Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2

The Thing That Should Not Be

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (32/5/6); Scheduled to end 22:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

The Thing That Should Not Be (talk · contribs) – I am nominating The Thing That Should Not Be for adminship. The Thing is a clueful and dilligent editor. He has been editing since August 2007, and he has since amassed over 165,000 edits and a clean block log. The Thing is one of Wikipedia's most well-known vandal-fighters; he has over 3500 edits to WP:AIV, which is the second largest of any editor [1]. He is probably the largest user of Huggle. Vandal-fighting isn't the only thing he does. He also reports username violations to WP:UAA, and he is also found tagging articles for speedy deletion. With these things, The Thing would make a great addition to the admin corps, and I'm sure he'll use the mop well. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination

The Thing That Should Not Be is one of the most patient and stable editors we have, having edited continuously and frequently since August 2008. The majority of these edits are made through Huggle. Having used Huggle myself occasionally, I can tell it is quite tedious, and I admire the patience it takes to come back to it so often, and the willingness to continue to give us his free time when so many of our best editors are running out of patience and leaving the project.

Having looked through TTTSNB’s previous RfA’s, I notice he has been opposed in the past for several reasons. One argument that was raised was that Flagged Revisions and the Abuse Filter extension would reduce the need for anti-vandalism measures and essentially make Huggle obsolete. We have those things now and I think we can all agree that the need for anti-vandalism patrol is as great as ever. He has also been opposed for lack of content contributions, and while that is a good argument against a candidate seeking to focus on difficult content disputes and areas such as AfD, I don’t believe it is a good reason to oppose someone specifically seeking to work in AIV, UAA, and CSD, all of which are areas that need all the help they can get.

Based on his patience and willingness to get things right no matter how much effort it takes, I believe TTTSNB will be an excellent administrator. —Soap— 17:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I intend, for the most part, to generally focus my work in these three areas:

Speedy deletion: I've been CSD'ing articles for quite some time, tagging over 200 pages since June, 96% of which are deleted. I've found the average amount of time it takes for them to be deleted is 1 hour and 23 minutes, last I checked around 2 months ago. To me, that's far from "Speedy". Usually I specialize in articles where notability is not asserted, vandalism, attack pages, and blatant advertising.

Dealing with inappropriate usernames: I have reported hundreds of usernames to UAA. Pretty much all of my reports have been accurate, with a mistake occurring only only once in a while, which I usually rectify immediately. In there, I specialize in attack usernames and blatantly disruptive usernames.

Anti-vandalism: I am still largely a vandal-fighter, with over 2 years of experience in this area. I have also requested semi-protection of pages receiving heavy vandalism, and have made thousands of reports to AIV, pretty much all of which were correct, as far as I know.

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

A: I have contributed my vandal-fighting efforts to Wikipedia for over 2 years. I have used various tools, like Twinkle and Igloo, but mostly I use Huggle to do this. I have made over 3,500 edits to AIV. Reporting them to AIV and waiting for them to be blocked while they do more damage, when I could just block them if I had the tools, is not exactly efficient. I have also reported nearly 400 usernames to UAA, nearly all of which were blocked. I have also tagged over 200 pages for speedy deletion since June of this year, with plenty more before that as well. Of those 200 pages, 96% of those were deleted.

Of course, those are all just statistics, which don't do much good at telling people anything about my experience. I feel these are my best contributions, because I believe I have gained significant experience in not just those areas, but in discussing disputes with other users, and explaining policies to newer users, or those who have trouble following them. I believe I have gained experience in when to block people, whether to block them after 4 warnings, as in the occasional persistent vandal, or to block immediately, as in 4chan raids or Grawp vandals.

I also used to be an accountcreator a while back, and was on the ACC team. While I have since ceased activity in that area, I had created over 100 accounts upon request while I was with the ACC team. I also have some experience with AFD's, though it's mostly stuff that could be described as "clerking".

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: To say that I haven't had any conflicts would be lying... who hasn't gotten into a conflict at one time or another? More often than not, I'm confronted with an IP asking why I reverted their edit. When this happens, I explain why their edits were reverted, and attempt to explain the relevant policies and guidelines to them.

Additional optional question from Collect

4. What is your general philosophy about AfD closings? Are they too often ruled "keep" when the arguments for keeping are too weak? Too often closed as "delete" when the arguments for deletion are not compelling? Too often closed as "no consensus" when the admin doing the closing should actually make a decision? Are your criteria significantly different for MFD closings?

Additional optional question from The Utahraptor

5. Since you intend to use the tools to block vandals, how many warnings do you think are necessary before a block is implemented?

A: That depends on the type of vandal/vandalism. If it's the everyday common vandal, 4 warnings should be used. Severe vandalism on the other hand requires a more stern approach. 4im's, for example, are used for severe vandalism, blatant vandalism, gross violations of the BLP policy, gross personal attacks. Other types include prolific sockers... those are often blocked without warning. 4chan vandals are the same way... they know what they're doing, and they're doing it en-masse. They don't respond to warnings of any kind, and should be blocked on sight.

Additional optional question from Kingpin13

6. Most of the areas you mention involve very little discussion or real collaboration with other editors, let alone and serious consensus building. CSD in particular, which is specifically designed to remove discussion. Have you ever worked at consensus building on-wiki, if so where and how? Also I'd be interested to hear your general thoughts on consensus - what is it? What does it mean to you?

A: I'm not entirely confident that this is exactly what you're looking for, but a couple months back, I was involved in the proposal to make a "vandal-fighter" userright, an effort to give limited blocking abilities to experienced vandal-fighters such as myself. I attempted to help craft the proposal, but eventually it fell through as, even though me and a couple other users tried to keep everything simple and concise, it ended up leaning towards a sort of full-blown mini-admin right, which nobody wanted, even myself, and it fell through. My thoughts on consensus is this: We have a problem, or a proposal. We work out certain things, add something to it, remove another, until the proposal is roughly made up. But even when that is done, not everybody is pleased with how everything turns out, disagreeing with certain parts of the proposal, agreeing with others... we keep working on it, and working on it, and working on it, asking questions, making suggestions, until we come up with a compromise that we can all (or most of us) live with. Sometimes it's possible to do this, sometimes it isn't.

Additional optional questions from Zalgo

7. Do you ever plan to work on article buliding instead of just vandalizing fighting all the time?

A: Someday, perhaps, when I can find the time, and something that I'm interested in that hasn't already been written about, I probably will do that. Until then though, I plan on continuing what I've been doing.

8. Do you ever plan to use the help of a bot?

A: No, I'm not planning on running any bots.

9. Let's be in this situation as many admins have been in before... You come across a very profilic vandal, a longtime reconized one, he keeps vandalizing, changing IP's, sending checkusers haywire on false tracks... What would you do? Also, how would you handle editors with pedophiliac tendencies?

A. I would do whatever is necessary to limit and mitigate the disruption caused by the person, such as blocking all of the IP's they use on sight as soon as it is established that he's using multiple IP's in a clear pattern of disruption. As for editors with pedophiliac tendencies, I'm not entirely sure on that matter. I would probably relay my concerns to Arbcom.

Additional question from Wayne Olajuwon

10. Do you plan to continue to use Huggle as an administrator?

A: Yes, I do plan to use Huggle as an administator, though if I pass, I will keep the admin functions turned off until I get the hang of things.

Additional optional question from Scientizzle

11. I, personally, won't worry too much about your sparse content creation as long as I can be sure you've got your head around what makes good content. With that in mind, here's an opportunity to show your thought processes. One of your article creations, 2010 United States tomato shortage, was proposed for deletion today. The nominator didn't provide a rationale (or notify the article creator)...First: Devil's Advocate. What rationale(s), if any, would you consider a valid argument for deletion if you were the one nominating the article for deletion (via prod or AfD)? Flip side: if you wanted to argue against the deletion, to keep the article, what claims would you make and how would you back them up?

A: You've given me quite a conundrum in this question. I must admit, I've considered that one of my weakest articles, and am not surprised to see it go. If it didn't have as much coverage as it does, which I believe isn't much anyways, I would consider asking it be deleted as not meeting the criteria for notability for events. The flip-side? I may just argue just the opposite, that the effects of the event were far-reaching, and received coverage from reliable sources like CNN.

Questions from Strange Passerby

12. How do you view WP:IAR? Is it one of Wikipedia's more useful or more divisive policies? In what situations as an admin would you feel justified in applying it?

A:

13. In the style of an RFA oppose, please sum up why you think you shouldn't get the admin tools. Please follow that up with a good rebuttal showing how you'd respond to your self-oppose.

A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps
• Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 2
• Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 3
• Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be
• Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2

• Links for The Thing That Should Not Be: The Thing That Should Not Be (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for The Thing That Should Not Be can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• I would like to point out that even if I use a tool to revert vandalism, I don't think it should detract on my judgment. Huggle is not some bot which runs on one's account. In fact I would hardly call it automated at all. All it is, is another interface by which I can revert vandalism and warn the user. When using Huggle, I still have to look at the diff. I still have to decide whether or not to revert and warn the user. I still have to decide whether or not to report the user to AIV. I have to approve every edit that I make in Huggle. I have to look at the level of warning the user has, if they've been reported to AIV or not, etc. It is not a tool which you go about blindly reverting vandalism. It requires the same judgment as reverting and warning the user manually. I do make an occasional mistake, but I revert myself immediately and remove the warning. All it does is make things easier, and quicker, which gets more work done, and gets vandalism off of the pages faster than if I were to do things manually. The faster vandalism gets taken off of the pages, the better, so I use the fastest method that I know of. The exact same things apply to using Twinkle. Please consider this when you consider my request to become an administrator. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Edit stats posted on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To the people opposing due to these so-called temperament problems: Everything that has been described here has occurred off of Wikipedia. Is there any evidence of these problems onwiki? Any evidence onwiki that I would abuse the tools in a conflict? The set of tools isn't akin to a baseball bat that you use to take out someone who disagrees with you. The tools are use strictly to maintain and protect the encyclopedia... I intend to use them for absolutely nothing outside of that scope. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support as nom. ~NerdyScienceDude 22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
3. (edit conflict)Super support Airplaneman ✈ 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - Excellent vandal-fighter, content creation is not that important for vandal-fighters. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Strong support: Fought a lot of vandalism with Huggle. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Weak support. Your content editing isn't up to the standards it should be, but based on your answers to the questions in this RfA, I'm going to support. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 22:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
7. Support as nominator. —Soap— 23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Support per Eagles, mainly. Not every admin has to be a top-notch content contributor (and incidentally I doubt I'm the only admin who has written much more audited content since being given the mop than I had before I got it). I can see the point of view that says that admins need to have content experience before getting involved with the tools in sorting out content-based disruption, but I don't get the impression that TTTSNB is going to wade into that territory like a bull in a china shop anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 23:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Support, The Thing's help is sorely needed. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Support: User is a very active vandal fighter. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
11. CAT:CSD and AIV get more and more backlogged lately. Promoting this candidate will obviously help the project in that respect. The opposes don't explain how their reasons for opposing relate to the candidate's competence as an admin, except for a vague reference to dealing with edit-warring.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Support. Earlier in my Wiki-career, my opinion was to support good vandal fighters at RfA simply on the grounds that they can make good contributions as administrators, even without content experience. Now—and I say this for the benefit of those who will oppose for lack of content work—I actually have come to think that there is, indeed, the need for candidates to demonstrate that they can deal with arguments in a thoughtful, civil, and articulate way, not simply to be grumpy mouse-clickers. But that doesn't mean that a candidate who hasn't plumbed the depths of the FA process will be unable to be a good administrator. It depends on the candidate, whether or not they communicate intelligently when the IPs complain about being reverted and templated. I need to see that the candidate can be depended upon to reply politely, patiently, and based on policy. So I looked through the candidate's talk page and talk archives. And I support enthusiastically. And opposers who conclude from the lack of content work that this person lacks the temperament to be an administrator haven't done their homework. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Even if he doesn't create content, his contributions here are very helpful. If he created a ton of content and had no experience in administrative issues, I would be more inclined to oppose, because we want our best content contributors to keep creating content, not deal with vandalism and the behind-the-scenes tasks. Netalarm^talk 23:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
15. Support- does a lot of work in admin-related areas and does a good job. Giving him the tools would be a net positive. Reyk _YO! 23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
16. Strong support: Regardless of how you put it, TTTSNB would make great use of the admin tools, specially by blocking users. I would've liked to be the one that nominated him, though. ;) — Waterfox  23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
17. Go, baby, go! He is THE anti-vandal... Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Strong support - Quite a few vandlism fighters passed in the past few, I see no reason why The Thing should not join them. Derild4921☼ 23:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
19. Fo' sho. I thought you weren't going to attempt RfA again. Best of luck, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
21. It seems like the immaturity comments come from IRC, that's not a reason to oppose someone, supporting to cancel out these votes. Secret ^account 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

    I shall copy and paste something that I have brought up in the oppose section "When one applies for a job, the employer certainly asks for information about past professional experience- which is directly related to the job that is being applied for, as it involves past experience in said field of work. Employers generally also require personal history- which is separate from the specific position, as it involves one's personality and general maturity as demonstrated outside said field of work. Apply this here." Therefore, incidents on IRC that were related to onwiki involvement are certainly relevant. Also, I see that you don't have a reason for supporting, other than canceling out oppose votes. Do you have a reason for supporting? We have a neutral section for a reason. Besides, if you're under the impression that some of the oppose votes have no backing, I think it's quite irrational (also a bit hypocritical) to post a support vote without backing.  IShadowed  ✰  00:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    I'm supporting mainly because to cancel out IRC votes, that's a reason to support. We all act immature at times at IRC, I was a regular there for years, it's a break from the real life wiki stress, as long as the immaturity is not on wiki, that's fine with me. Secret ^account 01:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    I understand that you're supporting to cancel out the well-explained oppose votes, however, do you actually have a relevant reason for supporting? Also, yes, we all act immature on IRC sometimes. However, it's really not wise to act immature on IRC and then run for something that requires maturity onwiki. For example, if something is said in a courtroom, and the judge tells the jury to disregard it, you know they're not just going to forget about it. The same with the job interview example; suppose said applicant had a misdemeanor offense. That's something that happened outside of the workplace. It's not an incredibly serious offense, but there are tons of applicants applying for the same job that do not have a criminal record.  IShadowed  ✰  01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Ok good vandal fighter, there. I seen plenty of adminstrators and even crats and former ArbCom members act immature in IRC, so what go ahead and desysop them. It doesn't make a difference. Hell I seen adminstrators who all they do is act immature in IRC passed because of the IRC vote. Secret ^account 01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    IShadowed, you talk about me being immature off-wiki. Opposing me for something that occurs off-wiki, that has nothing to do with the admin tools. But let me ask you, how mature is something like this?. Hmm... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

22. I am opening an art museum and need a curator and some guards. Applicants should have painted at least three museum quality masterpieces so that they have a thorough understanding of what went into the items they will be working with. That or they could know how to the job the are actually applying for. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
23. Support, user knows his anti-vandalism stuff, and as apparent from the answer to Q11, his deletion stuff too. Who says candidates must have a GA, FA, etc.? All good faith contributions, be they vandal fighting, gnoming, locating sources, or writing FAs, are valid and valuable—they help make the encyclopedia better. To "prioritize" one type of contribution over another is contrary to the spirit of a project with many volunteers, all of whom may contribute more strongly in some areas than others. I see no reason to believe the candidate will act abusively or poorly with the tools. (And per Beeblebrox, who I just EC'd with and who says it exceedingly well.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
24. SupportGood user, great antivandalism, but honestly I DGAF about content creation. Mop and bucket != pen and paper, as Thing stated on Bsadowski1's RfA. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
25. Seems like a great candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
27. Support. Excellent vandal fighter. Has experience in the places they want to work at which is always a plus. In general, a net positive. Also, the opposes are really unconvincing. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
28. Offered to nom nultiple times, but never did :P NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
29. Support (edit conflict) Have seen editor around on RC and I trust their judgement. Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Great user. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Good vandal fighter, seems well rounded enough to become an admin. Btw: I agree with TTTSNB on his stance about Huggle/Twinkle being not so automated as people make them out to be. Jarkeld (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
32. Support You Go TTSNB! - Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose I really hate to do this, as you seem to be an excelant vandal fighter. However, I cannot support an editor with this few content edits. I cannot trust you without some content work, as it helps with issues like edit wars etc. I don't subscribe to the 10 FA standard, but I need a little more than this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   While I respect Soap's judgement, I in the side that you need to have at least some article work before trying an RFA, unless there are special circumstances. The question to number 4 in his last RFA makes me Oppose. Sorry Secret ^account 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Could you explain why an answer to a question in a past RfA that took place 9 months ago makes you oppose? ~NerdyScienceDude 23:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Because it sums up his feelings about article work, and I don't see any article work since the RFA, so I'll assume he still has that feeling. The comment that all the article work that needs to be done is already finished doesn't help the situation. I may change to support later, to cancel out those immaturity votes without evidence. Secret ^account 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2. 99% Strong Oppose combined with a 1% very weak support. Candidate was only exclusively partcipating in vandal fighting, not constructive article building. I see that he started to nominate articles to delete... I mean, he doesn't have any GA, FA... The only I feel that this is not the time yet as i feel he's quite immature at some times. Altough he earns this right to be a admin due to the past oversight drama... Blame it on User:Drini for this shit. I'm just expressing my opinion on this. I'm sorry man, but i'm going to decline my support. Good luck next time! Zalgo (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   I opposed but can you explain further, especially with the immaturity? Secret ^account 22:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   The recent discussion on my talk page may prove useful to you. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Yea that's a bunch of immaturity, but by other editors not you. Secret ^account 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose This time around (Yes, I supported him last RfA), I feel I have to express my concerns over maturity and contributions. I've found that although Thing's intentions are undoubtedly in good faith, but I would not necessarily trust him with admin tools. I feel a conflict with an editor/IP vandal could result in abuse of admin tools, as I've found that this user can be exceptionally quick tempered, irrational, and generally immature while in a conflict. Due to this, I think abstaining from admin tools would be appropriate at the present time, especially seeing as he's doing a fine job as it is without admin tools. Also, I do have to express my concern over lack on content contributions. Seeing as this is a collaborative encyclopedic effort, I'd like to see a bit more of content work. I understand that Thing enjoys Huggling (let's leave that in the context of wiki), however- as stated- I'd like to see a few more attempts at content work. I understand that admin tools would definitely be beneficial to this user, however I presently find that I cannot bring myself to support, but this understanding brings me to my weak oppose.  IShadowed  ✰  23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   I understand that he enjoys "huggling" a bit too much in my own opinion. Zalgo (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   IShadowed, could you provide an example on Wikipedia (diff) of such behavior? Netalarm^talk 23:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Netalarm, when one applies for a job, the employer certainly asks for information about past professional experience- which is directly related to the job that is being applied for, as it involves past experience in said field of work. Employers generally also require personal history- which is separate from the specific position, as it involves one's personality and general maturity as demonstrated outside said field of work. Apply this here. As I've said, the work that Thing has done onwiki is quite satisfactory as it is, but there is also what he is not doing.  IShadowed  ✰  23:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose While I believe vandalism fighting is important, I cannot support for adminship anyone who does not have sufficient experience with other functions. Your answers to questions 1, 2, and 7 show me that your skill is too narrow. While being an account creator for a time was a good sign, recent activity has all been deletions (vandal fighting is included in this) of one type or another. You're a good editor though, which is why it pains me to cast the vote this way. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   If it's anything worth mentioning, I am active in reporting username violations to UAA as well. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose Maturity and temperament concerns per IShadowed. We have quite enough current admins with these traits already, and it more often than not leads to the exact scenario IShadowed described involving abuse of tools in conflicts. I won't take the chance in supporting the addition of another potential problem admin to the drama pile. Vodello (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I don't know. I supported his last RfA, but the answer to question 4 in the last one is rather worrisome. If someone doesn't have the patience to edit articles, I don't know that adminship is for them. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   I don't have much content work either. I'm a terrible writer. Does that make me a bad admin? T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   It's not because he doesn't have much content work, it's because, "it's slow and demands too much concentration from me." Admins should not be afraid to do something because it demands too much concentration from them. I'm not sure he's really cut out to make difficult decisions. Still, I voted neutral instead of oppose because in the AV department he has made some fantastic contributions. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   The answer to that question is more or less outdated. Nowadays, it's because, well, everything that I would want to write about has already been written about. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Bullcrap. So every article you wanted to write about is an FA already? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   1. I never mentioned anything about how well the article is written. Everything that I would want to write about is already written about, and I can't find, or think of anything to add, or think of ways to make them better. It doesn't matter if it's an FA, or a stub. Maybe someday I'll find something that I haven't thought of yet. 2. Was the "bullcrap" comment really necessary? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   You don't have to start articles from scratch, you could always find sources for something or add a decent amount of content to it. I didn't mean to offend, if that's how my comment was taken. All I'm saying is that pretty much every article can be improved. You mentioned that you don't have enough attention for much content editing, but you spend hours upon hours in reverting vandals. Don't get me wrong, that is important, but I'd say content building or collaboration supersedes that. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   In my view, protecting the reputation of this website is more important than creating content. If all of the content creators were to suddenly disappear, we would still survive with the information we have. But if all of the vandal-fighters disappeared, the wiki would be overrun with vandalism and BLP violations in a matter of days. There are other people creating content that are far better at doing so than I could hope to be. I'll let them create the content, and I'll fight vandals. It's what I enjoy doing. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   This is the Neutral section.  f o x  23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, I don't know why it wound up there, fixed it though. My vote is in oppose now. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2. No articles.  f o x  23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral - This user appears to be excellent and patient when fighting vandals. I'm not sure about their other on-wiki interactions yet. Awaiting the answer to question number 6. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
4. I could care less about the lack of articles, but I do have concerns about maturiry. Will mull it over. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Maturity*  IShadowed  ✰  01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Agree with fox. Lack of content contributions doesn't normally bother me, but when of 165,000 edits, they're this limited... Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Maturity concerns, as well as content contribution...off-wiki activities questionable (again, maturity) THENEWMONO™ 01:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)