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

Thingg[edit]

Final (69/32/4); ended 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thingg (talk · contribs) - Over the last several months, I've been spending a lot of time editing Wikipedia. I've met many great users, and one of those who has really stood out above the rest has been Thingg. A prolific recent changes patroller, rather than simply reverting the vandalism, he follows through with appropriate warnings and AIV reporting if deemed necessary. Not only is he tireless in his efforts to combat vandalism, but he maintains an incredible level of composure in the face of the personal attacks that are often directed at him.

His contributions to the WikiProject Xbox, of which I'm a member, have been invaluable - and I'm sure the same can be said of his work in the other WikiProjects he holds membership in. Not only did he assist us in designing our project page, but he created many of the templates that we are using, as well as put his artistic skills to use in designing our logos (note we're in a transitional period right now). Also, he uses one of my userboxes ;>, and he's got a great sense of humour - which I think is an important quality no matter the position.

He's been a member since November 2007 and has already made over 10,000 contributions. Also, even though he's been registered for just 6 months, he seems to have already acquired a vast knowledge of wikitext, and has been able to solve every problem that I've ever put forth to him. Please note, I believe that Malinaccier wished to be included as co-nominator. For these foregoing reasons, I feel Thingg would make an excellent Wikipedia administrator. He is both a gentleman, and a scholar. xenocidic (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Malinaccier–Thingg came to me yesterday asking whether he was ready for an RFA. I didn't respond "yes", I responded with the question "May I co-nominate?" I like Thingg's work on Wikipedia so much because he doesn't "specialize" in anti-vandalism only, article building only, or wiki-gnoming only—he does it all. In the five months that he's been here, he's helped get Playstation 3 up to Featured Article status, has made 316 edits to WP:AIV, and has had the time to be an active contributor in several Wikiprojects. In addition to these statistics, I've found that Thingg is a kind, attentive user who is always open to criticism. In response to a templated warning he once recieved for coming close to violating the three revert rule, he replied civilly and calmly here, and didn't blow up about "not templating the regulars." Incidents like these, coupled with his editing skills lead me to believe that Thingg is definitely ready for the extra burden of adminship. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. And thank you for your kind words. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Since I do quite a bit of vandalism reversion, I will block persistent vandals I come across and also help out at AIV, RFPP, and UAA. As Wikipedia has become more and more well-known (attracting larger numbers of vandals) and Huggle has come into relatively widespread use, AIV has often looked like this. I hope to help keep the number of extant reports to a minimum. Also, CSD seems to always have work to be done, and I plan to help keep the backlogs down over there. Once I gain experience with admin duties, I also plan to participate at AN, ANI, and RAA. Also, being able to move a page over a redirect will come in handy in situations like this where a page is incorrectly moved and is edited by someone else before it can be moved back.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My improvements to PlayStation 3 and PlayStation Portable are the probably the best contributions I have made to Wikipedia. Although the latter did not reach FA status, the article is still much improved over what it was. As Xenocidic mentioned, I helped with setting up Portal:Xbox 360 and designed some of the templates for WikiProject Xbox when it was just starting. I have made quite a few contributions to articles relating to the High definition optical disc format war and participated in the discussions on how to present information as events progressed through the format war's climax and aftermath. I also do a fair amount of vandalism reversion and I am happy to help keep Wikipedia free of vandalism.
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: The largest conflict I have been involved in was how to present the studio support information on the Comparison of high definition optical disc formats page after Warner Bros. announced in January they would be ceasing support for HD DVD as of June, 2008. The flash point was a pie chart that showed which studio supported which format and what their market share was. After much discussion, six or seven different image proposals, a few polls (that were contested afterward), and a not-so-welcomed "visit" by a group of students from Harvard University, an image was proposed that satisfied everyone. In my humble opinion, I kept my head throughout the battle and did not attack other users for their views. (full discussion is located on this page) Another very short conflict that I encountered on RC patrol was on how to word the lead sentence in the PlayStation Home article. The question mainly related to whether the service was called "PlayStation Home" or simply "Home." A rapid series of posts with links to various Sony websites revealed that both titles were used and a solution was rapidly proposed and implemented. (discussion located here)
Neither of these conflicts caused me much stress because, at the end of the day, the exact wording of an article does not matter very much and I try to keep that in mind at all times. Also, if a discussion gets really heated, I usually try to just walk away from the conflict and find something else to do because edit wars and other conflicts are never productive and almost always turn out badly.

Additional questions[edit]

Question from DanBealeCocks

4 A new editor, user:wiwiwejd992728, has made 23 contributions to WP. 10 of those are vandalism, the rest are things like typo or spelling corrections. What do you do?
A: If the user had four recent warnings for vandalism and had vandalized after the final warning was served, I would block him/her. Otherwise, I would take no action.

Question from Cyclonenim

5 How would you deal with an anonymous IP which has recently been released from a block yet continues to vandalise Wikipedia?
A: If they had four recent warnings on their talk page, I would check their contribs to see if they vandalized a page after the final warning and to make sure they had indeed vandalized in all of the incidents mentioned in the warnings. If all of these criteria were met, I would block them. If they were not met, I would take no action.

Optional question from Guest9999

6 Are there any situations where you wouldn't block a user who had vandalised after four recent and correct vandalism warnings?
A: If the user had an appropriate series of correct recent warnings (ie. they were all given for different obvious vandalisms and were not served "out-of-order" — such as level 1 warning for an article section removal and then a level 4 warning for changing the score in an article about a baseball game) and had definitely vandalized after the final one was served, I can't think of a situation where a block would not be appropriate. However, if a situation arises where it is not clear whether the user's actions warrant a block, I would consult other admins before taking action.

Optional question from Dominik92

7a A respectable admin account has started vandalizing relentlessly. Can you list the steps you would take?
A: The steps I would take would depend on the type of vandalism they were doing. If they were simply adding offensive content/removing good content to pages (the kind of things "normal" vandals do) I would serve a warning for vandalism and additional warnings for further vandalizing if they did not stop. I would implement a block if they continued vandalizing after their final warning and then make other admins aware of the situation and help decide what further action to take. If they were doing other, more damaging vandalism such as deleting legitimate pages and blocking users who have done nothing wrong, I would serve them a ((uw-vandalism4im)) warning and if they continued to vandalize, I would give them a block in accordance to this section of the blocking policy. I would then consult with other admins on what further action should be taken.
7b This same user unblocks himself and continues to vandalize through deleting pages and blocking users and protecting vandalized pages what do you do? (Assuming no other admins were consulted prior to your block of this account).
A: (My apologies for not answering sooner, apparently I missed this question.) I would block him again and quickly notify other admins of the situation and contact a steward and/or a developer to remove the account's sysop status.

Question from Sandstein

8 A new user uploads three images: (a) a press photograph of a notable contemporary actor sourced to his website, downsampled to 300×300px and labeled as fair use with a generic rationale ("used to illustrate the subject"); (b) a self-made photograph from a scene of a theatrical performance of Hamlet, licensed by the uploader under the GFDL; (c) a self-made close-up photograph of an action figure of a character from a recent movie, licensed by the uploader under the Creative Commons Attribution license. Should these photographs be deleted or kept under our copyright policy, and why?
A: As I have made mistakes with image licensing in the past, and still do not fully understand the laws, I would definitely ask an experienced user before taking any action regarding removing images. In situation "a", I would remove the image because it violates criteria 1 of the fair use policy because it is possible for a suitable free image of the actor to be produced and also violates the directive regarding the use of promotional photographs to simply "illustrate the subject".
In situation "b", I would first notify the uploader that he cannot license a screenshot of a commercial production under the GFDL. If the image's use satisfied criteria 8 of the fair use policy in that it significantly improved readers' understanding of the article it was being used on and the user could provide the necessary information for fair use, I would direct them to (if necessary) resize the image to less than 0.1 megapixels and change the image's information to the correct fair-use rationale (which would vary depending on what the image was being used for). If they could not provide the necessary information and/or it did not satisfy criteria 8 of the policy, I would remove the image.
In situation "c", I would first notify the user that you cannot license a picture of characters from a film under the CCAL and direct him/her to change the license to the correct one (((Non-free character))). If s/he could provide the necessary information for the rationale and the image's use would significantly improve readers' knowledge of the article's subject, I would follow the steps mentioned above. If s/he could not provide the information and/or the image did not significantly improve readers' knowledge of the article, I would remove it.
Again, the above is what I would do if I had to do the whole process on my own. In reality, because I do not fully understand the image policy and copyright laws, I do not plan to perform any action regarding images until I have received advice from a user who is experienced in those matters.

Optional question from Trusilver

9a An IP user has vandalized a dozen articles before he is finally noticed and his contributions rolled back. The person who notices the vandalism gives him an "only warning". During the next few minutes the IP user vandalizes three more articles before he is caught once again and referred to WP:AIV for a block. Supposing you were an admin monitoring WP:AIV, you have found that this individual has continued to vandalize since then and has now vandalized almost two dozen articles, what action would you take?
A: I tend to shy away from using "only warnings" except in extreme cases like violent personal attacks, vandalism in Jimbo's userspace, and stuff like this; so it would depend on what "type" of vandalism was performed. If he had done "really bad" vandalism and/or I had reason to believe he had taken the time to read the warning (which could be inferred by a break and/or change in his editing immediately following when the warning was served) I would probably block him. If I had any misgivings about blocking him, I would serve him a level 4 warning ("this is your last warning" vs. "this is your only warning") to be sure that he had read the tag; and if he continued vandalizing after that, I would block him. However, if I was ever unsure about blocking someone, I would seek the advice of other admins before taking action. Although being an admin is not a big deal in that it does not convey superiority by receiving it, this does not mean that it is not a powerful position. Every time I read the bolded section at the end of the lead on this page, it just blows me away with how many people an admin's actions can affect. Because of this, if I ever had any misgivings or uncertainty about any admin related action, I would consult other admins before performing that action.
9b Would your action from the previous question change if the IP user had been given a level 2 and a level 3 warning but not given a final warning?
A: Yes, it would be different. I would give them a level 4 warning and if they continued to vandalize after that, I would block them. Except in very extreme cases (such as a vandal-bot) I would never block someone unless they had received a final warning.
9c, You wouldn't block the editor who made these edits? I certainly did. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, I would block the user because edits like that demonstrates that they are not going to listen to anything that is said to them. In cases that are less clear than that however, I would rather err on the side of caution.
Actually, I blocked that account as a sockpuppet account, which is what the tag on the userpage says. Sockpuppets are exempt from the normal steps of warning, since they've seen them all before in other accounts. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Irpen
10. Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors, particularly in the discretionary rather than direct action? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for general edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Also, do you plan to enforce WP:AE? WP:3RR?
A: I have often seen users come just short of a rule such as the 3RR multiple times without actually stepping over it. If they had a history of disruptive editing and/or incivility, even if they did not technically break a rule, I would be willing to impose a block if necessary. As for AE, Arbcom decisions are to be followed and I would enforce their decisions. Also, the 3RR is a rule, not an option (hence the name: three-revert-rule), and I would enforce it.
11. Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on editors?
A: If the user had a long history of revert warring and/or other disruptive acts, then yes, it would be appropriate to impose additional restrictions on the user. I would not invent a policy as new policies should always be discussed before they are implemented. It would really depend on the situation, but if I felt an extra restriction such as the one you mentioned would help prevent the user from doing disruptive editing, I would impose one.
12. What's your opinion of IRC. Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel.
A: I have never used IRC because, to be honest, I have no idea how to. As this is the case, I am not sure if I would use it or not if I learned how, but at the present, I have found email+talk pages to be adequate for communication regarding Wikipedia.

Optional question from DarkAudit

13. What should be done with editors found to be members of CAMERA, per this discussion?
Comment - That discussion page has grown to 149KB since yesterday. That is a whole lot to digest and comment on, and it's clearly an issue that generates...er...strong opinions. Isn't that rather a loaded question to be asking of a potential admin? I mean, it seems to me it's sort of like asking a potential Supreme Court justice how s/he would rule on a specific case purely as a means of trapping them into making a political statement they are generally expected NOT to make until the case actually comes before them (if ever). Isaacsf (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should rephrase it to read "members of groups like CAMERA", i.e. groups who make it publicly known that they intend to stack the deck with editors and admins to push their agenda. No specific case was intend. My mistake. DarkAudit (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: If it could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt (not all possible doubt) that the were indeed a member of such a group, they should be blocked indefinitely. A group such as this would undermine what is probably the most important rule on Wikipedia: always presenting information from a neutral point of view. If we cannot hold to this principle, than we have failed as an encyclopedia. Also, it violates the policy stating that Wikipedia is not a battleground and it is not a soapbox to promote your group's agenda. Large-scale, organized attempts to compromise Wikepedia's accuracy and neutrality cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with quickly and decisively.

Question from Carnildo (talk)

14. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?
A: IAR basically means that if a rule prohibits doing what common sense would dictate for the situation, you may disregard the rule. In other words, be bold and do what you feel is the right thing to do. This does not mean that you may do anything you want, but that you may make discretionary decisions based on common sense. For example, if a user replaces the article on Jimmy Wales with "LARRY SANGER WAS RITE AL ALONG!!!11!!1!!!" after receiving one or two warnings, it would be appropriate to block that user without serving a final warning even though the rules dictate otherwise.

General comments[edit]

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

  • They are allowed to comment, which is why I have unstruck the comment and moved it to the general discussion section. Nick (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I just didn't want an IP oppose. Useight (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as the co-nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator. xenocidic (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good candidate. Will use the tools responsibly. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I gave Thingg rollback, and he's been great with that. I trust him with the tools. Acalamari 16:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Even while just from watching this RfA unfold as it happens, I see that the oppose added by 75.61.233.244 is in reference to this edit. Thingg responded appropriately, and also outlined politely why the link was inappropriate. Judging from this, and his previous contributions, I predict he will be a sound admin. WilliamH (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support Will be a great asset as an admin. Epbr123 (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Seen him around a lot and I'm impressed by his work. Useight (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, even though yesterday some IP was attacking him (probably about vandal work) on articles. That's probably a good sign. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Has done great work already and deserves the tools. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Dedicated WP editor, fellow vandal fighter, and sparkles with trustworthiness. κaτaʟavenoTC 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Always seen good work from Thingg in the vandal fighting department. I know the mop won't get abused.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs brought up by opposes are troubling me. Striking my support while I ponder.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support -- Good user, meets my requirements and per the noms...Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very Strong Support - Great editor, great vandal fighter and, most importantly, someone i trust. I'd go as far as to say, Thingg is one of my wiki-friends :-) TheProf - T / C 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Knee jerk support. Saw the name, know the history, no hesitation. Wondering when this one was coming. Easy support. Do your thingg, thingg! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Net positive to the project without a doubt. I'm sure there were some slip ups (a diff or two from the oppose section) and you know what? Who cares, we all make them. I also do not believe they should nullify the benefit this user will bring with the tools. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Everything here would appear to be in order. SorryGuy  Talk  17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Great AIV work. SpencerT♦C 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Response to the second oppose and question 4 show good character.--KojiDude (Contributions) 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Count-on-left-hand Support The number of editors/bots who have beaten me to rving vandalism over a dozen times in one minute are few. In fact, I can count the number on my left hand. And I only have five fingers on my left hand. And one of those fingers would go to ClueBot. Another would go to Thingg. --SharkfaceT/C 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Excellent user, would not abuse the tools, has the necessary experience to use the tools correctly. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I've seen this user around a lot, good participation on WP:ANI. ~AH1(TCU) 19:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support An editor who would make very good use of the additional tools and responsibilities, and has shown good judgement many times over Howie ☎ 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - demonstrates consistent judgment. His participation at AIV is particularly good. Enjoy the tools. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. SupportDan Beale-Cocks 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Vandal fighter and has a very good track and no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Per an earlier review. Taking note of the opposers concerns, I agree that CSD is a little light, but I believe that the candidates in process, in guideline and in policy contributions elsewhere demonstrate that Thingg will be accurate in this area as well. On balance a net postive to the project. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak support - just meets my standards. EJF (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong support - Had an encounter with this user earlier today, reverting some vandalism of his page. I watched his talk page for a while and subconsciously reviewed his responses in my head and quite frankly, I can't see anything wrong with him or his views. None of the below opposes have provided me with sufficient reason to change my mind in thinking that Thingg will continue to contribute excellently to Wikipedia and that his use of the tools will not be malicious in any sense of the word. Wow, an essay. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with the caution that candidate use greater caution before deleting. Sometimes it's best to take the time to look for a way to improve an article. Simply reverting a tag removal without realizing an improvement had been made as well is an easy mistake to make. And while the hasty reversion was regretable, I'm afraid I don't see the biting. I would suggest checking the talk pages of new users and welcoming the unwelcomed. It can take the sting out of the warning and (({welcomeg))} gives them helpful links to policies. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 23:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to not ready yetperDark. Dlohcierekim 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - not bad. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 02:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support: I can't tell you how many of this editor's AIV reports I've dispatched in the past couple of weeks. Stalwart vandal fighter and I firmly believe this editor is worthy of our trust. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: Here goes my support for Thingg. I also liked the collections (Things that make me laugh) on your user page. --Bhadani (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Antonio Lopez (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. --What does this button do? (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC) He has many great articles/edits[reply]
  37. Support Per nom. MBisanz talk 04:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Looks like a fine editor to me. Keep up the good work. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I have seen this user around rv vandalism and think he will do a great job with the tools, keep it up and good luck. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support although I hope that in the Q4 situation the candidate might try to steer that user away from vandalism and towards productive contributions. Switching to neutral; misc concerns. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Looks like a good vandal fighter. DarkFalls' diff ([1]) is obviously clumsy, but everyone makes mistakes. the wub "?!" 16:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Good editor, vandal fighter and i think he will also be a good admin. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per inclusion on this list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support I thought you were already an admin! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Good user and well thought out answers to all questions. Although, regarding my question, wouldn't you take the situation to WP:ANI? The DominatorTalkEdits 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - overall a net positive. Few issues to iron out but can be done on the job :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I see no real reason to oppose a good-faith contributor whom I can say I trust with the tools. Valtoras (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. This took some thought, because those CSD-mistake diffs in the Oppose section were a bit troubling, but I trust that Thingg has learned from his mistakes. The revert error was trivial; I'm sure there isn't an editor on the site who hasn't done something along those lines. Thingg is very competent when it comes to identifying vandalism, and I trust that he use the tools in a thoughtful manner. 70.112.192.130 (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note IP users are not allowed to !vote in RfA. If you have an account, please log in to !vote. Thank you TheProf - T / C 15:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support due to history of interaction with this user. Cool headed, would make an excellent admin. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Excellent addition to the vandal fighting arsenal of admins. Good luck! SWik78 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support -- I do some RC Patrol, and Thingg is constantly beating me to them. As 70.112.192.130 says, a couple edits mentioned in Oppose are slightly troubling. But what really convinces me is that he's perfectly willing in his answers above to admit that he doesn't know everything, and that there are some areas where he'd sit back and let a more experienced admin handle things. If admin is WP:NBD, I think Thingg has more than earned his or her mop. Vandalism consumes a lot of the community's time, so adding admins in that area is something I'd strongly support. I would definitely trust Thingg with the tools. Fogster (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, good vandalfighter with a couple of slips with tagging, but I trust him to be careful and take things slowly in areas he's not experienced in. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I think he is experience enough for the mop.   jj137 (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Per Ghirla's personal attack below. Dorftrottel (complain) 11:23, April 22, 2008
  54. Weak Support. This doesn't worry me all that much; strictly speaking, it could be argued Thingg was correct, since the article title was "Dubois Middle School History", and while obscure middle schools are (for some bizarre reason) on the edge of notability guidelines, a purported history of said obscure school could well be construed to fall under CSD A7. (Yes, I know, lawyer pedantry. Don't blame me, I'm a law student.) As to the Avenged Sevenfold diff, it isn't a major concern; forgetting to check the history is an easy mistake to make, especially if you're tagging lots of pages for speedy. I do have some concerns about his understanding of image policy, but if he avoids using his admin tools on images (as I have done, since I don't really understand image policy either), I am happy for him to become an admin. I wasn't going to bother voting, but it looks like this RfA will fall right on the borderline. WaltonOne 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Appears out of nowhere 4 and a half months ago, racks up a good edit count, and is presented by good editors for RfA? Suggests a good Wikipedian to me. We need more of that. Deli nk (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Definite net positive. Areas where knowledge is lacking are made up for with good faith, Thingg is not going to abuse the tools. VanTucky 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Took a while to reach this decision, but I think the highlighted mistakes are not categorical in nature and would disappear quickly given some rudimentary use of the tools. I think Thingg would learn quite quickly the proper usage and go on to become a satisfactory administrator. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. As I spend more time around here, I see Thingg more and more often doing a yeoman's job and beyond. Keep it up! :-) Isaacsf (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Trustworthy user. Everybody makes mistakes here and there. Honestly, what do people want? -- P.B. Pilhet 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support--BozMo talk 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per everyone else. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Consistent editor with more than 1000 edits per month dating way back, even more than that in the current month, which is yet to conclude. 173 edits to the Playstation 3 article shows persistence and willingness to improve an article over a longer time period. PeteShanosky 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. When doing recent changes patrol you will run into Thingg's work a lot - as tireless vandal fighter he is everywhere. I'll agree that he doesn't have all the answers, and has sometimes made mistakes, but no one has all the answers and we all make mistakes. Sounds like a normal human being to me, as well as a good candidate for admin. Support per WP:NBD. Wikidenizen (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I've seen this user around, doing great edits. I think will make a good sysop. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support A decent article writer and vandal fighter. I think it's time for to give Thingg the tools. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. -- Naerii 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support My metasense didn't go off, so I'm going to say support. RC-0722 247.5/1 03:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, seems like good work here —Alex•Muller 13:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak oppose - I have seen this user around WP:AIV a whole bunch, and know that he has got the whole anti-vandal thing down, but now I would like to see a bit more participation in other areas that would require the tools, such as WP:ANI and especially WP:AFD. I also see little CSD tagging which makes me question this user knowledge of the deletion policy. My recommendation is to gain a little wider range of contributions and come back in a few months. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Mindless reverting. Don't bite the newbies. --- RockMFR 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats a very weak reason to oppose (IMHO) TheProf - T / C 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I normally wouldn't respond to an oppose because I consider that bad form, but I just wanted to clarify that the only reason I reverted that edit was because it removed the speedy-deletion tag from the page. I can assure you, if the editor had not removed the tag from the page, I would not have considered reverting it. Respectfully yours, Thingg⊕⊗ 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you make the same revert again in future? Epbr123 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but not the way I did it there (that was an error in judgment on my part). All speedy-deletion tags state that the tag is not to be removed by the article creator and give instructions on how to contest the speedy-deletion. I should have simply readded the tag (as opposed to reverting) and left an edit summary and/or talk page comment along the lines of "Please follow the directions on the tag". Thingg⊕⊗ 17:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another follow-up, if I may: in your opinion, was the version from which you reverted any longer A3able (I gather you submit that it was—I don't imagine that you'd re-add a speedy tag to an article that no longer met a speedy deletion criterion simply because the speedy tag was removed by the creator upon his/her expanding [albeit not all that significantly] an article—but I'm not quite sure that the revision at issue wasn't a valid stub, and I'm interested in your thinking here.)? Joe 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had assumed the person was removing the tag simply because he did not want his article removed. It was a mistake on my part and I take full responsibility for it. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind here folks, that Thingg did not originally place the tag on the article. Someone else did. Thingg re placed the tag after the creator of the article removed it incorrectly. Don't hafta look at the article for that. Simply redoing what another editor in good faith did correctly. Whether the article is here or not is irrelevant as far as Thingg's abilities as an editor and potential admin. If anything, this isolated incident (because it's isolated) only solidifies my support. If anyone actually opposes based on one diff...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oppose was Mindless reverting. Don't bite the newbies. You haven't said anything to add or detract from that. It speaks for itself. Stop proselytizing. 86.44.27.56 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A speedy tag on a page that doesn't or no longer meets a speedy criteria should not be replaced, even if the creator removed it. A warning is in order, though. Apparently it was isolate, but considering the inexperience of Thingg in the deletion area, it strengthens my oppose. CenariumTalk 03:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I agree with Tiptoety. In the deletion area, I've been able to find only these diffs through his contribs:[2], [3], [4], [5] and [6], So I really think that Thingg is very inexperienced there. If it were, say, in the fair use area, I wouldn't oppose for that, but the deletion area is too important to be omitted and is inevitable for an admin. This is particularly worrying when he says that he'd like to clear up C:CSD and backlogs in his answer to Q1. This said, I think that he's a very good vandal fighter and makes a great job with Huggle, but it's not enough to determine if he'll do well with the tools. Also, more participation in community discussions (e.g. XfD, ANI...) would bring me to support in a few months. CenariumTalk 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problems whatsoever in the diffs you provided. The first diff appears a valid tagging of the page (even though it is generally more acceptable to take schools to AFD); the second diff was three months ago, and he was fixing a problem; I don't see a problem with the third one except that the reason was "'", which is probably a typo; there is no problem whatsoever in the fourth, it is a valid reason to keep the page; and the opinion Thingg expressed was upheld by multiple editors in the discussion. Could you please explain the relevance of these to Thingg's experience? Malinaccier (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the first diff is an error. It is explicitly stated that schools do not fall under the A7 criteria, and also there is WP:SCHOOL. Regardless, it's easy to learn from. Ready? Thingg, don't tag schools for speedy deletion anymore. People can easily learn. The rest of the diffs are absolutely fine, especially the last one. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I've been unclear, the diffs are not problematic, it's just that it's the only contributions of Thingg in the deletion area. CenariumTalk 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, happy editing =). Malinaccier (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I don't count the speedy tags on deleted articles, since I can't see them... I based myself on the notifications and on the comment of Tiptoety. CenariumTalk 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interiot shows 197 deleted edits, considering the amount of reverts of Thingg, a lot of them should be reverts of now deleted pages. It's possible that Thingg tagged pages for speedy among those without notification, but I don't think that the number is significant. CenariumTalk 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a quick look through Thingg's deleted contributions and I'm counting around 12 pages tagged for deletion (purely going on the edit summary), the vast majority are edits to deleted images, vandalism reverts and edits to now deleted user talk pages. Nick (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose As of now, I am unconvinced of this user's ability to become a good administrator. This is shown through the awfully awry speedy deletion tagging and lack of understanding of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Doesn't bother checking a page's history before asking for deletion, "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Also this is exceptionally troubling. "The reason I did not actually take a picture of my own is because I feel it is pointless to take out a camera, take a photograph of my television with my PS3 turned on, edit and touch up the image, and then upload the picture (which by then will look almost identical to this one) to Wikimedia Commons." This is called a derivative work and will still be subject to the original copyright. The fair use rationale of this is very, very basic; and certainly not what I expect from an administrator. RockMFR also has some good points above. If the editor adds context and makes the speedy tag redundant, you don't blindly revert; even if the editor removes the speedy deletion tag. Rollback is to be used responsibly; that diff does not demonstrate a constructive use of them. —Dark talk 03:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC) comment. Shame, I had come here thinking I would support. Maybe next time. Sorry. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose; that Avenged Sevenfold diff is bothering me. If you had tools, then that would be a high-traffic article with a long history deleted. I admit, that one would be spotted/reverted quickly, but not all would. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as I agree the reverting is a worry. This user needs more experience. I see user joined in November 2007 and already has 11,000 edits! Checking wannabe_kate as I'm reading it now 6519 for April 08 so far. So number of edits not a problem for me. I just think this user could do with some more actual time on the project gaining experience, so not ready yet. Maybe I will support next time.--Sting au Buzz Me... 12:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Switched to not ready yetper Dark's dif. The tagging of an article about a notability asserted subject as Vandalism seems overly hasty to me. One should check histories before tagging or deleting. It never hurts to Google the subject too, as there may be a notable subject lurking behind a badly mangled article. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 12:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per J Milburn. I don't think the tools would be abused, but perhaps misused George The Dragon (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Wanted to support, but the diff by Dark helped moved me away from it. I was actually the admin who came across the Avenge Sevenfold article when it was tagged for deletion. It only took 5 seconds to realize that the article should not have been deleted... could be an issue for sure. Jmlk17 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Poor understanding of image policy (bad rationale, licensing derivative works as free, uploading copyvios). And this too. east.718 at 01:01, April 21, 2008
  12. Per answers to questions 4, 5, 6. Adminstrator candidates need to show common sense–giving final warnings to suspected hacked admin accounts isn't the procedure we have, and thinking that commenting on another's RFA whilst undergoing one yourself is a violation of COI exposes some key components missing in this candidate. The Avenged Sevenfold diff is bothersome too. Sorry. Rudget 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose If Thingg had the deletion tools, he would have deleted the Avenged Sevenfold page, and would have then lost his tools if he was up for recall. Also with the hacked account, warnings won't deter somebody who has already hacked an account, and a different direction needs to be persued in that situation. Grsz11 15:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If Thingg had the deletion tools, he would have deleted the Avenged Sevenfold page <-- As nominator I've been trying to refrain from comment, but I have to take issue with this statement as well as similar ones. I think the fact that Thingg doesn't have a lot of csd tags under his belt is actually A Good Thing™. It shows he does not lean towards the deletionist side and therefore as an administrator would exhaustively consider each deletion he performs. I frankly don't see as how a handful of minor mistakes with csd tagging as a user inform this discussion. As an administrator, he would no doubt ensure that a deletion was warranted before actually performing it. Users can afford to make a mistake in tagging a page because administrators ultimately make this judgment call. xenocidic (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Based on your logic, administrators can be careless and make mistakes because other administrators will correct them? It is an editor's duty to make sure they tag things correctly, and saying someone has a safety net misses the point entirely. Can you prove that Thingg will be more accurate in his deletions than his CSD tagging? In response to "It shows he does not lean towards the deletionist side and therefore as an administrator would exhaustively consider each deletion he performs.", the diffs I listed above should be evidence to the contrary. —Dark talk 11:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't say that at all. I said that users can afford to make some minor mistakes because administrators are tasked with carefully weighing deletions. xenocidic (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent way of creating more pressure on an administrator's already-heavy workload. The speedy deletion tagging is to make administrative deletions easier not to make it harder. Clearly, either you are wrong with your reasoning or Thingg has the wrong idea on what an administrator's role is. Either way, how do you know that Thingg will not make these "minor mistakes" as an admin? —Dark talk 08:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose: I want to like, but I fear you might be a little too hair-triggered. A little caution never hurts.--Bedford 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Oppose per recentness of the Avenged Sevenfold diff and general concerns raised by other voters. Will support in the future. Paradoxsociety (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose Appears out of nowhere 4 and a half months ago, racks up a good edit count with low page average, and is presenting himself for RfA? Suggests career mandarinism to me. We need no more of that. Answers to later questions are also concerning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assumption about his person's motives might be accurate, but I'm afraid my assumption from the fact that you have made such a negative hypothesis on such slim evidence is more about your personality than his. However, I might very well be wrong, that's the problem with assumptions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What assumption exactly would you be talking about? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These [7], [8], [9], [10] should tell you something about Thingg's motives. J.delanoygabsadds 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    EH? Appears out of nowhere? We're all from somewhere, even if it is nowhere. I don't understand this rationale at all. Dlohcierekim 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the most ridiculous and overly cynical opposes I've read in a long time. A user makes an account and is immediately prolific. Geez. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope there's no hard feelings 'bout your own RfA btw. In case you hadn't realised, that wasn't the reason for my oppose. Please read (Dio also) again. ;) Shall bold career mandarinism for you? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deacon, of course not, no hard feelings! However, I just can't help but feel it is cynical to point out someone's motives as entirely (insinuated) power hungry, or the desire for a position. Come on, I thought we assumed good faith around here? An article writer or not, the question is whether they'll abuse the tools... Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not sure what you mean when you say "career mandarinism". Thingg didn't "present" himself, I nominated him, completely of my own accord, because I thought he was doing a lot of good work and could do more benefit with the tools. xenocidic (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's simply a case of I don't think wikipedia needs any more non-writing admins. Too many already. It's really not that complicated or unique an oppose reason I don't think, and is nothing personal against the candidate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong oppose - I am not happy with the answers given to questions about how to deal with vandalism. The insistence on four warnings in response to Qs4. and 5. shows a lack of the necessary flexibility. The user appears to have a lack of understanding of Q.7 "A respectable admin account has started vandalizing relentlessly". This indicates that the account has become compromised and a compromised admin account puts the Project at serious risk. In such circumstances the account should be blocked immediately, to protect the Project, whilst enquiries are made. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The only worse thing for Wikipedia (than deleting articles rather than correcting the problems) is deleting them even after the problems have been corrected. I see this happen too much on AFD as it is. RockMFR's diff which shows you (only a few days ago) re-inserting a "speedy delete" tag which was and is no longer applicable is not a good sign at all. — CharlotteWebb 02:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Unsatisfactory answers to questions. Appears to have the wrong philosophy for an admin. Giano (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per answers to questions, abundance of supports from folks whose judgment cannot be trusted. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose -- not yet. I think you and the project will benefit if you wait a few months more. X Marx The Spot (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Has less than 5 months of experience, poor answers to added questions and per DarkFalls. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose strongly per answers to my questions. I have no problem per se with admins who apply sanctions discretionately. I think it is sometimes useful. I also freely admit that there are good admins among non- or little-writing editors. But non-writing admins who apply disretionary sanctions as they see is a dangerous game as those who don't write or write little often loose touch with what wikipedia is all about and apply tools on editors with a huge damage to the content writers and, hence, the project. --Irpen 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose vandalism warnings are a courtesy, not a requirement. Answers to questions 4, 5, and 6 are completely unsatisfactory for me. Mr.Z-man 22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, per questions 9a and 14 - there's nothing special about Jimbo that makes vandalism on his userpage or article any different than another userpage or article (with the exception of BLP issues). Mr.Z-man 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps that is true, but on the other hand, we often assign harsher penalties in society to those that commit crimes against certain classes of citizens, such as children, cops, judges, presidents, etc... on the theory that if someone will disregard status so flagrantly, they need to be treated more harshly as a deterrent against others doing the same. I think the Wikipedia equivalent might reasonably be vandalism on Jimbo's page. In addition, user did answer specifically to 9 (in part): "it would depend on what "type" of vandalism was performed", which certainly indicates a level of judgment being involved. Frank (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a class system. Unless he is speaking as godking (though his power to do so is waning) or the board, he has no special authority. Mr.Z-man 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I find the answers to several of the questions, 4 to 7 in particular, to be rather worrisome. OTOH, I'm not seeing the dubious tagging as quite such a big deal. I make mistakes, and I assume everyone else is roughly as dim as me, so it's only fair that you should get to make mistakes too. What concerns me more is the very mechanical look of what you're doing, which more or less matches the problems I see in the answers. Variety is the spice of wikilife. Or, to put it another way, if you spend all your time playing whack-a-mole and hanging round AIV, you'll tend to get a quite slanted view of Wikipedia and its editors. I'd suggest trying something different from time to time. XfD and PUI can always use more considered opinions. There are gazillions of articles to be written, expanded, categorised, illustrated, de-POVed, wikified, templatised, unorphaned, and so on. We have noticeboards for every taste - fiction, BLP, RS, Fringe, OR and who knows what else - and a help desk and village pumps. We have articles for creation, article RfCs, third opinions, and even mediation if that's your kind of thing. Why not spoil yourself a little? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Avenged Sevenfold issue mentioned above and per Sting au. Markovich292 05:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Regretfully oppose per Irpen's rationale and relative newness/lack of experience. Even for someone actively exploring all areas of Wikipedia's polcies and culture, 4 months is very early to be entrusted with the tools. Also, while RC patrolling and dealing with vandalism are important, the tools are not really necessary to do it (AIV is rarely if ever backlogged these days). My concern is that adminship is very much a big deal these days - recent ArbCom decisions have empowered admins with a remarkable degree of discretion - and in order to be trusted with that sort of discretion I'd like to see more evidence of article-writing and participation in the more difficult or controversial aspects of Wikipedia. I wrote "regretfully" because I think Thingg looks like an excellent editor and I can see supporting him in the future, but I think this is a bit premature. MastCell Talk 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Seems to have too mechanistic a view of policies and procedures. --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose needs more experience, per most of the above. The problems dont worry me about having the wrong attitude, just as needing more practice. DGG (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose I hadn't chimed in on this RfA because it had a lot of !votes when I first saw it and it looked like it's fate was going one way. But now that it is a borderline case, I decided to take the time to investigate this candidate a little further. Based upon the opposes above and my general unease with this candidate, I have to side with the opposers.Balloonman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Per Carnildo. Ral315 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose this time. Come back in a few months. Doczilla STOMP! 03:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I'll stick this in here for now, I did see the name and thought I would be able to support, but some of the behaviour from your co-nominator has left a bitter taste in my mouth, and indeed, a couple of valid points have been raised. The reverting diff above is a particular concern, as it removed content being added to an article, it wasn't a simple case of adding back the speedy deletion tag, now we've got some over-zealous tagging going on already, people who go around whacking CSD tags on anything and everything, resulting in some articles with a lot of potential being deleted, but when the revert actually removes content, that's really not fair. I'm also noting that the article is still around, it really looks like no thought has been placed into adding the tag back onto the page, it was a simple revert and run. That sort of works (though it's really unhelpful behaviour and I wouldn't encourage anybody to behave like that) but when you're an administrator, delete and running isn't an option, careful consideration and research is necessary to determine if an article like that should be deleted, I would expect an administrator to spend a few minutes looking to see if such an article is determined to be notable under our notability criteria, check on the internet to see that it's not a hoax article and so on. The revert and run behaviour I'm seeing doesn't exactly inspire confidence you'll do that. Secondly, I'm less that impressed by the answer to question 4, it's tempting to have see a user on AIV, take a stroll over to an alleged vandals talk page, see if they've got a full set of warnings and block them, but sadly, naughty little people edit warring have been known to warn each other for vandalism, users suffering connection problem have been warned for vandalism and so on, and I'm not seeing any indication that there would be any review of the edits involved, it seems very clear cut how they would enact a block on an account, it's not always as easy out there on-wiki, there's an awful lot of bad faith being assumed out there, assuming malice is the order of the day and people are branded vandals completely unnecessarily. Likewise, sometimes an inactive account will return to life a year after they last edited, and will begin vandalising, sometimes they aren't warned (I don't warn vandals, and I know a great many others don't either, I see collecting vandalism warnings as building some sort of trophy cabinet, but that's personal philosophy for another day) yet there's no question the account knows they're misbehaving and no amount of warnings will stop them. Perhaps that's something you'll get the hang of as you become more experienced, but it's just something to be aware of. I'm not sure where this will end up towards the end of the RfA, there will no doubt be plenty of more questions and I think I'll wait until they have been asked and answered before deciding on how to comment. Nick (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above and J Milburn. Rudget 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Switch to oppose.[reply]
  2. Neutral I find the boilerplate answers to questions 4 and 5 to be unimpressive and lacking in any critical thought. Real life doesn't always play out exactly how Wikipedia policy dictates that it should, there are gray areas that need to be addressed by admins that can think on their feet. At this time I do not have any confidence that this nominee is able to think for himself when difficult calls are needed. Trusilver 16:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I asked question 9 was not so much for the first part, but for the second part. I have always had little faith in WP:AIV admins that seem to have the belief of "ZOMG! nevermind that the vandal just hit 30 different articles and hasn't responded to any warning so far, we just CAN'T block him without a final warning!!11!eleven!" This place is one of the few places I invoke WP:IAR, I have a very hard time supporting a candidate who is going to be spending a lot of time monitoring vandalism who can't seem to make judgment calls for when vandals have to be blocked outside of the standard guidelines. This editor has way too many good things going for him for me to consider opposing, but with his answers to 4,5 and 9, I can't support this time. Trusilver 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too many concerns have been raised for me to continue to support. I probably should have gone with my gut in the first place. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral — good vandal fighter for the most part, but makes some reversions such as [11] which a) could have been fixed with about two minutes of proof-editing the sentence and looking up a source to check whether the claim was true, and b) was not followed up with a message on the user's talk page. Prolific editors are not always the most diligent, although I believe that you could become both if you took a little more time and thought over your every action, rather than making some hasty decisions. haz (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that reflects current consensus (WP:PROVEIT) very well. The edit in question was fraught with grammatical errors and - more to the point - really didn't make sense. What does "after diluting US Justice resources for nearly a month" mean? Sounds pretty POV to me, and worth a revert. (I do agree a note on the user page would have been in order. The only other edit from that IP was 3 days prior and should also be reverted, IMHO.) Frank (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the burden of evidence protocol, but I feel that editors who merely discount others' edits without attempting to improve them go against the philosophy of an open-content encyclopaedia. At the very least, if the edit was reverted, then the user should have been warned for NPOV and/or adding unsourced material. However, it took no more than a minute to find a reliable source from a news wire and remove the point of view from the statement. Improving is always preferable to reverting, and I also feel that reversion without warning or notification is a bad practice. (I feel the same way about that previous edit, though, Frank, and have gone ahead and reverted it myself: I cannot find evidence to support any of the claims listed, including the spending of "federal tax monies".) haz (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category