Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/T-dot


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

T-dot
'''Final (27/17/1); Originally scheduled to end 11:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (apples) 12:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)'''

- I would like to nominate user T-dot, an editor I have been working with when involved in Wiki Project Harry Potter, for adminship. T-dot has been actively contributing to Wikipedia as a registered user since January 2006, which shows his high level of commitment to the project. He has got over 5500 edits, with about 3500 edits in the article mainspace as well as more than 1000 edits in article talk pages. He is a hard-working writer with a strong and regular interaction with other editors. His many edits to articles include updating materials, good referencing , copyediting , and excellent rewriting He has also created new articles, as listed here. In addition, T-dot regularly gets involved in admin-related fields, particularly in article deletion debates, where his input in deletion debates is always backed up with good reasons and clear explanations, which reveals himself as an experienced editor who has an in-depth knowledge of policies and guidelines  .

Further, T-dot has also impressed me with his good usage of detailed and informative edit summaries. He always cautiously mentions the rationales for his edits in the edit summary, citing policies and guidelines when needed  His participation at articles' discussion pages not only demonstrates his dedication to improving the article content  but also an ability to resolve disagreements in a calm and courteous manner, as well as a willingness to co-operate with other editor to achieve consensus. Lastly, T-dot has his email activated, a neat userpage, a clean block log.

Overall, T-dot is a civil, conscientious and dependable Wikipedia user who, I believe, will certainly handle the admin tools very well if he is given them. I hereby strongly recommend his candidacy for your approval. Thank you PeaceNT 11:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * Accepto --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Certainly protecting and unprotecting article pages when needed to protect the integrity of the Wikipedia. I have been fairly active already in AfD's, especially in chiming in on those that are getting rather long in the tooth and have not yet been closed by another, perhaps because there was no clear consensus reached.  I try to step in and be the "tie-breaker" as it were in such cases, in order to try to get the process moving along.  I guess the good news there is that when they do finally close, the final decision was frequently along the lines of my reasonings, perhaps sometimes because I had the last word, and I usually give more detailed explanations than the typical "delete per nom" reply.  I would be inclined to more actively look for obvious WP:SNOW cases for deletion or non-deletion and act on those when I am convinced of the correct decision.  Another area I have been really active in is counter-vandalism.  In doing so, I do try to avoid feeding the trolls.  In the pages I currently monitor, most vandalism seems to come from IP's that can be traced to a school library or something, and warnings seem to be useless sometimes because by the time three warnings have been sent, a new user may be logged in, and blocking them seems unfair.  On the other hand, historically habitual and repeated vandalism over time from a single IP really needs to be dealt with more proactively, and I would tend to rapidly place short blocks on accounts like that.  If nothing else, it might get the attention of the librarian, who might investigate who was on the computer at the time, and deal with it personally.  Meanwhile, obvious and habitual vandalism by new and otherwise registered users would seem to me to be grounds for rapid and lengthier blocks, which is something I frequently wished I could do.  I have also been active in spotting strong candidates for WP:UAA - especially for usernames that are both inappropriate, and are being used for vandalism only.  Finally I am a strong supporter of WP:3RR - even down to favoring WP:1RR for my own edits, and would tend to be rather firm with registered users who try to get around 3RR by timing the next edit to be at 24.00001 hours.  I have seen plenty of obvious and ongoing 3RR or near-3RR edit wars, usually between two or three really enthusiastic users, but was helpless to do anything but try to take them through the WP:DR process, with informal mediation and council, formal WP:3O, moderating in WP:RfC, and even taking the parties to WP:RfM.  I have seen some intractable and ugly disputes though that went on for weeks, disrupting other edits by others; and these should have been handled by disciplined, systematic, and progressively longer blocks.  I would tend to consider getting involved very proactively in that area.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Everything in Q1 above.  In addition, and this may sound absurd for a middle-aged adult, but I accidently stepped into the world of Harry Potter one day while surfing channels on the television, and stopped to watch a part of one of the movies, PoA I think it was, and then became fascinated by the entire world of J.K. Rowling.  I have also been an avid reader (student) of Tolkien for many years (both of them), especially on the "harder" volumes in the History of Middle Earth, Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, etc.  Anyway when I read fiction, I tend to study it very closely to pick up every detail and nuance, and usually re-read a good book 2 or 3 times, and then again when needed.  Anyway such study of the HP series has enabled me to pay extra close attention to the details in the HP articles, and when a controversy over the canonicity of an issue comes up, I can usually present the correct answers and the source rather rapidly.  This in my view keeps the articles relatively free from contamination, and reduces the arguments.  Not saying I am always "right" in an argument, but if someone is unsure whether this or that happened, I can usually quickly refer them to "chapter and verse" so to speak and clear it up.  I have also become rather adept at yahoo-ing or google-ing external or secondary reference sources if it is needed or requested to resolve or prove an issue.  Finally, I have sometimes been able to help relative newcomers to understand and get access to the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines on various subjects, again to head off or to avoid disputes.  There is a list of some special articles I either created or contributed significantly to on my "home page".  Some I am less proud of than others.  There are also a number of redirection pages I created but did not list.  These are usually spawned when I am searching for something in the search box but cannot easily find it, and it is often because of a capitalization issue or something.  I still cannot find an article for the song "Louis-Louis", but when I do, so help me I am gonna ... grrrr.
 * You mean Louie Louie? Go to town  :D   Keegan talk 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohhh - so that's why I couldn't find it - either here or at Yahoo: not even as an alternate-spelling suggestion. Interestingly Google and Ask.com both provided the correct spelling suggestion though, now that I thought to give them a try.  Wow.  Thanks!  Now if I can just remember why I needed to find that article... --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 19:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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: Good heavens yes.  In the long past I would sometimes get stressed when someone would revert or delete something I worked really hard on.  Two things I struggled with:  fair use images, and plot spoilers in works of fiction.  I used to upload lots of images which I deemed to be fair use in order to improve articles with suitable illustrations of the things being described.  The pendulum swung sharply away from that trend about a year-and-a-half or so ago, and at first I was greatly resentful that all "my" images were getting deleted indiscriminantly.  It was not a matter that the images were improperly documented - I supplied the link to the source every time, and made sure I was not exploiting the creator.  As an example, if a new concept car was shown at the auto show, and the company that built it provided good quality images in their press releases, then I would select images that seemed good to me and posted them on the Wikipedia for an article that either I created or someone else did.  The images were largely deleted later because the Fair Use Image enforcers declared that the professional quality media shots should be replaced by "free" images.  This generally meant that "my" images were generally replaced by those from amateur photographers (on second thought I will not insult my authentically trained amateur photographer colleagues) cell phone owners with an image capture lens would post horribly-composed, poorly lit, out of focus and dreadfully distracting photos they snapped somewhere in a parking lot or elsewhere.  Being unable to convince The Enforcers that a good fair-use image should be preferred to a poor "free" image, I gave up the practice.  This in no way means I am soft on published and copyrighted images that were essentially "stolen" from a web site somewhere and uploaded without even an attempt to justify it as "fair use" or to provide the source for checking.  On the issue of plot spoilers, there was a time when we seemed to want to protect readers from spoilers in works of fiction, for example in the Harry Potter series, so we were careful to keep spoilers in sections marked with plot spoiler warning templates.  I thought this was a good idea, and worked hard to enforce the "rules" - keeping other editors from accidently or purposefully posting spoilers "in the open".  Well several weeks back, apparently in secret discussions at the world headquarters of the Admin Rouge, it was decided that spoiler warning templates were inappropriate for Wikipedia articles, and suddenly they were disappearing right and left.  I opposed that practice at first, but as it semed to be a decided matter, dropped out of the debate and simply adopted and explained in resulting debates the new rules as written, whether I liked them personally or not.  In that regard I guess I would tend to always defend given current Wiki-policies and guidelines as written and consensed on the basis of their authority, regardless of my personal views on their "goodness", and avoid trying to defend their intrinsic value other than in maintaining order.  In other words, I would work to maintain order in disputes by quoting and referencing the current rules, whether I personally like them or not as written, and if the rules change, then I change with them.  Anyway these days, and as also explained in Q1 above, if there is a dispute, I try to step out and be a mediator or moderator in the debate, quoting "chapter and verse" from respected sources, or the Wiki-policies and guidelines as needed, to try to help others come to an agreement.  If someone is after something I said or did, I am usually quick to apologize and clarify, and either relent when I am wrong, or come up with indisputable proof if I am right.  If they still disagree with me personally, I usually step back and look for guidance or assistance from others, perhaps an experienced admin, or someone else who has been involved in some way in the issue.  This came up some time back when I participated in an AfD debate, and after I stated my view (a "keep" I think, which was then shared by another editor), then a third editor who previously posted a "strong delete" came after both of us on the AfD page and on our talk pages, basically saying we were both full of crap; in a relentless pursuit to "change our votes" and agree with him.  Well the guy that agreed with me quickly changed his "vote", but I refused because I still believe I was right, and tried to ignore my antagonist.  He continued to dispute my viewpoints and the authenticity of my sanity (which is perhaps debatable) almost to the point of harrassment or wiki-stalking.  I got some counsel from a couple of wise administrators who I had communicated with previously, and managed to get some perspective (I was relatively new to the AfD process at the time) and to not worry so much what some possibly less-than-civil folks might think of my work.  It was a good learning experience.

General comments

 * See T-dot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for T-dot:
 * Comment: I just remembered I was supposed to remind Coelacan to oppose my RfA, due to my comments at Requests for adminship/Pastordavid back in mid-May.  I wonder if I should do a stand-in oppose on his/her behalf?  :\  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 20:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If they didn't care enough to watchlist your RfA page, then don't worry about it. :P --Ginkgo100talk 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/T-dot before commenting.''

Discussion
Comment Regarding the RFPP concern (about three quarters of the oppose !votes), it is my understanding that the candidate, from his experience, was referring to the issue involving Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in July 2007, that is before the release of Book 7. There was indeed a debate on the Deathly Hallows talk page, where all parties can discuss whether or not a semi/full protection was needed at the time (archive 17 or something). Although RFPP action is typically taken based on the nomination of a single editor and the decision of a single administrator, I believe it is perfect fine to hold a discussion to the article's talk page so that everyone can voice their opinions and be afforded equal input into the process. It is much better than having one editor request a page be protected and then another editor immediately file an unprotection request, isn't it? Thus nominating/voting/debating is a practice that should be encouraged, particularly in controversial cases. Accordingly, I take the view that his comment relating to RFPP and "nominating/voting" was perfectly understandable, decided by the context.

Well, this is sort of late, but is there anyone who would like to discuss? ;) Best, PeaceNT 09:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Definitely. @pple 12:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Nominator support. PeaceNT 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Good track liked his strong views particurly on 3RR.Harlowraman 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Zeibura (Talk) 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support There is absolutely nothing wrong with this user. Good luck!  Jonj  onbt  16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Impressive answers. Definitely a support for me. Captain panda  16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 16:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - sure. and a sense of humor, too!  - Philippe &#124; Talk 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Has a reasonable spread of experience over the project, and has been editing since early last year. Should pass any editor's criteria - certainly passes mine. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Support- Good involvement in Wikiprojects is always a good sign, and strong mainspace edit counts. Passes my criteria. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Plenty of fine examples given by nominator, supported by fine answers to the questions, and plenty of experience and time working on this project. Hiberniantears 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Think of it this way - if the candidate didn't mention RPP, would anyone (except Matthew) be opposing? G iggy\Talk 01:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, it's a PeaceNT nom. What more could you want? :P G iggy\Talk 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way- would people be concerned about someone who knew how administrative tasks work getting the mop? -- lucid 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way (yes, I over-cite that essay, but I believe it applies here) G iggy\Talk 07:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support Opposing users have not demonstrated sufficiently for me that there is likelihood T-dot will abuse the tools. On the contrary, I am impressed by his willingness to accept consensus even when he disagrees with it. It may be that in the course of his very long comments, he has put his foot in his mouth, but the attitude seems spot-on for an admin. --Ginkgo100talk 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely endorse this statement. If only he condensed his comment. @pple 17:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, no reason to believe this user will abuse tools. ugen64 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, the fact that he misspoke once when he explained his views on page protection doesn't mean that he is likely to abuse the tools. Trustworthy candidate.  Melsaran  (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rocksanddirt 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Bearian 19:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I don't find the oppose arguements very convincing. <font style="background:#7FFF00">Reywas92 <font style="background:#00ff7f">Talk 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, I'll go along with the nom, . Shinealight2007 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
 * 7) Support As Ginkgo100 said, there is no evidence to suggest that this user will abuse the tools. Seems like a fine user to me. Acalamari 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, the oppose arguments are as usual, weak at best. Croat Canuck  <i style="font-size:x-small;"> Say hello   or just talk </i> 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - in the end, WP will gain more than pose by having this candidate as an admin. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Looks like a good editor who wouldn't abuse the tools. Nautica Shad e  s  13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Not likely to abuse the tools. - Lemonflash (do something)  21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I agree with Reywas92 that the oppose arguments aren't too convincing. I doubt he'll abuse the tools. hmwith  talk  20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. While there are a few concerns I do not think the rise to the level of opposition, at least not in my judgment. I think your interactions with other users are good and calm -- such is a needed quality. --JodyByak, yak, yak 21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but someone who intends to work with page protection that thinks WP:RFPP is about 'nominating' and 'voting', and that page protection disallows neutrality needs far more experience than they've got before they should be trusted with it. In addition, the fact that they cannot recognize how they intend to interpret policy in their own way after comments such as cases for deletion or non-deletion and act on those when I am convinced of the correct decision., instead of worrying about consensus. In addition, his comment about UAA reporting having anything to do with vandalism only accounts is concerning, as if it makes a name more or less appropriate. His lack of understanding of policy, combined with his lack of actually participating in many of the things he intends to help with is far too uncomfortable for me to trust with the mop. -- lucid 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ... Thanks again. Please see my Further Comments below in the Neutral zone, I genuinely hope it helps clarify the RFPP issue, I didn't want to clutter up this area as well.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum / Clarification ... I did not notice until just now your concern about "cases for deletion or non-deletion and act on those when I am convinced of the correct decision., instead of worrying about consensus". I believe you may have seriously misconstrued my remarks there.  Of course a decision at an XfD for example is to be based on the consensus of the participants in the debate.  Determining what is the consensus in closing an XfD debate is a decision that would be made by the closing admin (at least in the case of a Delete consensus).  I believe you took it to mean that I would make a decision contrary to or regardless of the consensus.  This absolutely not the case, and I am sorry that you misunderstood that.  I have participated in a significant number of AfD debates, so I believe I have at least a little understanding of the policies there.  Regarding WP:UAA, I simply meant that I have encountered a few new vandalism-only user accounts that also (but perhaps not exactly by pure coincidence) had outrageously inappropriate user names.  I am fully aware that UAA is for inappropriate user names, not for fighting vandalism.  I just find that sometimes, down in the trenches, the two go hand-in-hand.   Again I apologize for the apparent confusion surrounding some of my remarks, but I am even more sorry that I caught this one so late, perhaps too late, to head off some of the Opposes, many of which I fear may be based on a simple misunderstanding of terms.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 23:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More comment :) Lucid, concerning your worry about the candidate's "lack of actually participating in many of the things", I believe you're talking about RFPP only, as User:T-dot has got good experience making quite a number of accurate reports to AIV and UAA, as well as extensive involement in AfDs (with reasoned arguments). Well, though participation in all admin-related areas is generally encouraged, it should not be a requirement for adminship candidates. There are editors who seldom visit WP:RFPP because their watchlisted pages simply don't stay in the controversy or vandalism zone where protection is often needed. RFPP edits, or the lack thereof, do not fairly reflect a user's understanding of the protection policy. And, I might add, a candidate's knowledge of policies cannot be measured by his or her Wikipedia space edit count. Regards, PeaceNT 09:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose- per Lucid. --<font color="Green">Boricua  e <font color="Green">ddie  20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose also per Lucid. Jmlk  1  7  21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose — Don't need any more POV pushing Americans, thanks. Nor ones that consider IMDb a reliable source... Matthew 22:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty broad characterization, bordering on personal attack. And since when did being a US citizen disqualify one for adminship? What evidence for a pattern of POV-pushing is there? VanTucky  (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence that he is a POV pusher? If this is true I would like to know before I vote here.   New   England  Review Me! 00:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the archives for the latest HP movie. Matthew 22:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - per a lack of comprehension about policy and certain admin duties the candidate expressed interest in, specifically RFPP. VanTucky  (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose, also per Lucid. Candidate is on the right track, but should improve on knowledge and comprehension of policy and process. —AldeBaer 01:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per Lucid. Politics rule 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Thank you for revealing the PastorDavid incident (I can't find a promise from Coelacan to oppose you though), but that incident seems like a severe overreaction by you to a legitimate concern. It's too recent for me to ignore. The small number of edits in userspace (warnings to vandals? normal editing conflicts?) as well as in wikispace is another concern. Xiner (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, I believe you were referring to the "small number of edits in usertalk space". In the candidate's defence, I believe he is more a writer than a vandal fighter, which reasonably explains why he doesn't regularly visit the vandals' discussion pages to caution them, hence a lack of vandal warnings. ;) As for your concern about lack of "normal editing conflict", I don't think the usertalk edit count indicates a lack of interaction at all, for the candidate has more than a thousand article talk edits. It is natural for editors to prefer to conduct their discussions on article discussion pages where everyone can read them and comment on them, don't you think? After all, nearly 400 usertalk edits is not too low a number. Regards, PeaceNT 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, PeaceNT, but I was indeed referring to usertalk, due to the candidate's statement, "Another area I have been really active in is counter-vandalism." Xiner (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per issues that Lucid raised --Ben 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - as per AldeBaer. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scar <font color="black" face="tahoma">ian Talk  06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Insufficient experience in wiki-space, home to many admin-related tasks, as evidenced by grave misstatements regarding policy. Xoloz 15:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of misinterpretaion of the candidate's statement, Xoloz, if I may say say so. Regards, PeaceNT 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose - per AldeBaer. 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirohisat (talk • contribs)
 * 2) Oppose per Lucid. <font color="red" face="papyrus">NHRHS2010 Talk  21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Too keen on the disastrous WP:3RR. Fys. &#147;Ta fys [User talk:Fys|aym]]&#148;. 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose My worry is that the response to Q3 does not demonstrate sufficient appreciation of our use of non-free media. 'Free' is a fundamental pillar of the project. Commending civility, tho'. The JPS <sup style="color:purple;">talk to me  10:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I am appreciative of the length and honesty in the answers, yet also somehow a little uncomfortable with the self-focus. I'd also like to see a little less reliance on "chapter and verse" and a bit more on negotiation and judgment. Policies are interpreted rather than used as absolutes. Consensus can change, and I'd like an admin to show more willingness to adapt rather than reluctantly accept. <font face="Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="3">SilkTork  *** <font face="Roman" color="#0000FF">SilkyTalk 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Inexperienced. Kind of a one-topic applicant.  Almost went to support after reading the POV-pushing American comment above, but I got over it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * #Neutral leaning weak oppose. Changed to Oppose You seem well cut out for the job, but you seem a bit too interested in interpreting policy your own way from your answer to Q1, and you also show no edits to places where you claim to want to help out, such as WP:RFPP. This wouldn't be a big deal, but you seem to have very few Wikipedia space edits in general, and many of those seem to be to AFDs, which while you might get experience with AFD, does not give you experience with other needed policies, especially not to the point of taking it your own way. Still, like I said, you seem well cut out for the job, and I would probably support you in a couple of months if you showed more experience in things like AIV, UAA, RFPP, since you want to contribute to them, and didn't seem to be so willing to bend policy to what you think is best instead of what works 99 out of 100 times. -- lucid 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ... Thanks. I would not really consider it to be "interpreting policy", as in the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, or something on those lines.  More like explaining policy to relatively newcomers who may not be aware of what might constitute, for example, Original Research.  Of course any such explanations would include quotes from the policy page, with a reference link so interested parties could check for themselves.  I think "interpreting policy" as strictly implied, in disputes over their application, would be more in line with the duties of the Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, or the Bureaucrats.  I certainly did not presume to see myself as such.  I also really don't see myself as "bending" policy to what I think, but rather as bending myself to what the policy currently says, so I am not sure where that came from.  As for lack of WP:RFPP participation, my past involvement in this area was admittedly restricted to article talk pages in discussing the intents and purposes of page protection rather than "nominating" or "voting" on the the RFPP page.  And to be honest, as an intended-neutral non-admin, it never occured to me to go into the RFPP page to either nominate or debate the validity or necessity of page protections, since that would seem to "void" my attempt at maintaining neutrality back at the talk page on the article in question.  Besides there seemed to be enough people already begging for page protection, or complaining about it, so I left it alone as a neutral party.  In any case, I do greatly appreciate your feedback and will certainly take it to heart - I sometimes wonder what other editors really think of my work and habits, good or bad.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Further Comment ... I guess I need to clarify further my points about my lack of nominating articles for WP:RFPP due to an apparent snowballing of opposition. I believe I understand the process: when an article is actively under siege, for example from anonymous or very new registered editors engaging in edit wars or vandalism, then the article can be nominated for semi-protection, and then acted on if the conditions clearly warrant.  But sometimes there might be opposition to a protection nomination, for example if a full-protection nomination is based simply on anticipated vandalism, such as what happened to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in the weeks leading up to the release of the book.  Such a nomination can and should be opposed.  Again this actually happened a little over a month ago at the Deathly Hallows article, and we had a couple of admins in conflict over whether full- or semi-protection was appropriate.  Once the nomination was in place and acted on, I saw my role as explaining to inquiries as to when and why protection was in place, from a neutral point of view, as folks discovered they could no longer edit the article.  So while I did not participate per se on the RFPP page in the nomination or opposition process itself, I did participate in the debate and discussion on the matter of the protection, on the article talk page when the question was inevitably raised, since the nomination and protection process was already complete by the time I got involved.  In the future, I would see myself spending more time monitoring the RFPP page and looking for pages that obviously need protection, and especially semi-protection, and applying it appropriately in straightforward cases that meet the requirements per protection policy, and declining it in obviously inapproriate cases.  Meanwhile I would be observing less obvious cases, and/or seeking advice from other admins, for cases that might be especially  difficult, before making a decision.  I certainly do not see myself rashly acting outside of any policy, or again, attempting to "bend" policy to match my personal beliefs or whatever.  I believe I have tried very hard to study and understand all the applicable policies and guidelines before doing anything of the sort; and if and when I were to be unsure, I would consult with an admin much more experienced and active than myself in that area.  Again, I bend myself to fit the policy, not the other way around, and I would hope that my past edits and comments in debates and discussions would reflect that.  I believe I always rapidly, politely, and openly apologize and correct my errors if I am shown to be incorrect in my understanding of a policy or guideline.  The "voting" reference within the RFPP comments that I made above was meant to reflect that process on the article talk page when an informal WP:RfC came up to discuss the merits of protecting or unprotecting the article, or whether full- or semi-protection was more appropriate.  I hope this clarifies what I meant on the issue of my (lack of) formal RFPP-page participation, and I apologize for the resulting confusion.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral - The answers to the questions portray someone who knows what they are doing. But the Wikipedia-space edit count is quite low. Up that count, and your RfA will look more impressive. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 19:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.