Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Support: smart fella
→Support: yes, jimbo is the man behind the curtain
Line 116: Line 116:
#'''Support''' - good answers and will be an asset with the admin tools. --[[User:CapitalR|CapitalR]] ([[User talk:CapitalR|talk]]) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - good answers and will be an asset with the admin tools. --[[User:CapitalR|CapitalR]] ([[User talk:CapitalR|talk]]) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - concerns raised by opposition are not in areas that this editor intends to admin; and no, some content conflict with Jimbo over something that [[Linux_naming_controversy|is controversial]] isn't a reason to oppose in my view (is Jimbo the ultimate content decider?) The candidate is more trustworthy than [[WP:Huggle]] plug-ins that get the mop in a blink despite the lack of substantive edits. [[User:Xasodfuih|Xasodfuih]] ([[User talk:Xasodfuih|talk]]) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - concerns raised by opposition are not in areas that this editor intends to admin; and no, some content conflict with Jimbo over something that [[Linux_naming_controversy|is controversial]] isn't a reason to oppose in my view (is Jimbo the ultimate content decider?) The candidate is more trustworthy than [[WP:Huggle]] plug-ins that get the mop in a blink despite the lack of substantive edits. [[User:Xasodfuih|Xasodfuih]] ([[User talk:Xasodfuih|talk]]) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
#:Is Jimbo the ultimate content decider? The answer is yes. Fortunately, unlike many people I've worked for, he takes a Socratic/Rand philosophy to running the show. We have the power, except when we don't, and that's fine by us. [[User:Keegan|<font color="maroon">Keegan</font>]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Keegan|<font color="gray">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - per MSGJ. [[user:Ascidian | <font color="blue" face="arial narrow">ascidian</font>]] |[[user talk:Ascidian | <font color="green" face="arial narrow">talk-to-me</font>]] 05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - per MSGJ. [[user:Ascidian | <font color="blue" face="arial narrow">ascidian</font>]] |[[user talk:Ascidian | <font color="green" face="arial narrow">talk-to-me</font>]] 05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
#<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">[[User:Coldmachine|Coldmachine]]</font><sup><small>[[User talk:Coldmachine|Talk]]</small></sup> 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
#<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">[[User:Coldmachine|Coldmachine]]</font><sup><small>[[User talk:Coldmachine|Talk]]</small></sup> 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:57, 13 March 2009

Thumperward

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (46/11/4); Scheduled to end 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thumperward (talk · contribs) – Chris Cunningham, or Thumperward, has been with us for more than three years. This level of experience serves Wikipedia well; his comments on talk pages in the areas I in which encounter him are always well reasoned and based in policy, and this is reflected in his editing. He is particularly active in areas relating to templates, meaning he regularly needs to make requests for admin assistance like this one. Such requests involve making changes that an awful lot of admins don't have the template knowledge and/or confidence to fulfill. Chris has a thorough knowledge of this area, and has shown that he is trustworthy enough to use it. He already tackles backlogs that don't require tools; he recently cleared a year-old maintenance backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. He is also active at AfD, where his contributions are always reasoned.

Chris has had one previous failed request for adminship, from late 2007. Much of the opposition there related to a 3RR block earlier that year. His actions since have shown that he has learned from experience, and that he is now a capable candidate. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Accepted. 18:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I do a lot of work on template cleanup and construction; right now I tend to contribute to the editprotected backlog and I'd rather be clearing it. The same goes for vandalism patrol and fixing botched page moves.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I don't keep a tally of the articles I've helped get to GA / FA, but I remember editing the guinea pig article back in the day because I had a friend who liked guinea pigs and it ended up FA, which was nice. I've done a lot of work on template unification which has seen the project's infobox and navbox templates become more consistent and professional looking, and I pride myself on never turning down a request for help if I can.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've voluntarily restricted myself to one revert with a forced discussion on any occasion where I disagree with an edit, and will continue to do so. If a dispute can't be resolved on the talk page readily enough, there are a variety of escalation paths; third opinions, RfCs, bringing the issue to the attention of related WikiProjects and pinging editors who I feel are good at dispute resolution. I'm fortunate enough that my watchlist is big enough that I can easily walk away from anything which is causing me stress, and come back to it later. I also try to find some form of common ground with editors who disagree with me in whatever way - such as by pinging them if I find an article which I might not be equipped to improve myself.

Additional question from Keepscases

4. Some older versions of your user page state that you edit Wikipedia while drunk. Do you think this is acceptable behavior for a user? For an administrator?
A: I would prefer for my suitability for the mop to be judged by my on-wiki actions, and this is the standard I would apply to others. For what it's worth, I'd like to think that this was a bit of a coming-of-age edit for me.

Question from seresin

5. Do you intend to close AfDs about fictional subjects that are not obvious one way or the other?
A. No.
Folllowup question from User:DGG
Q Do you intend to close AfDs at all which are not obvious one way or another??
A No. (I like simple answers.)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

6a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: I'd give it a workday (eight hours) to see if any more work was done. If not, then little is being lost by deleting it. If more work is done but still not enough to break out of A7 territory then I'd delete after another 48 hours.
6b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?
A: Depends. A link to a website can give some idea of whether the org is notable or not, and at least it means the article's got a primary source. On the other hand, it could just be there to soak up Google juice. I think the periods given in 6a are okay though.
6c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?
A: 3RR is irrespective of who performs the reverts; that said, in the example above, the editor adding material is only performing two reverts, while the one removing is performing exactly three. The letter of 3RR is that more than three reverts is prhibited. I would still consider temporary full protection to encourage discussion at this point.
6d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?
A: No. All debate on WP should revolve around strength of argument. The only difference with article content is that it doesn't have to follow the straw poll format used for AfDs, which makes it less likely that people will resort to counting heads to come to a conclusion.

Questions from User:MichaelQSchmidt

7a. What editors have you been most in conflict with, and what resolution did you offer or have you undertaken to reduce conflict?
A: I don't keep lists of past conflicts, and would prefer to think of conflicts in terms of subjects rather than editors. For resolution steps, see my answer to #3.
7b. Do you see a potential adminship affecting any perceived bias in articles and conflicts?
A: No. I don't intend to use the tools where there would be perceived impropriety. Plenty of admins are capable of wearing their editor hats in such situations; I think I can do the same.
7c. What would you as an administrator to do to lessen wikidrama?
A: I've often requested full protection for pages with ongoing edit wars in the past in an attempt to encourage dialogue. RFPP always seems to have a backlog, so that seems like an easy choice to work on.
7d. Would you declare a willingness to be recalled?
A: I don't generally agree with processes which call for weight of numbers over quality of argument. I'd rather think that if it got to the point where sufficient numbers of editors in good standing were calling for me to be desysopped that the existing formal procedures would be sufficient.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Essentially a specialist. Long time contributor with extensive experience. Has my support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm going to support here. With respects to A Nobody's research into AfDs, I have two points. Firstly, expressing opinion in any debate on this website is just that, opinion. Caveats being Jimbo, Cary, and our dear attorney. They can lay down law. As with a certain RfA that was very recent it is my belief that participation in AfDs is a positive thing, even if the participants hold different views. Sometimes participants are flat out wrong, but most of the time they simply have a different interpretation of policy and guidelines (which yes, are open to interpretation). I may have the opinion to delete something, and express it. It does not mean that as an administrator I will ignore the thoughts of others and do as I please. We've had admins like that before, and they don't last long. I trust the candidate to put personal opinion aside and read the ideas of others and in that process, judge consensus. The second point (and this is not directed at A Nobody, but the participants of RfA in general) is that I have seen a disturbing trend of cherry picking points of contention along the lines of "That's not what I would have done." This is a collaborative process, and opposition based on disagreement is not progress but is, in fact, standing still. Further discussion of this idea can be taken to the RfA talk page but I have little interest in debating this- it's just my own little opinion. Steps off soapbox Keegantalk 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support for now, considering user hasn't stated they wish to work in the deletion area. If they did, I'd have to take A Nobody's oppose into more consideration. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Am-somewhat-shocked-that-he-wasn't-already-support //roux   20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Huh? -- not already an admin.? --EEMIV (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. A level-headed editor who has been rational and respectful every time I've seen him. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Roux. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Clueful editor, good contribs and experience. — neuro(talk) 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - good contribs, good grasp of policy, no problems here. Black Kite 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Full throated support Without quibble, qualm or qualification. Please be patient for a detailed reasoning regarding the strength of this support, as I'll be busy for a few days. If a further explanation is needed, I'll gladly give one. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Well-qualified. -download | sign! 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as a user whose edits and comments I've seen around WP have been thoughtful and cogent. Deor (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Majorly talk 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I see no reason at all that Thumperward should not be given the mop. Good luck. America69 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I've seen him around and he's a solid strong editor with a good sense of our core goals. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I've watched him for a while: sometimes he does execute a bit too briskly for other editors, but his heart is in the right place. Go for it. - Pointillist (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Fastily (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Good editor, clear and cogent in discussion. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Although I'd note that it would be best to avoid doing anything that would cause Jimbo to ask you to stop. hmwithτ 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Per I've seen him around and he seems to have a good head screwed on his shoulders. MBisanz talk 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. The oppose votes do raise some troubling points, but after more than 40k good edits I think his devotion to the project is not open to question. That said, he may have made some questionable decisions in the past, but his heart is in the right place, and he seemed to have learned from his mistakes (which is really the key). I think he can be trusted, and will avoid drama in the future. Plus, his skills with templates will be very useful for all. Cool3 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Looks good. RayTalk 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support — Jake Wartenberg 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. For every reason above. Spinach Dip 06:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support — Great editor; has clue and skills. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Solid work overall, just mind the appearance of a bad attitude in AfD and you'll be fine. Good luck mate. Nja247 09:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I've only seen good stuff coming from this editor so far, and I am not concerned over the oppose voters' input or by any occasional good-faith screw ups. – sgeureka t•c 12:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, no good reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Secret account 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Flowerparty☀ 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good answers to the questions, seems a very level-headed editor. --GedUK  15:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - I do not have concerns that Thumperward would abuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I have mostly encountered Chris in the template namespace, where he generally makes sensible and well thought-out edits. His skills with templates will be of benefit to the project, so I support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. EdBever (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per Cool3. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support Wizardman 20:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - good answers and will be an asset with the admin tools. --CapitalR (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - concerns raised by opposition are not in areas that this editor intends to admin; and no, some content conflict with Jimbo over something that is controversial isn't a reason to oppose in my view (is Jimbo the ultimate content decider?) The candidate is more trustworthy than WP:Huggle plug-ins that get the mop in a blink despite the lack of substantive edits. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Jimbo the ultimate content decider? The answer is yes. Fortunately, unlike many people I've worked for, he takes a Socratic/Rand philosophy to running the show. We have the power, except when we don't, and that's fine by us. Keegantalk 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - per MSGJ. ascidian | talk-to-me 05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. ColdmachineTalk 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Fine by me, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: I haven't given his contribs a thorough look through before posting this, but I have had dealings with Thumperward in the past. Although we sometimes disagreed over certain issues, it never became a heated debate between us and he had some excellent points, often making me rethink or change my position. I've seen him do quite a lot of work with templates, which has made me think "Why isn't he an admin?"... template coders are always needed. Regarding the Linux thing, I don't think it really matters... if it was a dispute with just another editor, or even a group of other editors, it would probably go virtually unnoticed in this RFA. Just because there's a content dispute between him and another user (even if it's Wikipedia's co-founder) isn't a reason to oppose a nomination. (this is my first comment in an RFA; please let me know if I made any mistake) –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (and regarding the Gavin.collins RFC in which both myself and Thumperward were involved, I don't agree with his positions there, but he has every right to have them. As long as he follows a consensus and doesn't use admin tools to aid his position in such conflicts it doesn't really matter to me). –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support -- although there is some heat on Thumperward, he seems that he knows how to handle himself on Wikipedia. A couple of mistakes shouldn't affect his admin skills, we aren't all perfect.--₮RUCӨ 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. (very cautious) Support we need admins and we need clear thinkers. Obviously as an inclusionist myself I am (and was) unhappy with alot of the views Chris holds, but if he is prepared to step up to the plate then I am happy to give him a go for other evidence provided above (I hope I won't regret this) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I rarely vote in AfDs, because I don't have the time to give the look-over that I think candidates deserve. However, I have come across Chris numerous times and in my encounters with him I have always found him to be level-headed and well-informed. I both understand and respect the concerns of the inclusionists below; all I can say to them is that we obviously can't have an admin corps composed entirely of inclusionists, and I'd rather have an intelligent and rational deletionist than someone who is "balanced" but doesn't have a clue. I've seen a few (very few, thank God) instances of admins who didn't understand the arguments on either side of a debate and yet they stepped in, making a worse mess than if no admin had appeared on the scene. I think those with inclusionist concerns will be able to talk to Chris, and, if that doesn't work out, there's always DRV. Unschool 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Thumperward at times can be a civil and constructive editor as when he has suggested some pages I help edit on and as such I am pleased at times to interact with him as an editor. And for the record, I like the pirate image on the userpage! My concerns with regards to adminship is how tools might be used based on past interactions. For example, he was pretty persistent about trying to get aspects of my old userspace undeleted that caused near wheel warring among admins over the issue. And with regards to AfDs, I am concerned with such instances as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhuman, i.e. not thinking outside of the box. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Corvinus, digging in to delete when a merge as happened was reasonable as a compromise was disappointing. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator Timeline, we have use of the non-word "cruft." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Ravens, why not per WP:BEFORE attempt a merge or redirect? With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media, not suitably acknowledging efforts to improve during discussion. With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters by IQ, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit of Caerbannog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lathander we have a misread of the sources that was obviously inconsistent with consensus. With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horus Heresy, not objecting to future reuse seems more a call for a redirect with edit history intact to avoid having to request recreation. Just as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits, why not redirect as happened? With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Corvin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (web series), it was just disappointing that when pretty much everyone else is persuaded by the sources that resulted in a keep, to still argue against them. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Coltons, even TTN didn't seem opposed to a merge and redirect. Finally in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormie/DRV notes, he adamantly defended something that was speedily deleted. So, my concern with regards to AfDs are as follows: 1) overly biased tendency toward deletion of fictional subjects, even when they are improved and sources presented during the discussions; and 2) reluctance to change stance during discussions. It is important for admins to identify trends in an AfD and how the discussion develops when new material is presented and as such based on past experiences, I am concerned that even if an article is in fact rescued that might not be adequately taken into consideration. So, I am happy to work with Thumperward to improve articles and of the various editors with whom I have disagreed in my time here, I give him a lot of credit for making good faith gestures to suggest articles to work on or to make the talk page archive thing in my talk page when I changed names, but there have been just a few things regarding deletion that make me apprehensive as to what he might try to undelete and how he might close discussions. So, I am somewhat torn, because I believe he is an editor I can work with, but maybe if he pledged to not close fiction AfDs for which he might be biased (I think every fiction AfD I have participated in with him he said to delete, which is over 30 by my count, and not all of those closed as delete after all), maybe it would be reassuring. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I am currently discussing my concerns with the candidate at User_talk:Thumperward#Admin_nom and as such my stance could change accordingly. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pumpkin King??? Are you still at up to your repetitive inclusionist shenaningans, but under a different user name? I thought you'd quit. Anyway, nice to see you again.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I am concerned with statements around the edit protection template pages. I am unable to trust this editor to do such without a chance of CoI or other problems. The concerns by A Nobody only verify a lack of trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ... statements around the edit protection template pages. Would you care to clarify what you mean by this? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - because the candidate with a "hot head" could be a "drama admin".--Caspian blue 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And this warning to you (Please stop your campaign against GNU/Linux) by Jimbo Wales is troubling me--Caspian blue
    Some diffs/evidence to back up your claim that he's a "hot head" would be appreciated. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a throwaway line from my first RfA. My attitude towards editing has changed considerably since then, especially concerning dispute resolution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose -- Too many bad memories of this user in AfD. They were a while ago and with a stated willingness to not use the bit on debatable fiction articles I really should be okay with this, but an still concerned. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sjakkalle's link to an RfC further reinforce my sense that this editor wouldn't be a good admin candidate. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Very high level of snark in the GNU/Linux edits and an ongoing conflict with Jimbo are not what we need in an admin. AKAF (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose Per questionable oppose at Eco's 3rd RFA here. He opposed for an AFD close because he disagreed with Eco's applying of WP:SK even although Eco never invoked WP:SK in his close. His argument basically was that AFD's cannot be SNOW- or speedy-kept if the outcome is anything other than "keep" which shows a basic misunderstanding of what AFD is and is not. AFD is not a place for improvement discussions and an AFD which may end in "merge", "redirect" or "keep" but where there is no chance at all that it will end in "delete" can be SNOW- or speedy-kept perfectly fine because content discussion is to be held on talk pages, not on AFD. And, call it a stupid reason, but I have a bad feeling about this user's capability to be an admin and while I do hope I'm wrong, little bits of editing by this user leave me unable to ignore this. SoWhy 07:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "bad feeling" is fine; a little detail would be nice on what's causing your bad feeling, but I trust your judgment. However, my feeling is that Chris's oppose of Eco was right on the money, for this and other reasons. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per other oppose comments above. I'm worried based on the comments I'm reading that this editor means well but may not yet have the judgement necessary to be an admin that calmly handles disputes and makes judicious deletion decisions. Give it 6 months and I may support another RfA. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose from reading the Q&A's I dont think user is quite ready GLFan151 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose can't see myself supporting this adminship, given the user's deletionist nature. Deletion is a necessary process in some cases, yes, but Thumperward has always been aggressively deletionist. He has gone so far as to prevent integration of deleted articles into other articles. Tealwisp (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't noticed that: can you cite an example? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking through histories at the moment. He was involved in the large scale purge of fiction articles last year, and since then, we haven't been editing in the same spaces very much. Also, I dislike the way he uses the word "cruft" pejoratively, but I suppose that's my opinion. Tealwisp (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    here it is. He was removing a number of recent edits that introduced text from the Technology article of the Tau as well as a few other articles, some of which were reintroduced, not including the weapons article. I take particular offense at this because notability does not delimit content, even if it should have been reduced under WP:UNDUE, though I expect that Thumperward has learned better since then, as I have. If he has not, then that seems to be an important hole in his knowledge of policy, given that he has been involved in such purges. Tealwisp (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing vast swathes of largely unsourced trivia? Looks like a reason to support rather than oppose to me. Black Kite 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand, my objection is that he doesn't believe in leaving anything. He even removed material that belonged in the article, and was moved there by the AfD. Besides, some parts of that should have been left in, without cluttering the article, under WP:IAR, a policy that I don't think Thumperward will follow. Tealwisp (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but are you talking about this AfD? The result there was delete, not merge. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not speaking of the AfD. That was the article that was merged, and I don't deny the reduction of that merge. However, some of what was there should have been left, and given your involvement in the 40k project, I'm sure you know that the tau weapons are notable in their context, unless you were there only to delete articles. Besides, your edit summary wasn't offensive, but the way you used cruft probably bit DataSnake. Tealwisp (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional to my oppose Given the answers to User's questions, it seems Thumperward mostly wants to fight vandalism. He doesn't need Sysop rights for that. If he is wanted for editing protected pages, I vote that we give him editing rights, as I would certainly trust him to avoid vandalism. Tealwisp (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Jimbo's comment simply "wow"ed me. And it sure looks like you're pushing your personal POV, which violated NPOV (plus this happened less than a month ago) OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. POV-pushing to the level that elicits a warning from Jimbo Wales is not something I'd want to see on the resume of an administrator. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Answers to questions lead me to believe that this candidate who is interested in vandalism patrol doesn't quite understand the policies underlying speedy deletion or 3RR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest, where did I go wrong on this one? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral at this time as I am wondering if he is really ready for the mop. I have met with him accross many AfD's and his interpretation of guideline is occasionally a bit too selective to best benefit the project. I congratulate him for being around for 3 years, and admire much of what he has done, but my worry in studying past edits, and myself taking a look at those provided by A Nobody (above), is that intermixed with the good are enough opinions that seem to be a bit narow of vision... which would then make me worry that his being givin the mop might be an invitation to future wikidrama based upon past actions. No, I do not have acrystal ball, and so can only extrapolate the future based upon the past. Its enough of a worry for me to withhold support at this time.I will check back when the questions are answered and further consider. I will not immediately jump to a "support" or an "oppose" without first hearing what the candidate has to say... as I have concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the discussions and comments and from these have formulated a few questions for the candidate, now posted above. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. A productive editor, who I don't think will abuse the tools. However, his posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2, where he sees Gavin's contributions to the D&D project (which consisted of tagging hundreds of articles, followed by edit warring to keep them in, all while doing little to nothing in the department of actually looking for sources or improving the articles) as perfectly OK behavior which improved the project really concerns me. Calling those who protested against that behavior for "scapegoating" doesn't fly either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral It seems like he would do a reasonable job as an admin, but it is very important to understand the difference in terms of responsibility. An admin has to be impartial, in action and in perception of their actions. You can not get involved in a debate and then drop the admin hammer on it later. If you recognize your own bias on an issue, you should stay as far away from it in an official capacity as is possible. If you can not recognize your own bias, you are not fit for the job. If you can not set arrogance aside, you can not honor that responsibility. Most of the issues I had with this user's style of editing have been resolved on their own, as other sites stepped in to fill a hole being created in Wikipedia's coverage of fictional material, and in most cases outside sites have done a better job. This user has done a good job of enforcing Wikipedia's rules as he interprets them, but the rules themselves have always been poorly-suited to categorizing fictional elements in popular culture. If Thumperward's intent as an admin really is just to focus on high-level cleanup, more power to him. Wikipedia is fortunate that there are people willing to shoulder that type of work as volunteers. If it is to focus on inclusion/deletion debates, there are other people better suited to the job. Unless his attitude regarding that subject has changed fundamentally since December, he brings too much drama into it. Khanaris (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (switch to oppose) Neutral I remember some bad actions by this user but I cannot seem to recall what they were. Oppose !votes raise good questions whether this user can be trusted to be coolheaded when faced with criticism and if more evidence like that is brought forward, I may consider opposing. SoWhy 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. neutral His rather cryptic answers --to other questions than mine -- do not give me the necessary feeling of confidence. But there's nothing actually wrong with them. DGG (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thumperward_2&oldid=276912014"