Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TFOWR

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

TFOWR

Final (106/5/4); Closed as successful by xeno at 16:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

TFOWR (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to present TFOWR (talk · contribs) for your consideration for the role of administrator. TFOWR has clocked up almost 15,000 edits in nearly 2 and a half years on the project and has recently returned from wikibreak. Since his return, I've been consistently impressed with what I've seen, which has included many level headed, civil and clueful comments on ANI, Talk:Main Page and many other fora. Since I got my own mop a month ago, I've valued his input at RfPP, where he makes useful suggestions to save time for admins and he even took on a mediation role in a very heated discussion between several editors. All things considered, I think TFOWR would be a great asset to the admin corps. I sincerely hope the community agrees with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominations

Co-nom from Llywrch: Is it too late to co-nominate TFOWR? -- llywrch (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from Fences and Windows: TFOWR (formerly known as This Flag Once Was Red) is fine admin material. He's sensible and a calming influence (recently herding cats at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid), he is familar with AN/I, AIV, RfPP, SPI, etc. and would make good use of the tools. He had three separate editors last month (including myself) ask him why he wasn't an admin, and now he's run out excuses not to stand. Fences&Windows 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, HJ Mitchell, llywrch and Fences&Windows. I'm surprised and flattered that you believe I'd be a good candidate for the mop. I accept, subject to serving at the community's pleasure (based on this process). As noted on my talk page, I always welcome advice and criticism - here or elsewhere. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: In the immediate term: WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:SPI, WP:WQA (and WP:DR in general), WP:ITN, WP:OTD and the various XfDs. In the longer term I'll go wherever there's a need (I tend to follow WP:ANI fairly closely and frequently end up in "new areas" as a result).
RFPP and AIV are areas where I've been active for what feels like forever. I'm a Talk:Main Page regular and see ITN and OTD as consensus-driven processs where I could help out. WQA - and the community's policies on civility in general - is an area I find fascinating: I feel it's one area where our current policies are stretched to near breaking-point (long-term editors are dragged over the coals, new editors can't decipher the seemingly baroque rules that appear to vary from one editor to the next). XfDs I've been involved with as a !voter, and is another consensus-driven process I feel I could help with more. I've been involved with SPI through dealing with long-term sock-puppetry, and I'd like to be in a position to deal with obvious cases (subject to being non-involved, etc) as I feel the community's response to some long-term abuse can be very slow and ineffectual.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Managing disagreements or disputes.
I'm pretty proud of some of the things I've done at WP:ANI or as a result of ANI. A recent example is Talk:Gaza flotilla raid, where I've been one of a small group of regular editors countering a twin-pronged WP:POV flood. A less recent example consisted of working at ANI with another non-admin to broker peace between two new editors, both of whom have gone on to be constructive, productive editors.
I believe that disagreements can be good - they can lead to new understanding. An example of this, and one I'm personally proud of, is Catfish John: I encountered this article at an AfD, where I !voted delete. Another editor !voted keep, and the pair of us worked on the article until I was proud to change my !vote to keep.
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: Conflict? Yes, I believe that conflict is inevitable over time (and, as mentioned above, I feel it can even be useful). Stress? Yes. Stress is harder to deal with, and - in my opinion - leads to conflict becoming disruptive, rather than potentially useful.
The most stressful event I was involved with was a long-running dispute centring around articles in the International Baccalaureate area ("IB"). An editor emerged who was determined to promote The Truth about IB (indeed, they were involved in a website called just that). Inevitably editors who disagree with The Truth were dismissed as partisan. This affected several good, neutral editors. It resulted in several, including me, posting to ANI. Eventually it resulted in me walking away, leaving good editors to cope on their own. Eventually it led to blocks and sock puppetry. Eventually the problem went away.
This issue took far to long to resolve. It was stressful for many people, myself included. I don't believe I handled it as well as I could have done, in that I believe I could have helped resolve it sooner and better, and I could - should - have remained actively involved. While accepting my failings here, I also believe that this is an issue the community needs to address: how do we deal effectively with determined proponents of The Truth?
I've edited in some nationalist areas, so I've worked with partisan editors, and consider that to be stressful work. Fortunately I don't think anyone has ever believed that I'm partisan (at least, if they have they've subsequently seen me disagreeing with "the other side", and accept that I try to be neutral). Two sets of partisan editors seem to me to be easier to deal with than one determined Truth warrior.
Finally, this is probably a good point to mention that I haz been blocked! I was blocked for edit warring with an IP controlled by an indefinitely-blocked editor (since community banned). Good block, no complaints, but I mention this because it highlights the difficulties involved in dealing with long-term abuse. Recently, I've seen many editors question the value of community bans. From my perspective, community bans are better than indefinite blocks when it comes to responding to long-term abuse: WP:3RR allows us to revert banned users; no such exemption exists for users who are merely indefinitely blocked. I'm am not saying that community bans are a panacea... they're not. But they help editors dealing with long-term abuse to avoid being blocked and the stress that that causes :-)
There are numerous other conflicts I've not mentioned - some I've handled well, others... not so well.. Dig through my contributions and you'll find them. I'm happy to comment on any of them.
Additional optional question from Jclemens
4. What are your best content contributions? What have you done that has demonstrated your personal involvement in developing the content involved in building an encyclopedia?
A:Lots of gnomish and elvish edits (it was an anally retentive desire to fix that prompted my initial registration). Vandal fighting. However, and Immunize picks up on this below, I'm not a big content creator. I could point you at, say, a good article - but even there my role in bringing it up to FA was relatively minor.
Picking up on Immunize's concern about vandalism: I'm not sure why my anti-vandal count seems to have gone down. Possibly it's because I'm not jumping straight to a warning (a lot of my recent WP:AGF reverts I would probably have labelled a Level 1 warning in the past). I'll explain this further in my answers below.
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
5. What is your take on when IAR should be used?
A: Just as we should boldly improve and maintain articles, we should also boldly improve and maintain the encyclopaedia. "Ignore all rules" sounds like Freedom's call ringing from the barricades, and that can trip up new editors (and for that reason and others I prefer the less loaded term "common sense"), but I don't believe it gives us carte blanche to trample over the other four of the five pillars. In general, I'd like to see IAR used only when supported by clear consensus.
6. What is the most time- effective way to deal with vandals and their vandalism?
A: I've been through several approaches, and I suppose I'm still tinkering with my approach. Currently I revert, assuming good faith for anything other than obvious vandalism (e.g. repeated characters: test edit. "I pooped!": obvious vandalism). For an AGF revert I won't warn the editor, or post to their talk page - most times test edits aren't repeated, but warning an editor that you've removed their "vandalism" can antagonise them, prompting them to repeat. I'll keep their contributions open, however, even if I don't warn them.
Beyond that, it's the usual 1,2,3,4 or 4im dance. I'm quite prepared to start someone on a level 2 or 3 warning, depending on the nature of the vandalism, though in practice I suspect I'm fairly conservative when it comes to warnings - I'm happy to revert several edits while waiting for a vandal to be blocked.
My approach is pretty fluid: obviously it changes from vandal to vandal, but I adapt in general, too. Recently I've started using Twinkle (most of my contributions have been manual - I can't tell you what a difference Twinkle makes, and I wished I followed everyone's advice much sooner...) and that's made a difference: it's much easier to hit "rollack (AGF)" than hit "undo" and then paste in an AGF message, so I suspect I'm warning editors less now.
Vandalism, to be honest, is annoying but easy to fix if we all play our part. Once a vandal is blocked that tends to be it. It's the longer-term problems that really concern me: long-term sock puppetry that other editors need to spend considerable time cleaning up after. The sock puppeteers I've dealt with all seem to walk a line between useful and useless editing - in many ways it would be better if all their edits were useless, and we could simply revert them all.
Additional optional questions from Tommy2010
7. Was the stress you stated in Q3 related to you being inactive from November 2009 through March 2010?
A: No, not really. I was away from home for what was supposed to be only a few days, but it turned into a few weeks. When I came back I had a lot on in real life and one thing led to another... before I knew it it was one major holiday followed by another. I did edit a few times. I say "not really" because the inactivity here certainly helped reduce my wikistress levels.
8. If so, what specifically could you do differently now as an editor and as a sysop, which arguably could be more stressful?
A: I've struck part of your question - I hope that's OK, and as always do please revert me if you feel it's inappropriate.
Seek help! One thing I've found in my time here is that a problem shared is a problem halved. The areas I intend to work on if I'm granted the mop are going to be areas where there's already an active community - of admins and non-admins - who are friendly and happy to help.
The areas I work on as an editor (particularly on talk pages) tend to be the areas where I'm likely to continue encountering stress. These are areas where we tend to "recruit" superb long-term editors, so I tend to believe that the rewards make up for the stress. The long-term solution to stress is to have many, many good editors, and promoting this is one reason I edit in stressful areas! TFOWRidle vapourings 10:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Leaky Caldron
9. Do you believe that WP:Civility and the associated blocking policy applies to all contributors equally? Can you state your view on editors who are frequently disruptive but regarded by many as “a net benefit”, the sanctions bar therefore being set higher (or not applied at all)?
A: Does it currently apply to all contributors equally? No.
Should it, and can it, apply to all contributors equally? I don't know.
"Civility" is relative: for example, I'd expect any posting to an IP's talk page to be civil, polite, free from bad language. We want to welcome and encourage editors. But the level of civility I expect between established editors is more liberal: we curse, we bicker, we complain.
Our policies and our practices are quite different. We either need to make clear that we treat editors differently - that established editors are expected to tolerate a certain amount of incivility - or we need to change the way we handle incivility. I don't think we have a clear idea yet where we want to go with this.
For "net-benefit disruptive editors", I'm obviously not going to comment on individual editors but the issue itself, and issues like this, should be discussed and for that reason I'm reluctant to support blocks or topic bans. As a long-term solution, we need to engage with these issues instead of banishing them from ANI/AN. At the same time, the editors concerned need to recognise that there is a very real concern in the community that they are being disruptive. "I'll carry on regardless until it goes to ArbCom" isn't a productive philosophy, and we can't be expected to agree to this suicide pact. I have a general aversion to blocks, article protection and topic bans, while recognising that all three are appropriate at times. In this case my aversion results in reluctant opposition to sanctions; my patience, like the community's, is wearing thin.
TFOWRidle vapourings 13:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: I do not intend to block any editor where there is an established community consensus to oppose blocks. (I believe consensus is as important - if not more so - as any other core policy). I may, at my discretion, argue for or otherwise support a block - or other sanctions - and attempt to shift the community consensus. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Aleksa Lukic
10. Inactivity for a period of 5 months ?!
2009/11 − 0
2009/12 — 0
2010/01 — 0
2010/02 — 0
2010/03 — 0
Could you explain me this, please? Aleksa Lukic (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure, though I thought I'd given my reasons in the answer to question 7, above. Basically real-life commitments. It's entirely likely that similar commitments are going to recur, and that I take wikibreaks in the future (though not for that long, I'd hope). I'm not able to make any promises about when and for how long I will be on- or off-line. I do now have a way of remaining online when away from regular networks, which may alleviate some concerns. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Shirik
11. Can you elaborate on your experience at WP:SPI? What is a case you contributed to that you think is particularly notable?
A. I encountered a sock puppeteer at this article and after a brief and unsuccessful attempt to engage the then-current sock, ended up at ANI and eventually SSP (as it then was). This SSP report highlights what another editor has hinted is my obsession with this sock. Through this episode I've become a semi-regular at what is now SPI, and my fascination with socks has spread to other long-term sockers, and a general interest in the limitations of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. This case is notable to me, but perhaps not to editors outside the sock's areas of interest (Scotland and Scottish pop music): it's notable to me because it shows how my approach to dealing with socks has changed from a whack-every-new-sock approach to a more tolerant approach (when I returned from my wikibreak I removed most of the sock's targets from my watchlist, and was semi-content to see if the sock had become a positive contributor while I'd been away. Sadly, they hadn't, and were blocked). I've run the gamut with this sock: from edit warring with them (which lead to my block) through to arguing (successfully!) for a community ban. I'd like to think that the sock master could still become a productive editor; that's maybe naive but continuing to play whack-a-sock isn't tenable in the long-term, for me or for us as a community.
12. In your own words, what is WP:DUCK? What are some criteria you would use for judgement against this standard?
A. I've made at least one mistake with WP:DUCK (I can't recall with who, or where), so I'm aware of my own limitations, and of the risks involved with applying the DUCK-test. I believe DUCK should be no more than a suspicion - it should not be used in isolation for determining sock-puppetry. That said, the areas I look at with possible socks are:
  • Username (assuming the editor is registered) - is there a strong similarity with previous socks?
  • IP address (assuming anon) - is the ISP the same?
  • Contributions
    • Are edits to the same or similar articles?
    • Are edits similar or identical to previous sock edits?
    • Are there other similarities between two sets of edits, for example the same mis-spellings or poor grammar?
I believe that if the majority of these criteria are met, then DUCK passes as far as reporting to SPI is concerned. I'd be hesitant to block solely on DUCK, however.
TFOWRidle vapourings 13:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. First! -wiooiw (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As nom! :) Took me long enough to bully him into it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I saw this being prepared, so had time to do my research in advance... User seems level headed and knowledgeable. His contributions show a very positive approach to Wikipedia, and enough good experience in Admin-relevant areas to be ready. Answers to the questions are thoughtful, and demonstrate understanding of Admin responsibilities. Acknowledges that his block for edit warring was "good" - but IMHO it is mitigated to a large degree by the circumstances. I have every confidence this candidate would be an asset as an admin, and no concerns about granting him access to the tools. - Begoon (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. New Mexico Support from the land of enchantment - Excellent choice for the mop. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 16:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yep! Dwayne was here! ♫ 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No concerns mature and respected editor, answers to questions were well though out and I was very happy to see you explain your blocks in detail. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 17:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support Only 2 articles created, and little evidence of recent vandalism-fighting (over the past several hundred contribs), however, there is currently nothing that concerns me. Immunize (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Admin-by-proxy. Might as well let him press the buttons himself. Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support TNXMan 17:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I find this user's sense of being at ease enjoyable and would like to see that in more sysops. The edit summaries.. I think you can tone down a bit in my opinion, but not enough to oppose. Tommy2010message 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summaries are one area I need to watch: it's too easy to move from a friendly conversation with "silly" edit summaries to reverting an editor and maintaining the same low standard of edit summary. Thanks for the comment; I'll try and learn from this. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem- good luck  – Tommy2010message 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I should really learn to pay attention to the userrights summary in PopUps to save myself the "I thought they were one already" comments. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Absolutely no concerns, here. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Genuinely expected this. Wonderful candidate. ceranthor 19:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support seems clueful enough. —fetch·comms 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support . Of course - plenty of clue. Will be an asset. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support The most level headed editor I have ever come across. If he doesn't make a good admin I'll eat my bunnet. Jack forbes (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Some minor maturity concerns but overall a good candidate. Best of luck.  f o x  19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Cliche "You mean he isn't one already?" Support. Seems to do a fine job. Shimeru (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, I've seen this editor around and have no concerns. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I've seen this editor at ANI, and hve been impressed. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, a good candidate, I am encouraged by my encounters with the candidate, they seem to genuinely be friendly and seeking to help the project and its users in a wide range of ways. I am sure they will take on any criticism, including the current oppose, and learn from mistakes. All the best, --Taelus (Talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. There are a few reasons why I have been hesitant to support here. First, my first impression of this candidate, when he responded to an ANI post of mine, was that he lacked clue. Second, I have an aversion to non-admins hanging around ANI. Third, the candidate seems to be more interested in the back rooms of the project that building an encyclopaedia. But from what I see here those concerns - which amount to mere first impressions and my own prejudices - can be cast aside and my support is none the weaker because of them.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I handled that incident as well as I could; in my defence (and you pick up on this with your comment about non-admins in ANI) there are obvious limits to a non-admin's possible responses in a situation like that. Often I'll comment (at ANI) because it seems no one else is; fortunately, this time someone else was prepared to - and they had the tools, too. Thanks for your comments; this is something else I can learn from. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any consensus as to weather non-admins should comment at ANI? Immunize (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Very easy decision. Thanks for all your hard work, TFOW Tiderolls 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - on top of the candidate's substantial efforts, I liked the candid self-assessment in the answer to Q3. Best wishes for a fine adminship. Jusdafax 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Why not? Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Damn! I watchlisted this and was online for most of yesterday, and still missed this being transcluded! Support, of course. Even the answers to the questions are excellent. The only thing lacking is that I would like to know what colour the flag is now. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support When looking for the definition of "clueful", I found "full with adhesive"; when I corrected my tyop, I found "tfowr", so I deleted it as G1; when I reviewed the situation, I found some unfathomable equation: net+ – B.hotep •talk• 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support – I have no concerns with TFOWR. The answers to the questions above satisfy me. A net positive to the project. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I recognize the name, and I think this user should be given the mop. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I've seen the name around a lot. I believe he'd make an excellent admin. Homework2 TalkWhat I do! 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support No concerns since I've seen you everywhere. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Looks good to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. The concerns raised below don't trouble me at all; I think he'll be a great admin. Hi878 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Definitely, he's everywhere! ArakunemTalk 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Yes!  7  02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as co-nom Mkativerata makes an interesting point above about non-Admins on WP:AN/I. There is no reason I can think of that a non-Admin shouldn't post there, & there are times I think a non-Admin's point of view -- not the Wikipedia jargon sense of the word, but the general one -- should be heard; the board gets insular at some points. (On the other hand, some non-Admins who post there shouldn't, & not only do they end up hurting themselves but making it difficult for non-Admins to effectively post there.) Yet it shows his potential ability as an Admin that TFOWR has been posting there for a long time, & because of his level-headedness & confidence many of us Admins thought he was already one of us. -- llywrch (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good candidate, only concern is the recent inactivity. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point: I had a five month, unscheduled wikibreak. It was unplanned, and much longer than I initially thought it would be, and was mostly unrelated to Wikipedia itself (real life commitments, with a sprinkling of wikistress). However - I would recommend a wikibreak to anyone. I came back refreshed, and I'd certainly want to warn everyone that I intend to have more wikibreaks in the future! Though not nearly as long... TFOWRidle vapourings 17:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Friendly and helpful. Lova Falk talk 11:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Aiken ♫ 12:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. No concerns about edit summaries or block (see Oppose #1), bonus points for moderating IP disputes. Caution on biting new users. We need more admins like this candidate. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support without a doubt. An excellent Wikipedian, and would sure be an excellent sysop. WackyWace talk to me, people 14:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Horologium (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support with multi-coloured flags. All good as far as I can see. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I don't know the user, but it sounds like his is eager for an admin job! --Aleksa Lukic (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Good Good. — JoJo • Talk • 18:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Airplaneman ✈ 18:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No concerns. For an example of TFOWR doing useful work in an area relevant to adminship, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nimbley6/Archive and search for his name. This is an SPI where I worked briefly myself, and I notice that TFOWR seems to have good judgment and makes proper summaries when submitting new complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yes, indeed, very helpful and level-headed, no problems with having the tools. As for the edit summaries, I don't see any real problem there, and TFOWR has already stated an intention to tone them down when appropriate.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Yup - excellent work on the Nimbley front and pretty level-headed all round. Ben MacDui 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Great candidate, has an excellent attitude - no worries at all -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers to subsequent questions show practicality and pragmatism, which strengthens my support -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Weak Support Qualified, no concerns, etc. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. contra Minimac (I don't like it when people give spurious oppose reasons) Shii (tock) 21:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's inappropriate to use the reasoning from opposes as supports and vice versa. I thought this precedent was clear to all by now. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Another one in the "you mean he isn't already?" camp. Calm, competent, clueful. My only slight misgiving is the in-jokey nature of TFOWR's user page, which wouldn't typically fill me with confidence, but I don't think that's an indicator of any bad habits in this case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Give another user the janitors mop... Just use non-toxic sprays :) Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support sure. Why not?--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Good answers, great track record, no noticeable concerns. Give the guy a mop and put him work! PrincessofLlyr royal court 23:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support - Excellence candidate; I've been waiting for this RfA for quite a while. Well written answers to the questions above. Keep up the good work TFOWR! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - I have had no dealings with this editor, but I also have no issues, good answers, and good community support. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support User is ready for the mop. Traxs7 05:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I've seen him around and he's an excellent user who deserves the mop. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award 06:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Is probably familiar with admin 'processes' if he helps out at ANIAcather96 (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Good involvement in WP:AN/I, WP:HELPDESK, WP:AIV, WP:RPP & WP:AN. Vipinhari || talk 08:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - appears more than capable. Orphan Wiki 10:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. It's refreshing to see such openness and honesty in the questioning, especially in mentioning a block history. To me this demonstrates above-average gorm. --Alan (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - My contact with TFOWR has been positive, and I do believe he would make a good admin and passes my RfA criteria. I have reviewed some of his contributions and the issues raised by the opposition, and they do not concern me. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Plenty of good work, questions answered well; while a little more article creation wouldn't go amiss, I see no reason to oppose. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support – the edit summaries are not a reason to oppose for me, and VernoWhitney brings up a good point. Pepper∙piggle 00:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Seems capable and serious...Modernist (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support' - looking around I have found nothing that concerns me or leads me to believe they will be anything other than a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Weak/Strong Support - very clueful answers. However, would like to see participating in more DR areas. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support This human will not misuse the tools. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 03:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Ready to go as far as I'm concerned. BencherliteTalk 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I can live with occasional uncivil edit summaries. Even admins were once human. As long as they can see they were uncivil. Fainites barleyscribs 16:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Good answers to questions. --JN466 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I didn't agree with him on everything, but I think he would make a good admin. I saw several cases where he was very civil when I have seen other admins get rude under the similar circumstances. He seems to be able to keep his head on and not act like a member of the Wikipedia NVKD. My thumbs up.--Panzertank (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Positives far outweigh any concerns. —DoRD (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support as co-nom. Fences&Windows 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - The candidate presented good answers to the questions and seems to have a level-headed, consensus-driven approach. The candidate's talk page also reveals that the candidate interacts well with other users. I'm happy to support. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 22:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, excellent answers to the questions, with a realistic view of civility issues, good understanding of Wikipedia, good editing history (the short block from over a year-and-a-half ago is not a concern, we all make mistakes.), and the diffs provided by the first oppose below are obviously of comments that were made and received in good humor - and humor is valuable commodity around here. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support No problems FinalRapture - † ☪ 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Everyone else is supporting. I just want to fit in. SwarmTalk 02:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Along with all the rest.
  86. Support I see no problems here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. I've seen you around on various noticeboards; you've given the impression of a clueful and thoughtful editor who's here for the right reasons. Support. EyeSerenetalk 11:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support while only asking, please do what you can, as an admin, to show others how helpful civility can be. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support: clearly sound policy knowledge; the willingness to respond to situations on their merits rather than applying a cookie-cutter approach strikes me as a net positive (though, as others have said, maximum civility behooves everyone). As for the edit summaries, on the whole I thought they were pretty funny. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support I am impressed with his calm and rational approach-assets which are certainly needed at Wikipedia. He is also intelligent, polite, informed, with a fine sense of humour. I think he's excellent administrator material. He definitely gets my vote.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. A good candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strongest Possible Support. Rohedin TALK 17:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support after reading this Talk:The_Vampires_of_Venice#Rory_.3D_companion_.3F. Wikipedia needs more admins with as much common sense as this user. Good luck! :) Cannonbolt2 (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Good history, good answers to problematic questions, and I am delighted to expect that TFOWR will be bringing a lot of civility to processes which frequently lack it. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 03:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, but if I see much more hectoring of opposers I will be joining them. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. See my earlier comments under "neutral". Richwales (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Weak support The candidate has two article creations and three redirects. ("That don't impress me much"). However, his body of work on ANI and exemplary work helping newcomers convinces me to vote in favor.--Hokeman (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support- let me be the one hundredth. Appears to be flying through, user is level headed and will I am sure take his time and develop into a fine administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - A good user who would be perfect for the job. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Looks good. Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support I have come across TFOWR numerous times, and have found a reliable, thoughtful, constructive editor. A very good potential admin. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, seen plenty of good stuff from him and nothing bad. A sensible and productive contributor who will do well with the tools. ~ mazca talk 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support solid user, minor imperfections are not sufficient to oppose. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Good stuff, and I am sure they will keep it up. Avicennasis @ 16:00, 29 Sivan 5770 / 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Yes he seems trusted, but I'm concerned of his edit summary usage, especially on talk pages, like this (Probably) and maybe this one too, which demonstrates how to bite a newcomer. All the excessive punctuation in this edit is unnecessary too. Also by the fact that he was blocked for edit warring (Only for 3 hours though) shows that he isn't calm enough. Minimac (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I think those edit summaries are attempts at humour, but it doesn't work so well on the internet! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It should probably be noted that the biting via the edit summary referred to above was immediately followed up by an informative message on the newcomer's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The first summary was obviously meant to be a joke, as was the third, & the second doesn't appear very bitey to me. (Well, the editor did need to learn about talk pages.) The fact TFOWR followed that edit with an explanation about talk pages to that editor is what one should do. (And what I should do more often.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely; the first and third were obviously meant to be funny, I think that the second was, also, and the fact that it was followed by an explanation makes me think that these aren't worth worrying about. Hi878 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The third diff was a conversation I had with him. I can't speak for everyone, but I thought thought it was quite humorous. Jack forbes (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Minimac, you also mentioned me being blocked - that's a fair point: it was a block for edit-warring, too, which is precisely what I wouldn't want to see on an RfA. I believe it highlights an important issue, however: there is a general belief that long-term abuse can be dealt with by reverting and ignoring the editors concerned. I don't feel this is correct. WP:3RR does not give us the right to revert a blocked - even an indefinitely blocked - editor, for example (and it for this reason that I was blocked). That's no excuse for me not knowing policy, and it's no excuse for me being blocked. It is something, however, that we need to consider if we're to deal with the challenge of long-term abuse. In an answer above, I've commented on my use of edit summaries. Thanks for raising that here, too. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be worth mentioning that many current admins have produced edit summaries far more bitey and rash than this. And probably most of them weren't even intended to be so. Condemning people for the occasional out-of-the-norm edit summary is very picky. There are also some current admins with a block or two or three on their blocklist also... People learn from their mistakes and move on. Orphan Wiki 10:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, leaning to NeutralMoving to Neutral. Per Mini's and TFOWR's above comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to try to review some more past edits to solidify my vote one way or the other. First starters, perhaps TFOWR can explain his close-to-solitary !vote (under the name This flag once was red) delete/merge at this AfD, when the majority were voting speedy keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I remember it as a "solidarity" !vote - for the record, I'd !vote delete under similar circumstances today (this was the Eurovision 2010 article, created just after Eurovision 2009, and with little or no reliable content). The one thing I would do differently is re-opening the AfD after a non-admin close; looking back that was a perfectly reasonable close. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. I'm not sure what a "solidarity" !vote is, but what I meant to indicate was that the !vote was 21 keep (including 15 speedy, snow, or warp 10 keep), and 3 delete (including your !vote and that of the nom). And that it was closed by another editor as a snow. My observation was that over 60% of those responding to the AfD saw it as a speedy or snow keep, but your judgment was contrary.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, you wrote "solitary" and I read "solidarity" - there's probably a deep lesson there about me needing to read better. I appreciate you taking the time to gently nudge me towards a proper reading of your comment! If you don't mind, I'd like to continue this over at WT:RFA/TFOWR because my answer is long and rambling... TFOWRidle vapourings 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose (a gesture, in view of the overwhelming support to date). The answer to my Q9 is not persuasive. The existing policy is clear, “.. editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment...” It does not contain any twin-track approach when dealing with editors of differing experience, quality of contribution or popularity. It only encourages tolerance to account for different cultural standards.
    The second part of your answer is as inconclusive as it is indecisive. I don’t think that the implementation of the policy as it currently stands - and that is all you as an admin. need to be concerned about - is difficult to uphold. It is favouritism, cabals and deliberate policy avoidance by certain Admins. that has resulted in a de facto twin-track approach for certain “gifted” editors. Your answer prevaricates – perhaps hoping to be seen as acceptable by all. I cannot support a candidate who is not fully committed to working within existing policy. Leaky Caldron 15:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies; the answer was a little vague. I've added a clarification - I don't believe it'll sway your !vote, however. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Okay, one last little notavote before I blow this joint. A couple of his comments on AN/I makes me concerned about his knowledge of the basics. Proposed semi- to full protection(!!) on an article that was being vandalised by a static IP here. This was two weeks ago. He seems under the impression that page bans need be voluntary here in a situation with consensus of disruption on an article page (whether there's an ARBCOM decision or not) one can be topic banned. It was obvious that User:Onefortyone would not agree to a ban yet TFOWR didn't seem to comprehend that. Auntie E. (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just on that second diff (the one about page bans), I think from the context, TFOWR meant "abide by" rather than "voluntarily agree to"- after all, bans only work if the banned party adheres to it and a page/topic ban is usually an alternative to blocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, not sure why I didn't argue immediately for a block. I was involved at that point, and I tend to trust RFPP to "do the right thing" (I'd argue for a block at RFPP, rather than protection).
    Re: OneFortyOne: they had two clear choices - voluntarily agree to abide by a topic ban, or be indefinitely blocked. I wanted to make sure OneFortyOne was aware that that was their choice: ban or block. In this case, no ban was enforced and no block was forthcoming. I regard that as regrettable; my explanation to OneFortyOne is one I'd stand by. TFOWRidle vapourings 09:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per comment above by Leaky Caldron. Mo ainm~Talk 17:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The five month break is too recent for my tastes. I generally like to see candidates active for 4-6 months before running.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral for now - although TFOWR seems to be a good editor in many respects, there are a few nagging concerns stopping me from supporting. This help desk response suggests that there may be an over reliance on user talkpage templates. Although I'll give TFOWR the benefit of the doubt that the advice was general and they didn't know which "relatively inexperienced editor" was being discussed, it's a bit worrying that when asked which warning template would be most appropriate to put on the talkpage of someone who is editing in good faith, TFOWR's answer is to recommend a combination of Twinkle and Friendly. I would rather see a potential administrator taking the time to talk to inexperienced users (and advising others to do so). I'm also concerned with the apparent lack of content contributions. Despite regular assertions at RFA that administrators don't need to have content experience to effectively use the admin tools, I do think that it's important to have put a significant amount of effort into getting an article towards FA standard. It is, after all, why we're here and not only does it help reinforce (in one's mind) a number of important policies and guidelines, but it creates more empathy towards content creators. Other than that, there is a slightly uncomfortable feeling reading the talkpage threads that led up to this RFA, a sense of TFOWR being coerced against their humble protestations by their many fans to submit to RFA. Also (and this is not a deal breaker), the overuse of <small> tags gets annoying while trying to read through contributions. Are we not supposed to read those bits? Sitting on the fence for now, but will look into it further.--BelovedFreak 10:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TWOFR's help desk response was not only to use Twinkle and Friendly, but s/he added: "Ideally, I'd follow it up with a short message about the article they were editing, what was good about their edits, and what could be improved." Lova Falk talk 10:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, definitely. To be honest, Twinkle and Friendly are both quite new to me, I'm enjoying the ease with which I can do certain tasks now, and I'm perhaps a little overly enthusiastic in promoting Twinkle and Friendly. However, Friendly - in particular - is no substitute for a personal message. The small tags are for comments that are less relevant. You can ignore them if you want ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 10:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning to oppose A generally good editor, like many others here on WP, and I appreciate the rvv work, but nothing really long-term stellar at all to deserve adminship other than just the prestige. The recent extended break should in fact resets a warm up period and perhaps this nomination could wait longer for the candidate to prove himself. User:Immunize 'weak support' reasons above is also a concern I have. Answer to Q1 seems like a vast amount of responsibility claiming to be taken on and we know that many an admin simply do not dedicate themselves to even a few areas after the novelty wears off. I want to see a pattern of exceptional contributions, not just someone with lots of time on their hands making tiny bot-like edits (w/r to socks that User:Nimbley6 provides extensive love and care) which does not need admin permissions. Some problematic recent edit summaries Also candidate is an idiot, Won't someone block this evil editor?, and subsequent excuses that humor does not go well on the internet is ridiculous. --Shuki (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're referring to "Also candidate is an idiot, and I should know..." and " remove whitespace, post image removal by the evil CommonsDelinker. Won't someone block this evil editor? ;-)"? The first I make no apologies for: !voters can examine the discussion in question and decide whether humour is appropriate in that instance (I intend to keep my talk page a humour-friendly zone, and to continue making self-deprecating comments). The second - fair point: the edit summary should have stopped after "...post image removal". For the record, I am aware that CommonsDelinker is a bot, and I have no intention of blocking CommonsDelinker. Finally, I don't think I've ever justified my edit summaries using humour as an excuse - there's a real concern expressed here about my use of edit summaries, and it's one I intend to take on board (in article space - I fully intend to continue using humorous edit summaries in userspace, where appropriate). TFOWRidle vapourings 11:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Would support if not for some concerns about somewhat uncivil edit summaries mentioned above. --PinkBull 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I'm sorry, I really wanted to support you but this edit summary so close to your RfA is way out of line and not needed. FinalRapture - † ☪ 00:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know badgering is uncool, but... that edit summary you highlight was part of tongue-in-cheek banter as we persuadedpestered TFOWR into standing at RfA. I strongly doubt that anyone involved in that thread batted an eyelid at that edit summary, so nobody else should either. Fences&Windows 01:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it was part of a light-hearted conversation between myself, TFOWR and another editor, User:Courcelles, the "victim" of the "attack" (who is up in the support section). I can assure you it was meant as tongue-in-cheek. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I jumped to conclusions there, whoops. FinalRapture - † ☪ 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, though leaning to support: My main concern here is that I feel incivility, toward any editor, even in jest, should be avoided. It's easy to misinterpret subtleties in written communication (we've probably all heard / read about this w/r/t e-mail vs. in-person communication), and we need to be careful not to accidentally hurt or offend others via a flippant comment that could easily be misunderstood. Established editors should try to set an example of courteous interaction for others to look up to and follow. The idea that "established editors are expected to tolerate a certain amount of incivility" rings true to me only in the sense that we should be slow to take offence and careful not to respond in kind even if we think another editor is being uncivil — an application of Postel's Law (be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept). Aside from this one issue, TFOWR seems to me to be a good candidate, and a satisfactory clarification from him on this one issue will probably convince me to change my vote. Richwales (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is partly in reference to this? I agree ("incivility, toward any editor, even in jest, should be avoided"), while acknowledging that I am fairly tolerant of incivility from others and that I need to improve how I interact with friends (our comments are highly visible, to editors who may not be aware of the context or cultural references). I'd like to continue being tolerant, but I do acknowledge that many, many editors see and use my talk page and that they have every right to expect a civil and collegial environment. Slightly off-topic, but I expect admins to set a higher standard of behaviour; what that means to me, in this context, is that my userpage and talkpage customs should be adapted if I'm granted the mop. They both need to be more open and welcoming, and the talkpage in particular needs to actively promote civility (rather than advocating the anarchic do-and-say-as-you-wish approach that it currently promotes). TFOWRidle vapourings 10:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need to limit our carefulness to cross-cultural situations. I had a run-in a couple of years ago with an extremely contentious editor (who, amongst other things, defied at least one consensus he disagreed with by saying "consensus can't override policy") — my attempts to convince him to moderate his rhetoric led him at one point to accuse me of personal attacks and threaten to report me for incivility. This sort of thing is probably part of the reason why editors are urged to be very sparing with the use of terms like "vandalism", "wikilawyering", or "POV pushing", even when terms like these really do apply to a situation. I, for one, have come to use terms like "vandalism" and "rvv" very rarely — if indeed at all — in edit summaries for this reason. But enough of me; this discussion is about you, after all. Thanks for your clarification; I'm happier now, and I'll go ahead and change my "neutral" to "support". Best of success with your new responsibilities. Richwales (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moving to Neutral, from Oppose, given candidate's responses.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TFOWR&oldid=1182055463"