable they are, and maybe you should try it too. 2 of the first 3 search results are a BBC News article on Les Munro, and a page on the History Channel, which implies notability. This also is a worrying nomination. A king of a country is always notable, and the reason you stated for nominating it for deletion doesn't back anything up. I don't feel a need to state more reasons for my oppose, as I feel these 2 are enough. I'm sure you look back and notice your mistakes, and I hope you have a better knowledge of the notability and deletion policies next time you request adminship. — jacĸrм (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose I was torn between neutral and oppose, as it really does seem that Tiptoety is a valuable editor who is honestly trying to improve the project. However, I have to oppose, though reluctantly. Not for any single reason; I might be able to overlook a single indiscretion (we've all made mistakes). However, the e-mail address incident, the copyvio incident, along with a mediocre mainspace editing history and two self-nominations at RfA combined are just too much to overlook. To be fair, you have a very good vandal fighting history; some people prefer strong mainspace work, others strong vandal fighting. I think they're both very important, and a lack of one is no reason (in itself) to oppose an RfA (though to be honest I personally prefer strong article building). I'm also confused as to how you can have a userbox saying you don't have the courage to nominate yourself, but this is your second self-nom (not that this plays any role in my oppose, mind you). My advice would be to scale back your vandal fighting a bit (we know you're good at that) and do some encyclopedia building. Build up a few quality articles, just to show that you have the ability. And please wait for someone else to nominate you next time! Some people (myself included) hate self-noms on principle; it just doesn't look good, to be honest with you. You do seem to have admin potential, I'd just like to see more balanced contributions from you, plus a little time to distance yourself from mistakes you've made in the past. Sorry for the rant, and good luck! faithless (^speak) 08:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose Sorry to pile on, but I have only come across you at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur, where you not only dug yourself a hole, but kept on digging against unanimous well-founded opposition. Doesn't suggest you are ready to me. Johnbod 19:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. I'd prefer to see you gain some experience, learn from your mistakes and show others that your judgement can be trusted. ~ Sebi 08:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose - In my opinion you haven't developed much since your first RFA, not that long ago. I would like to see some more solid encyclopedia building edits. Although this is only one oppose. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose per User:Aboutmovies above.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose per WjB above. K. Scott Bailey 01:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral Positives - 1) Much imporved from your first premature RfA and certainly doing some article work is great. 2) Plenty of accurate looking CAT:CSD tagging. 3) Plenty of appropriate warnings resulting in blocks at WP:AIV. Negatives 1) Just a mass of contributions using automated tools - you've made over 200 this month and it's only the first day! I'm worried about quantity not quality, and wether the finesse sometimes required is evidenced by this 2) Some of those irritating "you haven't used an edit summary" warnings which I find deeply bitey, personally. 3) A gross error of misjudgement where you posted a respect Wikipedians e-mail address at WP:ANI - I've not provided the diff for the sake of trying to down play it, but it's there in your contribution history. That just shows poor judgement, so I can't support. Best wishes as ever, of course, and my thanks for the work that you do. Pedro :  Chat  08:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, i understand now that i should have not placed a wikipedians email on AN/I, but the decision to post the email was discussed prior to placing it with the receiving party of the email, even if the user (who will remain nameless) said that he did not care that it was placed on AN/I i should have blanked the email address. Tiptoety 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral. Quantity of edits is outweighed by poor quality. Recommend having a day without Twinkle. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Good idea, taking a day off from Twinkle is what i will do. Tiptoety 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral leaning toward support. Tiptoety is a valuable contributor and vandal fighter. Skimming some of Tiptoety's XfD edits, I saw more "per nom" comments than I usually want to see. A carefully worded and well-thought-out XfD comment might seem redundant in a long discussion, but it shows us that you fully understand the policies mentioned and how they apply to deletion. The answer to question 3 also doesn't give me complete confidence, as the toughest administrative decisions often come under duress and it's helpful to see evidence of handling such situations gracefully. Tiptoety has shown me that he is not afraid to admit mistakes and resolve them, which is very important. Because of this, I feel that Tiptoety is capable of being an administrator, but I would like to see a little more development in the areas mentioned before supporting. Leebo ^T/C 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Will this user abuse the tools? I doubt it. I try to only oppose it I believe the user will be abusive. Because there are no recent signs, or signs in genral that lead me to believe he will be abusive, I will not oppose. The concerns though are enough to keep me from giving you my support. Sorry. Good luck in the future.--SJP 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to help better my contributions, what things specifically give you concerns? Tiptoety 22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Decent amount of mainspace contributions, but there doesn't appear to be that great a need for admin tools for dealing with vandalism - WP:AIV gets cleared out pretty quickly; reporting and repairing vandalism is a more pressing need, but doesn't require tools. I don't know that I can trust with the tools, but I don't see any sign that I can't; therefore neutral rather than oppose. Argyriou (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am confused by what you think admin tools would be needed for then, such as the user-block tool? Tiptoety 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral. I believe you are a very strong, helpful editor, however there has been some issues in this debate where I feel that I can't overlook- but I can't oppose either. I suggest perhaps some admin coaching, and some more manual editing, perhaps in different parts of the project as well, such as WP:AFD, WP:TFD, etc? But I am very impressed with the amount of AIV reports you've made, and the amount of articles you've tagged for deletion, so keep it up :). CattleGirl ^talk 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral to avoid pile-on. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral ditto Ohana. K. Scott Bailey 13:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Neutral Per Ohana. Jmlk17 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral - per Ohana.   jj137 (Talk) 15:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral This user is very helpful but i still see a lack of accurate assessing of situations. In some hot issues/incidents, it is always better to archive threads at the right and appropriate moment before it gets worse. This {{resolved}} could have been avoided. More experience would be definitely helpful. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.