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

The Thing That Should Not Be[edit]

Final: (37/23/4). Withdrawn by candidate.

Nomination[edit]

The Thing That Should Not Be (talk · contribs) – The Thing That Should Not Be (previously User:Until It Sleeps) is an established, diligent, and cluefull user who’s work would benefit immensely from an extra couple of tools. After six months, I think he is ready for another RFA.

The benefit of having TTSNB as an administrator is immense and immediate. He is the fourth most prolific vandalism reporter of all time with 2400 edits to AIV ([1]). Those were 2400 instances that had to be dealt with by others, as an administrator he will be able to do the full job himself and not be forced to pass the buck. He is also quite proficient with speedy deletion. I went back through more than one hundred of his taggings and could not find one that had been declined, so his work with that backlog (which can get a bit lengthy sometimes) would be welcome too.

Reading his talk page you get the sense of a friendly guy, who just wants to help out. He is not here for power nor is he here for pride. Most of the involuntary de-adminings by the ArbCom are for admins who don't admit mistakes, but nicely TTSNB has shown little inclination to get defensive in the face of criticism, and is instead willing to learn ([2]).

It is true that his focus on Wikipedia is somewhat narrow, but he is clearly a trustworthy soul so the chance of him causing damage though malice is vanishingly small and as he shows no interest in getting involved in areas in which his resume is rather slimmer, and by all indications he does not presume expertise he does not have, the chance of him causing damage through incompetence is negligible. I expect he would continue in the tradition of other great specialist admins, such as J.delanoy. Icewedge (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I withdraw this nomination

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 intend to use the tools to supplement my efforts against vandalism, which is also arguably the area in which they are used the most. There are some that may say that there are too many "anti-vandal only admins. But I feel I must note, that during the time which I am more active, in the mornings here in the U.S., very few admins and other vandal fighters are active. I am regularly seeing vandals on AIV that are still going like the Energizer Bunny, and haven't been blocked simply because a lot of the other admins are not online at the time. Meanwhile I'm missing other vandalism, or it is remaining on the page longer, because I'm having to watch these vandals. Having the tools would only be beneficial to my efforts, and beneficial to the project. I also intend to continue to take part in CSD work as well using the tools.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I consider my best contributions to be in the area of vandal-fighting, being dedicated to the task for 1 1/2 years. I have also done a large amount of CSD work, as noted in the nom statement, and I'm able to spot articles that lie under CSD-A7 and G10 fairly quickly.
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: Other than the conflicts that vandal-fighters like me typically encounter, there haven't really been any conflicts that I can recall. As stated, I'm willing to learn from any mistakes that I make. I very rarely get angry when someone complains, I listed to them, and attempt to either resolve the issue if it's within my knowledge or ability, or refer them to someone else.


Additional optional questions from The Thing That Should Not Be
4. Why have you not done very much content contributing?
A: Because I'm just not that type of contributor. To be perfectly blunt, I myself find writing to be boring. Why? Because it's slow and demands too much concentration from me. I'm the kind of person that would lose their train of thought in the middle of a paragraph, and then forget what I was writing about. (In fact I've been preparing these answers for some time now, saved to a document on my laptop, just so that I don't try to write them all in 15 minutes.) Why is this a problem with articles? Because a lot of the time they would have changed too much, and I would have to modify or even totally forget about adding what I wish to add because someone else has already added it. Some might say that it would be better if I were to add bits here and there, but I just find it easier to contribute in my own way. Vandal-fighting and CSD work keeps me engaged long enough to get a few reverts in before my attention shifts elsewhere, which is why I've done it for all these months. Vandalism is more pressing matter to me than article-writing, as vandalism should be corrected and dealt with immediately.
Additional optional questions from Roux
5. In your previous RfAs (link), the same opposes have come up time and again. In RFA 2 I made a lengthy comment indicating what I felt were your weaknesses. In RFA 3, I noted that nothing had changed in the previous months. What has changed since then?
A: There are a few things that have changed since then... I've become more wikignomish. For a time a couple months ago, I became a bit discussion oriented, namely at WT:RFA. I've done more CSD work, more UAA work.
Additional optional questions from NativeForeigner
6. Why did you change your username? (I'm not trying to attack, as in fact I changed mine, but am curious about the reasoning.}
A:
Additional optional questions from Mr.Z-man
7. Can you give some examples of your resolving issues with other users as you mentioned in Q3?
A: My talk page, and the archives contain a very large portion of these examples, which are largely questions, or a minor complaint. I did bring up a general issue here at WT:RFA, simply because people were nearly unanimously opposing at Ronhjones RfA because of his high ratio of automated edits. Other than starting it, and the occasional comment, I wasn't highly involved, but it set forth an effort to recognize that a high ratio of automated edits itself wasn't a problem, and that they don't neutralize the other edits. And it probably helped his RfA to pass. (Do note that I'm not bringing this up explicitly to sway opposition based on my low content contribs, as I recognize that it's a different issue.)
Additional optional questions from Coffee
8. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A.
9. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A.
10. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?
A.
Additional question from Tan 39
11. This was my oppose from the last RfA, which generated eight "per Tan" subsequent opposes. I apologize for the length, but I feel it is important to post it. The salient question is - what issues listed below have you addressed, and can you link to substantial evidence of such?
A. Ah, I was waiting for something exactly like this... "I do think you need a nice rounded resume in terms of various areas - AIV, RFPP, AfD, ANI, UAA, etc."
  • AIV: I'm positive I have plenty of experience at that...
  • RFPP: Ehh, I've been a bit conservative about requesting protection, but when I do, nearly all of the requests are granted, save for the rare occasion that I request protection for the TFA. [3]
  • AFD: I have limited experience, but I'm not really planning on using the tools there.
  • ANI: I do post there occasionally, perhaps maybe once or twice a month. Otherwise, I'm constantly reading the admin noticeboards (heck, I have a link to both in my sidebar). It's my belief that one shouldn't contribute too much to them, the reason being that one might become too attached to contributing to the general drama there... I only contribute in threads that either interest me or concern me in any way.
  • UAA: I would say I have significant experience. There is a channel on freenode that lists every new user created, and I watch that periodically. However, I would say that I'm still a little rough around the edges when it comes to that, so if I get the tools I will be picky about blocking usernames for a while. [4]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The Thing That Should Not Be before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Sorry for missing that. Opposing. Tan | 39 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support, he's earned it. Excellent vandal fighter.. a real asset to Wikipedia. Can be trusted to not misuse the tools. -- Ϫ 07:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support I know there are people that won't support without article content, but I'll be blunt for a second: the admin tools are (primarily) not about creating content. This candidate does a great job managing vandalism and there is absolutely no indication the tools will be misused; I totally expect that half of the tools will never even be used, but I feel this candidate will be nothing but a net positive with the bit. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support - ditto from last RFA in which I supported him.  7  08:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Strong support - Strong support doesn't even begin to address how valuable this editor is. I've seen him for the majority of my tenure here; in all that time I've never seen a serious complaint. This is exactly the kind of admin we need a lot more of. This is someone who knows, with nuance, what vandalism looks like, and who can distinguish between the honest test, or new user and the committed vandal. Also over 8,000 new page patrols, and 112,149 regular edits. This isn't a plus because it's a big number; edit count is not some comparison game, but it is a tremendous demonstration of a level of experience. A lesser editor with that much exposure would be bound to pick up some very valuable traits. I know this editor to be much more than that. This is an exceptional candidate. Shadowjams (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Having seen this user in action many times I can only say yes. Polargeo (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support User has been since Aug 2007 and has over 112000 edits and feel the project will only gain with the user getting tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. I recently gave the candidate a barnstar for CSD work ... not just for making the right calls, but for his patience with new users and communication skills. I totally understand if people oppose for lack of article work or have a bad reaction to Q4, but I'm impressed when someone says, in effect, "There are some things I can't do that some people expect, and my reaction to that is to work harder and ask for the support of the community anyway, knowing that people will grade off for things I really can't change." That attitude shows a lot of maturity and self-confidence. Yes, what this candidate doesn't know might be a problem some day, but if he hasn't gotten off-track over the last 112K edits, the risk is low that it will happen over the next 112K. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Ucucha 14:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC) The candidate is doing what he's good at, and for all I know he's doing it well. His talk contributions consistently suggest that he isn't just a Hugglebot, but someone who has something useful to say. Ucucha 14:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support - I see the arguments against, below, but I have never been able to agree. We need admins to do many admin tasks...if we require every admin to do every task we will deprive ourselves of many good admins. I have been watching this editor's talk page for some time, seen a lot of good work and reasonable handling of problems.- Sinneed 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Strong Support - I see this user constantly reverting vandalism. This user would be a great admin, since he would really benefit using the block and delete tools because of the CSD and anti-vandal work. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 14:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support - No problems here, although I would have liked to see more manual edits. But all I see is solid vandalism reverts, so I don't see much of a problem... smithers - talk 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Weak support Experienced in his field, but I really would like to see more involvement elsewhere as well.  fetchcomms☛ 15:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support. Ultimately, what we have here is a user who is dedicated to, and good at, what he does. I have no particular reason to believe that, given admin tools, he'd suddenly go wading drunkenly into areas he's unfamiliar with - so I trust him to use the tools responsibly in the anti-vandalism area he is demonstrably competent in, and to move cautiously in others. ~ mazca talk 16:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Per Mazca. Tim Song (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support Switched on candidate per low error rate with his anti vandalism work, also seems to be a good communicator who has positive things to add to discussions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. All things considered, I think the benefits of promoting this user outweigh the potential issues. I opposed his last one largely due to behavioral issues, and in a way, I'm still not convinced the candidate is the most professional and mature editor we have. That said, The Thing is obviously dedicated and very knowledgeable in his field of work: vandal-fighting. Bearing in mind that adminship is not a reward for being a content writer, I trust the candidate to block vandals and delete spam with care. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. 'Support. Thought you were one, which is always a good sign. You have a focus and plan to stick to it, and you've demonstrated skill in that area. There focus on article writing as a criterion isn't going to much more than make the best article writers too busy to write articles. I'd prefer people have the best set of tools available to do the job they're best at doing.--otherlleft 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support Specializing doesn't bother me, as long as they are good at it. Those in opposition admit this is the case, so I can only support – there are many admins who specialize in particular areas, so it's not a problem at all. Aiken ♫ 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support I don't understand the concerns about lack of article content since he has over 50,000 article space edits. No concerns otherwise. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support. It takes all sorts. The "only content contributors should become admins, as only content contributors understand what it's like to contribute content" line of thinking is, in a nutshell, just as fucking daft as the notion that only people who have been in automobile accidents as the result of another driver speeding should become policemen, as only those people could possibly know the serious potential consequences of speeding. Direct, first-person experience isn't the only teacher, or even the best teacher, in the eternal high school of life. In fact, quite often the contrary, as one is too busy having the experience to learn about it. TTTSNB seems to be a relatively clueful gentleman, with decent written communication skills. Net benefit, let's not be daft here. Badger Drink (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support Considering all that you have done, giving you the tools wouldn't hurt. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support; having the tools would be beneficial and there is no indication that it is likely they would be misused. The rest is editcountitis. — Coren (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Strongest possible 'cannot emphasise it enough' support. I fully acknowledge the concerns raised by the opposers but, at the end of the day, TTNSB wants to be an "anti-vandal admin". The need for another such admin watching AIV is obvious (as a humble editor who occasionally patrols recent changes) and I trust TTNSB without reservation to block vandals when the need arises- if I had a penny for every time I've had a "rollback failed" message because of TTNSB, I'd be a rich man! Best of ;luck to you, my friend! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Although there hasn't been a huge amount of work in all of the WP mainspace and in talk pages which admins are often involved with, that which I have seen I am satisfied with, in that I am sure this editor can be trusted to use the tools effectively in an anti-vandalism role, and not to mess about with things he isn't as familiar with. He is clearly extremely committed to this project, and his presence as an admin would make vandal-fighting on WP more effective. Jhbuk (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Full support Impressive edit count (110,296), completely trustworthy. Plus, we need more sysops at WP:AIV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support The strong nomination given by JD would sum it up for me. His niche is vandal fighting, the tools here will only help him out further with this. Very responsible and mature editor. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was User:Icewedge that nominated me, not User:J.delanoy. The location of the link in his nom statement does give that impression though. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Still a strong nomination though. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ahh, I see that now. I have removed the link so as to minimize confusion. It was poorly placed on my part. Icewedge (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another thing id like to add to my support, Is that one thing Ive noticed about The thing is that he hasnt been fatigueed from vandal fighting. Ive seen alot of users (will post if you need me too) who do vandal fighting using huggle and sorts be strong for a period of time and just stop editing all together after a short duration of time. Maybe its something else from being fatigued (just my opinion), but considering that you could say well over 20 000 vandal edits (being way conservative here) have been reverted by him is a huge testimate of his dedication, and continuing dedication at this aspect of wikipedia. There seems to be no signs of him slowing down. Just felt i needed to add this.Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Weak Support I'm standing by my previous arguments, although I will note that I think it has not been long enough. I would recommend Thing to be less persistent, and therefore seem more patient, but I do trust him with the tools.--Res2216firestar 21:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Strong Support We have here an editor with an astounding record of positive contributions, a concrete, limited, and highly specific purpose for which he needs administrative access, and no doubt whatever that he will be a positive in the role he proposes to undertake. RayTalk 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. SupportI feel that the candidate will do well with using the tool to fight vandalism, as they appear to have a good track record from what I can see. I would recommend that they pay attention to the opposes and any recommendation in the supports, and use this to continue to improve their mindset and their approach to Wikipedia as a whole. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. an rud nár chóir go mbeadh a dhiúltú translation: the thing that should not be denied delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Very Strong Support I would trust The Thing That Should Not Be with my life (If I had one). I'm am shocked to know that he is not an admin yet.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Has my support. Will be a valuable addition. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 01:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. He sticks to what he's good at (vandalism fighting, csd) and avoids areas where he isn't strong (content building). How is this a bad thing? Wikipedia needs both types of contributions. faithless (speak) 02:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support He is a great vandal fighter ,will make a cool admin --NotedGrant Talk 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Weak Support - supported last time, supported again. It would be nice to see some contributions in other areas, but I don't have a problem with giving him the tools solely for vandal fighting, as long as this is all he uses them for. Robofish (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards (to be objective, I am not looking at what I may or may or may not have said in previous RfAs so that I focus fresh here). Anyway, such arguments as this seem reasonable, the candidate's current account has no blocks, the candidate is a veteran editor, and the candidate did get at least six awards under the current name and a bunch more previously listed at User:The Thing That Should Not Be/Awards. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support A net positive. Warrah (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. I do not believe anything has changed since his last RfA. The concerns in that RfA have not been addressed. The consensus of the last RfA was that anti-vandalism patrol and automated edits, while helpful, do not indicate the experience needed for administrative work. I do not think the community perspective on this has changed since your last RfA. Furthermore, I feel the answer to Q4 is rather concerning. If you do not have the concentration level to handle article contribution and do not have experience in article building, how will you handle complex problems in BLP articles? Given the recent RfC on BLPs, I feel that BLPs will be a major task for admins. I do not feel you have enough experience in these area, besides simple vandalism and deletion patrol, therefore I must oppose. Of course, this is not set in stone. If evidence to the contrary is suggested, I will rethink this. —Dark 09:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I'm sorry, but I still have not seen much that indicates to me that much of your maturity issues have been solved. Additionally, Q4 is a real downer for me. If you don't have the concentration to edit articles, you shouldn't have the concentration to revert vandalism (something that should require more concentration). (X! · talk)  · @527  ·  11:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For me, vandalism is a much more pressing concern than editing content. That's what makes it more attention-grabbing. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 11:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As an admin you will be forced to work with content, and it does help to experience the pressure of building something up if you potentially could be breaking it down.  GARDEN  18:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose - Per DarkFalls. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Largely for the same reasons as last time. I don't want to diminish the value of this user's contributions in the form of dedicated vandal-fighting, which is of immeasurable worth to the project, but I am not comfortable supporting a candidate with such a pointedly narrow range of experience in Wikipedia. That, coupled with a heavy reliance upon automated tools and scripts, leads me unable to support. A lot more comes with the admin bit than a "block user" button, and while I trust the user in their stated desire to only work within the realm of vandal-fighting, it's just that I am uncomfortable giving a whole toolbox to someone who hasn't demonstrated that they would use all the tools correctly. Shereth 13:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I'd have to agree with those that see at least some article contribution as important. It is such a fundamental aspect of the project that an admin who does no creation and admits to problems with concentration levels is to me especially concerning. Paste Let’s have a chat. 15:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose - Essentially the same rationale from the previous RfA. Tens of thousands of automated edits is almost entirely a turn off. Thank you for your anti-vandalism, but I do not feel this user is admin material. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose. I'm not keen on the gaps in his early history—account created one year before it was used properly. I'd also want to see some content contributions; without them, it would be difficult to deal with content disputes that might require admin assistance. No content contribs also implies no familiarity with our most importance policies. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, one's interest can't drop off a few weeks after creating an account without drawing in concern? Some of our best editors, User:Juliancolton being one, have had the same editing patterns. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. Many, many editors, admins, and even bureaucrats registered their account months or even years before they became active. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's that plus no content contribs. The latter is the important thing. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do have a few content contribs... 2 articles, and quite a while ago I brought Julian Lane up to Start class from a stub. The sock that should not be (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose, because it's probably prudent not to give the tools to someone who restricts themselves to one aspect of the project. As evidenced by my previous oppose, I really want to support this candidate, but they have no interest in addressing many editor concerns. If vandal-fighting is all you really want to do, then keep it up; no real need for the tools. AIV is hardly overrun. Tan | 39 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So my CSD work that's already been mentioned apparently becomes irrelevant? The sock that should not be (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. You have no interest in content work; that's fine. However, you knew that many editors find this a problem, yet you "find it boring" and didn't address the concerns. You have every right not to do content work; we have every right to oppose you until you have the experience we find necessary. Tan | 39 18:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just a comment here. Thing, you appear to be growing slightly defensive. Understandable. I just want to implore to you not to take these comments in the oppose section too personally. No one is downplaying that you are indeed an asset to this project. Cheers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, and my phrasing could have possibly been better. Essentially I am asking, "what did you expect"? You clearly saw that many editors wanted content work, yet apparently you assumed that "more of the same" would yield different results than last time. I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and the work you've done on this project. I strike my "yes" comment above; nothing you have done is 'irrelevant'. I want you to continue working on this project; it would be much worse without you. Unfortunately for this request, for myself and a few other editors, there are other aspects of the project we consider necessary in which to have experience. Tan | 39 18:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed, I did expect some opposition on that basis, but also expected a more positive response to becoming more active in CSD/UAA work. (And I've seen some attack pages last far, far too long.) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So you knew what was expected of you, knew you hadn't done it, knew you would be opposed over it...and ran anyway? Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose. Essentially, nothing has changed since the previous request. This user still lacks the necessary experience that any admin will likely face. It isn't just about vandal-fighting (although that is by no means to diminish Thing's role in this). I also have maturity concerns, partly based on off-wiki encounters, and also silly lapses in judgement such as this silliness. While that was in September, I'm concerned that I have not seen any sign of change to suggest that maturity or sense of judgement has improved since the previous requests. Until I see some change to allay my concerns, which I've expressed in previous requests, I cannot support. Sorry. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose - This may seem like a slightly ridiculous opposition, but a user whose main (and possibly only) intent is to work in the anti-vandalism field is just not enough. I've had magnificent interactions with this user, and I trust him on Wikipedia. However, I have some concerns with his contributions compared to his last RfA. Here comes the "slightly ridiculous" part - By deciphering his contributions from the beginning of last month to now, it appears that he has built up his edit count tremendously, making bunches of reverts with Huggle every day. The candidate also hasn't conducted enough article-building work, which is one of the core aspects of being trusted for the mop by the community. I just think that making over 5,000 edits within one month doesn't show enough experience in the administrator field. I know that this user has been a great aspect to the community with his anti-vandalism work, and I encourage him to continue, but everything pointed out above doesn't make me feel that you're ready yet. Also, I am concerned about this edit summary. Schfifty3 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    About that edit summary... The thought of losing all of my stuff that was on the drive mentioned was quite... stressing... who wouldn't be stressed? (Even if the real problem in the end was the fact that the USB cable got unplugged from the computer...) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One more comment - The whole every day within the last month bit seems to be a form of WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. Making at least 7,000 automated edits every day in an entire month isn't completely great when judged for adminship. I, and most others here, respect your anti-vandalism contributions, and I wish you best of luck in the future. Schfifty3 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    7,000 edits per day? I hope that's some kind of typo... Try around 7,000 edits per month, for about 1 and a half years. Also there's my CSD edits (If you happen to have trouble finding them, just look for user talk edits with redlinks in the summaries.) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose, per PeterSymonds. Blurpeace 21:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose - I opposed in your last RfA because I believe that every administrator should have some content work under their belt in order to have a greater empathy and understanding of the work that other editors are doing. I don't expect FAs, GAs, or even DYKs (and I would be a hypocrite if I did because I'm an admin who doesn't have any of those either). But some example of experience in content creation or at least fixing is necessary for me before I support, and there has been none since then. In fact, your answer to question 4 causes me to oppose stronger than last time; I want someone who can put thought into their communications with other people, that's critical if you've blocked someone and they want to know what they did wrong. If you lose your train of thought in the middle of a reply, I can't trust that you'll be capable of doing this. I still appreciate reverting vandals, and your quick approach is obviously very successful there, but I'm uncomfortable with you using admin tools in that manner. -- Atama頭 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. When I asked Q7, I kind of expected some links to discussions where you did something especially helpful. Questions like that are your chance to post diffs that show how good you are. Instead I just got a reply to read your talk archives (hint: If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't have asked the question). I did that (back a few weeks at least) and wasn't especially impressed. Most of the discussions consisted of someone giving you a compliment and you saying "Thanks." I'm not really seeing any answers to difficult questions or extended discussions. As for content work, personally I don't think its especially important for admin candidates, but other people do, and telling them that you aren't even going to really try isn't very good. There are ways to make content contributions that are in between "adding paragraphs of content" and "script-assisted editing." Mr.Z-man 23:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose. I want to acknowledge that users such as TTSNB are a necessary and valuable part of the project. Without them, Wikipedia would surely drown in a sea of test edits, 4chan-type attacks and the like; bots can only do so much. I appreciate your commitment. Further, there is some truth to the perennial argument that "J.delanoy's nomination would be different today because standards are different." But this is not about RfA standards and what-ifs; it's about whether TTSNB should be an admin. There's a fundamental level of trust and respect that's missing here, and while I encourage you to continue your anti-vandalism work and appreciate it, you're no j.delanoy. Recognizance (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose. per all the above. You do some great work for this project, but your lack of edits outside vandal fighting raises a major red flag. Also, per concerns with judgement, experience, and maturity. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 01:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose Sorry, per all of the above, I'm going to have to agree with User:PeterSymonds. Just patrolling and CSD are not enough qualifications to do janitorial work. I'm sorry man, i'm going to oppose. But better luck next time! :) --FAIL!Talk 01:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Strong Oppose. I have no problem, most of the time, with a user who does not focus on content work. What I do have a problem with is a user who is told to change his behaviour and ignores community consensus. If you want to pass RfA, you need content work; this very RfA is evidence that he cannot get a clue, and I certainly don't want somebody unwilling to take suggestions with the buttons. Ironholds (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Consensus can change. What you see as ignoring consensus, I see as testing it to see if it has changed. I wish folks wouldn't be so quick to use "consensus" as a reason to oppose . . . what we do here determines consensus, not the other way around.--otherlleft 05:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And I wish your argument held any water at all, but I guess we can't have it all. Roughly 35 editors opposed the last RfA due to content work concerns. Testing to see if that has changed (and it's quite obvious it hasn't) via another RfA was poor judgment. It's like taking the same exam again, hoping for a different result because the same teachers will interpret your answers differently. He had the answer sheet in his hand - he knew what 30+ editors wanted to see before another RfA. He chose not to do it, as he finds it "boring". I don't see anyone using "consensus" as a reason to oppose; I see people saying "we wanted you to do W, X, Y, and Z, and you just did a bit of W and X. Sorry." Tan | 39 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Basically what Tan said. Let me get this right; you think going up for RfA without fixing the things the community had a problem with is the best way for testing if consensus has changed? Finally, I have a justification for my endless RfAs. What we do here determines consensus, correct. So if consensus says "you must do X, Y and Z" to pass, it means you must do X, Y and Z to pass. Did the community undergo a rapid paradigm shift? No, so consensus is unlikely to change. "consensus can change" is constantly bandied about, but it rarely does without outside stimuli; the consensus over place names may change with the international recognition of a new name, for example. Since there have been no outside influences whatsoever, assuming that consensus might change just because you've waited 6 months is a silly way to look at it. If The Thing did go up for RfA to test the waters, that says even worse things about his judgement than his actual edits do. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know you were clear on this, but lest anyone is only reading this in a cursory fashion, I want to reiterate that my question was not intended to infer that I know the candidate's motives. I also completely understand the rationale that content writing experience puts an admin in a position to appreciate the work that is done to build this encyclopedia. I am perplexed about how one tests consensus for RfA without actually having one, though - it's just begging for accusations of canvassing to do so. Yes, many editors at his last RfA gave him a list of things to do, but a lot has changed since then, and some people believe that the community's standards have shifted. Go ahead and oppose if you think he's too focused, because it's your right, but I still think it's placing unreasonable demands on someone if the only acceptable outlet to determine if consensus is changed will generate opposes simply because it hasn't.--otherlleft 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Where has consensus shifted, exactly? I've seen no RfAs or sudden declarations that it's suddenly A-okay for admin candidates to ignore the content side of things. Consider this as you would an article; if consensus has been very, very strongly set, the best way to test it is not to WP:BOLDly go where no editor has gone before and use standards that violate consensus. One should rather follow consensus until there is evidence that it has changed, which I've yet to see. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose - Maturity issues. Tiptoety talk 05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. I really doubt whether you are mature enough for the mop. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose, would like to see some additional experience, particularly in more varied capacities. Perhaps at another point in time. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Ironholds sums it up for me: if you get so much advice to work on content and completely ignore it, I can see you doing the same with advice after potential mistakes.  GARDEN  18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose - Sorry, nothing has changed since the last time. While it's true that your anti-vandalism contributions are necessary and beneficial, as an admin you would by necessity end up working in other areas. I return again to my doctor analogy; we need specialists, yes, but every doctor on the planet can deliver a baby, suture a wound, set a broken arm, etc etc. Right now, all you know how to do is splint a broken arm. What happens when you're called on to perform surgery? It's all very well to promise you won't use admin tools in other areas, but such promises have a tendency to be forgotten. If we had a process whereby admins could be easily desysopped (e.g. because they started working in areas they said they wouldn't), my opinion would be different. As things stand, your focus is simply too narrow for the kind of generalization we need in admins. In addition, your non-answers to both my questions and Tan's are concerning, and the fact that you think taking something from stub-class to start-class is 'content development' is somewhat concerning.
    As Tan, Ironholds, and (edit conflict) Garden pointed out above, you were told in no uncertain terms precisely what you would need to do to pass an RfA, by many, many people. You have failed to do this, and somehow think that everyone's opinion will suddenly change. Given that action, what confidence can we have that you would actually take and internalize advice given to you as an admin? (As an aside, the breakdown of supports being largely newer accounts and opposes being largely older accounts is fascinating.) You're a good kid, and you do good and necessary work.. but you are not suited for adminship, sorry. → ROUX ₪ 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose I don't really care about content work. Some can write FA's with apparent ease, some have to struggle to write a DYK- that's not the issue that makes me oppose. TTTSNB, you've been told in no uncertain terms in two prior RFA's that if you wanted to pass, more content work and broader experience would be required. In six months, you could have easily addressed these concerns, and instead you're back here saying what was requested of you is "boring". Doing the same thing and expecting a different result just doesn't make sense, so take the advice in this section, follow it this time, and I look forward to supporting the next one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral: I'm torn, because I would really, really like this candidate to be an admin. As HJ Mitchell said above, if I had a dollar for the number of times my revert has failed because The Thing got their first, I would be a rich man. With the admin tools at WP:AIV and WP:CSD, this candidate could do a huge amount of good. However, I'm still a little uneasy. Even though I have confidence that The Thing won't seek out situations where they may need to deal with things beyond vandal fighing, they may seek out The Thing. If an admin gets asked, on their talk page, to deal with something like a unclosed WP:AFD, a bad username or a content dispute that's getting nasty, they should have the expertise to deal with it, and should not be limited by commitments to only deal with CSDs and blocks at their RFA. As someone who is vastly less experienced than The Thing, I would say this: if I had The Thing's bredth of experience, I'm not sure whether I'd think I was ready to be an admin. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral TTTSNB is an extremely prolific vandal-fighter, and he knows how to use the rollback tool wisely. His experience in that area makes me confident that he would do a fine job with the block button at WP:AIV (or even WP:UAA). But there's more to adminship than just blocking vandals. While I recognize TTTSNB's potential usefulness in a "specialist admin" capacity, the lack of article work is a genuine problem. I am tempted to support only because of TTTSNB's lengthy vandal-fighting experience and because I trust him in general. However, per my preceding comments and the excellent points made by Lear's Fool immediately above, I think I'll stay neutral on this one. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral BejinhanTalk 10:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral Even though he does like to be an admin, I'm not sure if he was admin coached. If he was, then he would get a great feel of when and where to use the tools. Minimac94 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was partially admin coached by User:Juliancolton a long while back. (The admin coaching page has since been deleted.) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category