Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 2

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

Thumperward

Nomination

Final (60/39/5); Closed by Rlevse at 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accepted. 18:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I do a lot of work on template cleanup and construction; right now I tend to contribute to the editprotected backlog and I'd rather be clearing it. The same goes for vandalism patrol and fixing botched page moves.

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

A: I don't keep a tally of the articles I've helped get to GA / FA, but I remember editing the guinea pig article back in the day because I had a friend who liked guinea pigs and it ended up FA, which was nice. I've done a lot of work on template unification which has seen the project's infobox and navbox templates become more consistent and professional looking, and I pride myself on never turning down a request for help if I can.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've voluntarily restricted myself to one revert with a forced discussion on any occasion where I disagree with an edit, and will continue to do so. If a dispute can't be resolved on the talk page readily enough, there are a variety of escalation paths; third opinions, RfCs, bringing the issue to the attention of related WikiProjects and pinging editors who I feel are good at dispute resolution. I'm fortunate enough that my watchlist is big enough that I can easily walk away from anything which is causing me stress, and come back to it later. I also try to find some form of common ground with editors who disagree with me in whatever way - such as by pinging them if I find an article which I might not be equipped to improve myself.

Additional question from Keepscases

4. Some older versions of your user page state that you edit Wikipedia while drunk. Do you think this is acceptable behavior for a user? For an administrator?

A: I would prefer for my suitability for the mop to be judged by my on-wiki actions, and this is the standard I would apply to others. For what it's worth, I'd like to think that this was a bit of a coming-of-age edit for me.

Question from seresin

5. Do you intend to close AfDs about fictional subjects that are not obvious one way or the other?

A. No.

Folllowup question from User:DGG

Q Do you intend to close AfDs at all which are not obvious one way or another??

A No. (I like simple answers.)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

6a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: I'd give it a workday (eight hours) to see if any more work was done. If not, then little is being lost by deleting it. If more work is done but still not enough to break out of A7 territory then I'd delete after another 48 hours.

6b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

A: Depends. A link to a website can give some idea of whether the org is notable or not, and at least it means the article's got a primary source. On the other hand, it could just be there to soak up Google juice. I think the periods given in 6a are okay though.

6c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: 3RR is irrespective of who performs the reverts; that said, in the example above, the editor adding material is only performing two reverts, while the one removing is performing exactly three. The letter of 3RR is that more than three reverts is prhibited. I would still consider temporary full protection to encourage discussion at this point.

6d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: No. All debate on WP should revolve around strength of argument. The only difference with article content is that it doesn't have to follow the straw poll format used for AfDs, which makes it less likely that people will resort to counting heads to come to a conclusion.

Questions from User:MichaelQSchmidt

7a. What editors have you been most in conflict with, and what resolution did you offer or have you undertaken to reduce conflict?

A: I don't keep lists of past conflicts, and would prefer to think of conflicts in terms of subjects rather than editors. For resolution steps, see my answer to #3.

7b. Do you see a potential adminship affecting any perceived bias in articles and conflicts?

A: No. I don't intend to use the tools where there would be perceived impropriety. Plenty of admins are capable of wearing their editor hats in such situations; I think I can do the same.

7c. What would you as an administrator to do to lessen wikidrama?

A: I've often requested full protection for pages with ongoing edit wars in the past in an attempt to encourage dialogue. RFPP always seems to have a backlog, so that seems like an easy choice to work on.

7d. Would you declare a willingness to be recalled?

A: I don't generally agree with processes which call for weight of numbers over quality of argument. I'd rather think that if it got to the point where sufficient numbers of editors in good standing were calling for me to be desysopped that the existing formal procedures would be sufficient.

General comments

Links for Thumperward: Thumperward (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Thumperward can be found here.

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

Discussion

I really hope that folks are capable of separating "I don't share an opinion about notability with this guy" and "I think he will misuse the tools on the basis of his opinion about notability". Because I am sure as hell capable of supporting an inclusionist as an admin. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a fair representation of the choice being made here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair representation. It's not a complete representation. I didn't say all opposers are opposing based on wikistance. The comment was pointed at those who were. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oldelpaso (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Essentially a specialist. Long time contributor with extensive experience. Has my support. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to support here. With respects to A Nobody's research into AfDs, I have two points. Firstly, expressing opinion in any debate on this website is just that, opinion. Caveats being Jimbo, Cary, and our dear attorney. They can lay down law. As with a certain RfA that was very recent it is my belief that participation in AfDs is a positive thing, even if the participants hold different views. Sometimes participants are flat out wrong, but most of the time they simply have a different interpretation of policy and guidelines (which yes, are open to interpretation). I may have the opinion to delete something, and express it. It does not mean that as an administrator I will ignore the thoughts of others and do as I please. We've had admins like that before, and they don't last long. I trust the candidate to put personal opinion aside and read the ideas of others and in that process, judge consensus. The second point (and this is not directed at A Nobody, but the participants of RfA in general) is that I have seen a disturbing trend of cherry picking points of contention along the lines of "That's not what I would have done." This is a collaborative process, and opposition based on disagreement is not progress but is, in fact, standing still. Further discussion of this idea can be taken to the RfA talk page but I have little interest in debating this- it's just my own little opinion. _{Steps off soapbox} Keegan^talk 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now, considering user hasn't stated they wish to work in the deletion area. If they did, I'd have to take A Nobody's oppose into more consideration. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am-somewhat-shocked-that-he-wasn't-already-support //roux 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Huh? -- not already an admin.? --EEMIV (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A level-headed editor who has been rational and respectful every time I've seen him. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Roux. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clueful editor, good contribs and experience. — neuro^(talk) 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to oppose. — neuro^(talk) 23:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good contribs, good grasp of policy, no problems here. Black Kite 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full throated support Without quibble, qualm or qualification. Please be patient for a detailed reasoning regarding the strength of this support, as I'll be busy for a few days. If a further explanation is needed, I'll gladly give one. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked by a few folks to clarify this. For about 5 months now, Chris's talk page has been on my watchlist, and I've seen most of the disputes he has been in crop up and be dealt with. With the exception of one editor (who was community banned for his actions in the template namespace), chris's interactions there were clear and respectful--even when the person on the other end was less respectful. This is something that is hard to do for those of us who don't undertake to work in contentious areas. I have the luxury of a pleasant talk page because I refuse to edit in highly contentious spaces. Chris dives in. His template work, homogenizing data and infoboxes, is exceptionally contentious by definition. Even value neutral changes such as ensuring browser compliance generate considerable friction because these infoboxes are project specific--folks get upset at outsiders changing things. Exceptionally contentious changes such as replacing a homebrew template with a variant on {{infobox}} are guaranteed to generate opposition. Chris has been working to make exactly those changes (which are critical to the inner working of the pedia) for some time now. And he's been tireless. He's also stuck (As far as I can tell) to the scheme he outlined above: one revert and then discussion. Apart from this, he shows a high degree of technical competence in template work, which is crucial for working the {{editprotected}} backlog in the template namespace. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-qualified. -down load | sign! 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Master&Expert (Talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a user whose edits and comments I've seen around WP have been thoughtful and cogent. Deor (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly talk 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no reason at all that Thumperward should not be given the mop. Good luck. America69 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen him around and he's a solid strong editor with a good sense of our core goals. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've watched him for a while: sometimes he does execute a bit too briskly for other editors, but his heart is in the right place. Go for it. - Pointillist (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Oppose Support - Fastily (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) - I have given an explanation for the change in my vote below. - Fastily (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good editor, clear and cogent in discussion. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I'd note that it would be best to avoid doing anything that would cause Jimbo to ask you to stop. hmwith τ 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per I've seen him around and he seems to have a good head screwed on his shoulders. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The oppose votes do raise some troubling points, but after more than 40k good edits I think his devotion to the project is not open to question. That said, he may have made some questionable decisions in the past, but his heart is in the right place, and he seemed to have learned from his mistakes (which is really the key). I think he can be trusted, and will avoid drama in the future. Plus, his skills with templates will be very useful for all. Cool3 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Ray^Talk 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jake Wartenberg 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For every reason above. Spinach Dip 06:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Great editor; has clue and skills. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid work overall, just mind the appearance of a bad attitude in AfD and you'll be fine. Good luck mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've only seen good stuff coming from this editor so far, and I am not concerned over the oppose voters' input or by any occasional good-faith screw ups. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no good reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secret ^account 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought more about my "vote" in this RFA, and I'm not worried about the oppose ection. Most of it is because of either A inclusionist-deletionist disputes in which Thumperward is active in the deletionist side and he's not really very active in AFD compared to others. I don't trust many of those votes nor editors (with the exception of DGG), and B the linux situation. While this is worriesome, which led Jimbo to leave a "warning". I don't see much bias at all with that situation, in fact I'm seeing alot of likely canvassing in the oppose section, (many of the opposers are first time commenters in RFA, weird) and this RFA should be restarted if anything. Secret ^account 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flowerparty^☀ 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good answers to the questions, seems a very level-headed editor. --Ged UK 15:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do not have concerns that Thumperward would abuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have mostly encountered Chris in the template namespace, where he generally makes sensible and well thought-out edits. His skills with templates will be of benefit to the project, so I support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EdBever (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cool3. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wizardman 20:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good answers and will be an asset with the admin tools. --CapitalR (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - concerns raised by opposition are not in areas that this editor intends to admin; and no, some content conflict with Jimbo over something that is controversial isn't a reason to oppose in my view (is Jimbo the ultimate content decider?) The candidate is more trustworthy than WP:Huggle plug-ins that get the mop in a blink despite the lack of substantive edits. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Jimbo the ultimate content decider? The answer is yes. Fortunately, unlike many people I've worked for, he takes a Socratic/Rand philosophy to running the show. We have the power, except when we don't, and that's fine by us. Keegan^talk 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per MSGJ. ascidian | talk-to-me 05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coldmachine^Talk 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine by me, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I haven't given his contribs a thorough look through before posting this, but I have had dealings with Thumperward in the past. Although we sometimes disagreed over certain issues, it never became a heated debate between us and he had some excellent points, often making me rethink or change my position. I've seen him do quite a lot of work with templates, which has made me think "Why isn't he an admin?"... template coders are always needed. Regarding the Linux thing, I don't think it really matters... if it was a dispute with just another editor, or even a group of other editors, it would probably go virtually unnoticed in this RFA. Just because there's a content dispute between him and another user (even if it's Wikipedia's co-founder) isn't a reason to oppose a nomination. (this is my first comment in an RFA; please let me know if I made any mistake) –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(and regarding the Gavin.collins RFC in which both myself and Thumperward were involved, I don't agree with his positions there, but he has every right to have them. As long as he follows a consensus and doesn't use admin tools to aid his position in such conflicts it doesn't really matter to me). –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- although there is some heat on Thumperward, he seems that he knows how to handle himself on Wikipedia. A couple of mistakes shouldn't affect his admin skills, we aren't all perfect.--₮RU CӨ 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(very cautious) Support we need admins and we need clear thinkers. Obviously as an inclusionist myself I am (and was) unhappy with alot of the views Chris holds, but if he is prepared to step up to the plate then I am happy to give him a go for other evidence provided above (I hope I won't regret this) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I rarely vote in AfDs, because I don't have the time to give the look-over that I think candidates deserve. However, I have come across Chris numerous times and in my encounters with him I have always found him to be level-headed and well-informed. I both understand and respect the concerns of the inclusionists below; all I can say to them is that we obviously can't have an admin corps composed entirely of inclusionists, and I'd rather have an intelligent and rational deletionist than someone who is "balanced" but doesn't have a clue. I've seen a few (very few, thank God) instances of admins who didn't understand the arguments on either side of a debate and yet they stepped in, making a worse mess than if no admin had appeared on the scene. I think those with inclusionist concerns will be able to talk to Chris, and, if that doesn't work out, there's always DRV. Un school 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Overall, good edits. Well-argued points in debates. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HiDrNick! 19:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Trustworthy and thoughtful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think he'll be fine. Obviously a bit trigger happy on the deletion button (I hope you tone that down) and a bit overly self-confident (since I am a notorious ditherer this is not necessarily a bad thing!) but overall I like his style. Including his response to Jimbo which, I thought, was well expressed. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have personally experienced this user's dramatics and hot-headed behavior in years past (when I was a n00b and we collaborated on Guinea pig), but I do think he's a genuinely well-meaning and trustworthy editor with more than enough experience to use the tools correctly. We should assume good faith, since he recognizes a poor interaction with others previously and says things have changed. Steven Walling (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happily. He said he will stay away from contentious fiction AfDs, which was my only concern. Most of the opposes are ridiculous, so no reason to oppose. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've learned to know him as a good editor, somebody helping to solve disputes and also somebody doing a lot of very useful work for the Wikipedia project. Also, I trust his opinion even if it is different to mine from time to time.Old Death (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meets my criteria okay, a few possible concerns brought by the opposition, but they are not things that are going to make me withdraw support. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice cleanup. The answers to your questions are a bit limp but I see you have a firm grasp of policy and guidelines from your editing history. Them From Space 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support I've encountered this editor here and there spread over seemingly random articles a number of times. When I saw his username here I immediately thought "You mean he isn't already?" He is one of the few editors where I don't bother reviewing a change if I see him in my watchlist. Look at his history: this is a varied set of contributions showing commitment to the project. This is not an editor quickly racking up the edit count with uninvolving minor edits for RfA purposes, but somebody putting in time and concentrating on improving the project. We need more admins like that. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
chan dler · 13:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 24 months since your last block despite being busy and controversial, and I don't regard a lack of experience of new page patrol as a problem, especially as your experience relates to the areas in which you intend to work. Were Spiel Chequers 16:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eusebeus (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Thumperward at times can be a civil and constructive editor as when he has suggested some pages I help edit on and as such I am pleased at times to interact with him as an editor. And for the record, I like the pirate image on the userpage! My concerns with regards to adminship is how tools might be used based on past interactions. For example, he was pretty persistent about trying to get aspects of my old userspace undeleted that caused near wheel warring among admins over the issue. And with regards to AfDs, I am concerned with such instances as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhuman, i.e. not thinking outside of the box. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Corvinus, digging in to delete when a merge as happened was reasonable as a compromise was disappointing. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator Timeline, we have use of the non-word "cruft." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Ravens, why not per WP:BEFORE attempt a merge or redirect? With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media, not suitably acknowledging efforts to improve during discussion. With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters by IQ, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit of Caerbannog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lathander we have a misread of the sources that was obviously inconsistent with consensus. With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horus Heresy, not objecting to future reuse seems more a call for a redirect with edit history intact to avoid having to request recreation. Just as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits, why not redirect as happened? With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Corvin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (web series), it was just disappointing that when pretty much everyone else is persuaded by the sources that resulted in a keep, to still argue against them. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Coltons, even TTN didn't seem opposed to a merge and redirect. Finally in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormie/DRV notes, he adamantly defended something that was speedily deleted. So, my concern with regards to AfDs are as follows: 1) overly biased tendency toward deletion of fictional subjects, even when they are improved and sources presented during the discussions; and 2) reluctance to change stance during discussions. It is important for admins to identify trends in an AfD and how the discussion develops when new material is presented and as such based on past experiences, I am concerned that even if an article is in fact rescued that might not be adequately taken into consideration. So, I am happy to work with Thumperward to improve articles and of the various editors with whom I have disagreed in my time here, I give him a lot of credit for making good faith gestures to suggest articles to work on or to make the talk page archive thing in my talk page when I changed names, but there have been just a few things regarding deletion that make me apprehensive as to what he might try to undelete and how he might close discussions. So, I am somewhat torn, because I believe he is an editor I can work with, but maybe if he pledged to not close fiction AfDs for which he might be biased (I think every fiction AfD I have participated in with him he said to delete, which is over 30 by my count, and not all of those closed as delete after all), maybe it would be reassuring. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am currently discussing my concerns with the candidate at User_talk:Thumperward#Admin_nom and as such my stance could change accordingly. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pumpkin King??? Are you still at up to your repetitive inclusionist shenaningans, but under a different user name? I thought you'd quit. Anyway, nice to see you again.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am concerned with statements around the edit protection template pages. I am unable to trust this editor to do such without a chance of CoI or other problems. The concerns by A Nobody only verify a lack of trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... statements around the edit protection template pages. Would you care to clarify what you mean by this? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - because the candidate with a "hot head" could be a "drama admin".--Caspian blue 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this warning to you (Please stop your campaign against GNU/Linux) by Jimbo Wales is troubling me--Caspian blue

Some diffs/evidence to back up your claim that he's a "hot head" would be appreciated. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a throwaway line from my first RfA. My attitude towards editing has changed considerably since then, especially concerning dispute resolution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You introduced yourself as such and I still see that your attitude concerning dispute resolution remains same.--Caspian blue 15:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too many bad memories of this user in AfD. They were a while ago and with a stated willingness to not use the bit on debatable fiction articles I really should be okay with this, but an still concerned. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle's link to an RfC further reinforce my sense that this editor wouldn't be a good admin candidate. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very high level of snark in the GNU/Linux edits and an ongoing conflict with Jimbo are not what we need in an admin. AKAF (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per questionable oppose at Eco's 3rd RFA here. He opposed for an AFD close because he disagreed with Eco's applying of WP:SK even although Eco never invoked WP:SK in his close. His argument basically was that AFD's cannot be SNOW- or speedy-kept if the outcome is anything other than "keep" which shows a basic misunderstanding of what AFD is and is not. AFD is not a place for improvement discussions and an AFD which may end in "merge", "redirect" or "keep" but where there is no chance at all that it will end in "delete" can be SNOW- or speedy-kept perfectly fine because content discussion is to be held on talk pages, not on AFD. And, call it a stupid reason, but I have a bad feeling about this user's capability to be an admin and while I do hope I'm wrong, little bits of editing by this user leave me unable to ignore this. So Why 07:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "bad feeling" is fine; a little detail would be nice on what's causing your bad feeling, but I trust your judgment. However, my feeling is that Chris's oppose of Eco was right on the money, for this and other reasons. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other oppose comments above. I'm worried based on the comments I'm reading that this editor means well but may not yet have the judgement necessary to be an admin that calmly handles disputes and makes judicious deletion decisions. Give it 6 months and I may support another RfA. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from reading the Q&A's I dont think user is quite ready GLFan151 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (sockpuppet of indefblocked user) Casliber (talk · contribs)[reply]
Strong oppose can't see myself supporting this adminship, given the user's deletionist nature. Deletion is a necessary process in some cases, yes, but Thumperward has always been aggressively deletionist. He has gone so far as to prevent integration of deleted articles into other articles. Tealwisp (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that: can you cite an example? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking through histories at the moment. He was involved in the large scale purge of fiction articles last year, and since then, we haven't been editing in the same spaces very much. Also, I dislike the way he uses the word "cruft" pejoratively, but I suppose that's my opinion. Tealwisp (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here it is. He was removing a number of recent edits that introduced text from the Technology article of the Tau as well as a few other articles, some of which were reintroduced, not including the weapons article. I take particular offense at this because notability does not delimit content, even if it should have been reduced under WP:UNDUE, though I expect that Thumperward has learned better since then, as I have. If he has not, then that seems to be an important hole in his knowledge of policy, given that he has been involved in such purges. Tealwisp (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing vast swathes of largely unsourced trivia? Looks like a reason to support rather than oppose to me. Black Kite 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, my objection is that he doesn't believe in leaving anything. He even removed material that belonged in the article, and was moved there by the AfD. Besides, some parts of that should have been left in, without cluttering the article, under WP:IAR, a policy that I don't think Thumperward will follow. Tealwisp (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but are you talking about this AfD? The result there was delete, not merge. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not speaking of the AfD. That was the article that was merged, and I don't deny the reduction of that merge. However, some of what was there should have been left, and given your involvement in the 40k project, I'm sure you know that the tau weapons are notable in their context, unless you were there only to delete articles. Besides, your edit summary wasn't offensive, but the way you used cruft probably bit DataSnake. Tealwisp (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional to my oppose Given the answers to User's questions, it seems Thumperward mostly wants to fight vandalism. He doesn't need Sysop rights for that. If he is wanted for editing protected pages, I vote that we give him editing rights, as I would certainly trust him to avoid vandalism. Tealwisp (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Jimbo's comment simply "wow"ed me. And it sure looks like you're pushing your personal POV, which violated NPOV (plus this happened less than a month ago) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. POV-pushing to the level that elicits a warning from Jimbo Wales is not something I'd want to see on the resume of an administrator. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Answers to questions lead me to believe that this candidate who is interested in vandalism patrol doesn't quite understand the policies underlying speedy deletion or 3RR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC) moving to neutral, upon further reflection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, where did I go wrong on this one? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have spent some time reviewing Cunningham's edits - no small task as he accumulates more edits in a few weeks than I do in a year. I came across this deletion [1] of a sporadic editor's contribution at Occam's razor "don't tag opinion pieces, just remove them". Only problem is that the contribution was genuine and insightful - and more related to content than opinion. The contribution, pointing to flawed logic, argued from that there were more epicycles in the Kopernican system than in the Ptolomean system, is not a contribution from the average bored college student lacing Wikipedia with POV. The right action here would be to let it stay as fact-marked, leaving it to the editors of that page; alternatively a seasoned admin could have taken it to the Talk page and started a discussion. We all swim in a sea of ignorance, but at the very least we should have a humble attitude to what we don't know. In this case, Cunningham failed to show hints at this humbleness, and he showed a loose hand in deleting other editor's contributions. What is his track record at AfD? I picked 20 discussions at random, in 19 of those he voted "delete" or was the nominator - only one "keep". Of those discussions, 11 ended in consensus to delete, so Cunningham's voting pattern is skewed towards deletion, when compared to community consensus. This would reinforce the impression of an editor who is uneager to compromise with Wikipedia's strict quality requirements and who shows little hesitation in deleting other editor's contributions that may be less than perfect. And this brings me to my final and greatest concern. For what has Cunningham contributed with himself? I only found two articles on footballers Archie McLean and James Riordan, all the other pages created by Cunningham are splits with material transferred from larger articles. Even with those two, I could have weak doubts, as they in their first revision come flying in with full heading structure, references and all. For a collaborative project like Wikipedia, I consider it very important, if not essential, that admins at some point in time have slaved at the galleys themselves, struggling to create content, weighed by the burden of finding references, sometimes against deadlines imposed by others, in order to salvage information they consider important. For isn't it true, that the more you become acquainted with all the policies, guidelines, MOS and essays in Wikipedia, the more visible become the flaws of other contributors, in particular those of sporadic editors and IP passerbys. It is simply more demanding to create content, than it is to delete it. I would be less concerned had the admin in spe shown a more pragmatic attitude towards retaining information, and had he shown a more humble attitude towards own (inevitable) ignorance. In this context, IMO, his 22,000+ edit count becomes a liability, rather than an asset. In summary, I would say he is not ready yet for the trust of being equipped with sysop privileges. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was worried by your post so I've dug into the details and I think your examples are are a bit misleading.
- Gkochanowsky's original addition to Occam's razor did look odd: it was a whole paragraph indented in brackets and it read like a comment. Given that at that time the entire "Science and the scientific method" section of that article looked like a piece of extended original research with no references at all, and that Gkochanowsky's para already had a fact tag on it when Thumperward deleted it, this wasn't a very recognizable example of editorial extremism on his part.
- Without knowing which AfDs you examined it is hard to comment but when I looked through 20 AfDs there was only one (this) where the result was "Keep" and he voted "Delete". Five ended with "no consensus" (this, this, this, this and this). In the remaining fourteen (this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this, this) his vote was the same as the final outcome (counting delete-then-redirect-to-list-of-characters as being the same as "delete").
- I entirely agree that admins should have slaved at the galleys themselves, but I don't think the number of new articles someone creates is any sort of test of their contribution here. If you search Thumperward's contributions in Article space there's a tremendous amount of effort to see—he seems to be constantly cleaning up after other people. - Pointillist (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gkochanowsky's comment had just been fact tagged, when Thumberward cleaned it up. I checked these AfDs, not strictly randomized sampling, just scrolled down with the mouse and picked some without reading the text: See chart. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some of your counts are off... for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars ended as "merge" not "keep" as you stated. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing that table, though I wonder if it has lead you a bit astray. Two of your "keeps" are wrong (Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars was "merge", and Orlando (footballer) was "redirect"). Two other "keeps" are actually "no consensus" (the Arabeyes was "no consensus" after a close vote and Tomáš Pekhart (2) was "no consensus" with 5 votes each way). I appreciate that Thumperward voted "delete" in the AfD for Software that uses Subversion and the result was "keep", but that was marginal with 3 x delete, 3 x keep and one "Conditional keep - Delete unless someone is willing/able to take on cleaning up". In the end it did take quite a bit of work to get it to an acceptable state, so I don't think his vote was particularly extreme. Given that he's a deletionist, at least he seems fairly rational about his votes. He even changes his mind sometimes (e.g. the Color of the bikeshed AfD). - Pointillist (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Embarrasing if counts were wrong, if some "keeps" were actually "redirects" or "no concensus". Won't change my basic point though, that Cunningham voted delete, when community voted the inverse. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I was trying to say was it seems Thumperward voted the inverse in only one AfD out of your twenty (and that was a close call) and he voted the inverse in only one AfD out of my twenty, too. Based on these results I don't think it makes sense to demonise him for deletions. - Pointillist (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A little too rogue and deletionist for my tastes. this alone suggests (to me anyway) that the term "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely" may apply - apologies to editor above, and Animal Farm fans. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time, as the concerns of others have me concerned as well. His recently bumping heads with Jimbo Wales himself does not aleviate these concerns. I would not wish to gain the eye of Wiki's founder for my edits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Been thinking about this, the GNU/Linux stuff is enough to make me oppose on the basis that you can always reapply later when we can see more clearly that you won't do things like that again. Too soon for my liking, it would seem after a bit of thought. — neuro^(talk) 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per concerns raised by others, above. Try again next year. NoCal100 (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Weak answers to 3 and 7a, especially considering the candidate's history of conflicts (example 1, 2, 3, Jimbo conflict detailed above). Also has a tendency to circumvent consensus (example 1, 2, 3). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose being admonished by Jimbo is nothing particularly special... except it is. Failure to disclose and discuss it before an opposer brought it up shows lack of judgement. If you'd had the self-confidence to say "I apply WP:BOLD well--Jimbo's even said I went too far--but always been willing to discuss, never been blocked, etc...." I would not be opposing. If you'd mentioned it and said you'd learned from it, I would not be opposing. As is, I find not mentioning such a recent interaction at all troubling. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by this. AFAIK, when matters of content come up, Jimbo is just another editor. I'll go even further to say (though this isn't Chris's opinion) that Jimbo's power means he should stay the hell out of contentious content decisions--warning Chris like he did (which provoked multiple opposes above) was inappropriate. I'm not sure that Chris is required to announce this before accepting a nomination, nor am I convinced that he was hiding it, per se. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the opposers with the same rationale, I'm opposing him not because of the fact that "Jimbo" (a.k.a God of Wikipedia) warned him, but because of the way in which the candidate reacted. Moreover, right below of the warning on the talk, he got another warning for his POV pushing. I believe others who quote the Jimbo's warning to him would interpret the dispute like me.--Caspian blue 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we have a legitimate disagreement there. I think he reacted properly (that is to say, he pointed out the ongoing content RfC, asked if Jimbo's statement was a dictum, and noted the absurdity of naming everything linux as GNU/Linux due to parochial complaints from some members of the free software community). I also would suggest that we not take Jimbo's assertion of POV pushing on face value. He calls it a "crusade"...can we really believe that accurately described Chris's actions? Was it a crusade? Does a review of his work in that area show actual POV pushing? Is it POV to suggest that Linux be called Linux? We even have an article on the dispute: GNU/Linux naming controversy. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this year with conditions for next As usual, A. B. is correct. I'm here because CC/Thumperward's encyclopedia-wide editing swaths are difficult to avoid even in out-of-the-way places: that makes my concern a possible community issue. We made a deal to avoid each other in a couple of articles, which he briefly broke, probably because he forgot about it in his high-volume editing haste. This oppose is a warning to CC that he's reasonably competent or better at some things, but not as competent or correct at Wikipedia as I think he has judged himself to be. Within the last 12 months and following his previous RFA, CC has been a shoot-from-the-hip deletionist, who too frequently shoots wrongly, excessively, or unnecessarily – to the occasional point of being a loose cannon lacking sufficient knowledge of guiderules. I don't hold it against him that he undertakes difficult experimental template programming, but when he hits the wall as we all do, I expect him to be graceful about acknowledging his limits in a collaborative environment. Much skilled programming is non-visual thinking, and I consider him to be visually art-challenged in a way that has led to protracted dispute. I can document each of the statements I've made here, but to be a nice guy, helpful to the project, and avoid raising too much dust, I don't want to do so. I think binary programming practice has an tendency to reinforce "black and white thinking", which is the exact opposite of cultivating a neutral point of view. I believe analog art and music practice can be a helpful counterbalance to programmer's bias. I recommend that Chris take classes in freehand, sculpture, or graphic art and web page layout, which are likely to be helpful to Wikipedia as well as to his long-term programming career. My conditions for RFA neutrality include CC's waiting until next year, going to admin school, accepting adminship only with recall, and that by subtle daily demonstration, he should incrementally increase his self-doubt to learn to "know what he doesn't know". Milo 22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Levi van Tine's examples of editing against consensus. The lack of care shown in all three examples is worrying, but particularly here: User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_28#PLOT. Similarly with GNU/Linux; a lot of WP:BOLD and less WP:CON. Combined with the answer on recall, indicating a desire to stay in adminship no matter what (even though recall is largely useless), I can't support. Phil153 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anti-science POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to supply some other news. (Also, I like Warren G, am an atheist, and regularly shop at Tesco. Does that mean I have a g-funk anti-religion pro-Tesco POV, and if so what does it matter if I don't display it whilst editing?) — neuro^(talk) 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Omg I love how we're talking about Warren G at an RfA. Regulators! Nja²⁴⁷ 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like others said already, the "GNU/Linux" fiasco demonstrated - this user doesn't hesitate to use Wikipedia as a pulpit from which to promote his biases. Not the best quality for an admin. wjaguar (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I thought I was the only one. Author is deletion extremest on free software related articles. (My fault, I submitted this but wasn't logged in -- sorry) Jeff Carr (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I not correct that IPs are not permitted to be counted in the tally? (Especially ones whose sole contribution history is to this particular RfA.) Un school 17:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are. Only registered users are allowed to cast !votes in an request for adminship. They are allowed to comment though. The !vote is indented already. I have stricken the bold part to make it clear that it's not a !vote but a comment. Regards So Why 18:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I have nothing against the user personally, experience with articles such as KOS-MOS have shown that he tends to go for the simple route, blanking or deletion, rather than try for merges or cleanups, then when this is brought to his attention responds with comments saying that others should do the work instead. While there is some truth to that attitude, I can't help but feel that if you're concerned enough with an article to want to blank or delete it because of the content, you should be concerned enough to do a cleanup or merge rather than take the simple way out, and this particular user doesn't come across as someone like that. The site needs less triggerhappy admins and more who are willing to do more than just remove. Fixes are always preferred where possible, and he forgets that. On a side-note, there also appears to be a noted bias against fictional subjects, perhaps the core of the problems surrounding him stems from that. Nezu Chiza (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Because he is intemperate and far too quick to play argumentative tricks. See this very page (but also in many other places) for examples. Also his style has been to crowd out other argument by relentless force rather than by reasoned argument. The very last thing Thumperward is, is wrong. Not admin material. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. POV pushing is definitely not something I like to see, especially so recently. DiverseMentality 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to concerns over the "GNU/Linux" issue; admins should be able to handle content disagreements in a graceful manner and ensure that any large-scale style changes they undertake reflect community consensus. Sandstein 19:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. This user all too often blanks/deletes on a hair-trigger, instead of working with others to improve Wikipedia, as the many examples above show. Sometimes this person makes nice improvements, too, but an admin is supposed to meet "high standards of conduct" than a normal user. Note, in fact, that the previous admin request was rejected! I think this user wants to improve Wikipedia, though. I think we should reject the request for now, and hope that this user will try to work more with others to create the best content. At which point he will be very welcome. Dwheeler (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has a track record of being wrong at AFD along with an over-bold attitude and so cannot be trusted to close according to consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some statistics displaying a "track record of being wrong at AFD"? Also, does his answer to Q5 have any bearing on your opinion? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doctorfluffy, just look at this this RfA's talk page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and I've personally seen Chris in AFD numerous times. It appears to me his thinking is generally in line with the close, which is why I question Warden's claim that there is a body of evidence indicating that he frequently disagrees with consensus. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changed from neutral upon some more thinking. The brevity is so great in this case, that it unfortunately arouses my feeling of disquiet about what the admin actions will be. The main point is trust, and I don't feel it. DGG (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - On one hand, I think in several ways he does decent work, however, my interactions with him involving templates makes me concerned about how he might interact with the less-than-wikipedia-aware newbie. - jc37 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above and botched AfD nominations. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A Nobody and Ottava Rima. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - this user has not done any newpage patrol whatsoever. DS (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wondering when that became a measure of admin abilities? Surely we want admins with variety of skills but expecting all to have experience in all areas doesn't seem terribly reasonable. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this new page patrol criticism. Of the eighteen successful RfA's this year, S@bre, Climie.ca and CRGreathouse had no previous patrol log entries, while RegentsPark had only one. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm also bit puzzled about how DS checked 40 pages in 9 minutes (yesterday). How can anyone check a page like When the Keyboard Breaks: Live in Chicago in less than fifteen seconds? That was in the same minute DS marked Suicide Tuesday (DJ Hyper album) as patrolled, but in that article the release date doesn't match the date in the DJ Hyper article, the wiki-link for the recording company (Kilowatt) wrongly points to the Watt (i.e. unit of power) article, and the article is unreferenced, so it needs a tag or a fix. What value is added by marking an article as patrolled without checking it? Why should we care whether Thumperward does that stuff or not? - Pointillist (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPP takes a few seconds per article. All you have to do is decide whether it needs to be speedily deleted, and if not, you move on. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this either. For the record, I'm not even sure how I got one npp log entry - must've clicked a wrong button somewhere!--RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 13:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of the new page patrol log, i never used it while I did heavy NP patrol while I was a adminstrator. With AFD experience, CSD experience is natural. Secret ^account 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not typing this out again, but my point stands: if you don't understand why NPP is important, then are you really fit to be an admin? DS (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPP is important of course, NPP patrol log isn't required, I never liked how it worked (just about anyone can tag a page as patroled, confuses adminstrators, and I just don't see how a seperate log is helpful). It's just my opinion, when I do NPP deleting, i go by the speedy category and by newest articles. Works just fine. Secret ^account 19:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, don't quite see what NPP has to to with this particular RFA. Some experience in deletion discussions is good, and Thumperward obvously has that, but I'm not sure why it would specifically need to be new page patrolling. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - because he deleted whole phrases (containing GNU/Linux) without giving reason for this. It took me a while (as a newbie; I think it took me about 20 minuts to find out) to find out what exactly his problem was [2]. Phresnel (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my (relatively few) contacts with him, Thumperward's statements have IMO been dogmatic and undiplomatic. Add the fact that he's an aggressive deletionist and that's a recipe for trouble. --Philcha (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose The flaws of other contributors are easiest to see. I would rather he assist the developement of an article rather than jump to delete. It is simply more demanding to create content, than it is to delete it. from above Editor:Power Corrupts....--Buster7 (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Thumperward has most impressive technical skills, but lacks the interpersonal skills that I think are necessary for a position of trust in the community. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This editor surely has made many contributions to WP. However, his track record of conflicts is extremely troublesome. I have not been able to observed him actually creating real content in the struggle to improve an article, indeed in his answers above, he could only state one article with significant contribution of content. He seems to usually just swoop into sight with reverts or deletes without having been involved in an ongoing development of a topic. This has led to creating obstacles and additional work for other editors. Contrary to his statements in this application I have not observed him following his stated 'rule' of 'forced discussions'. I came to the impression that some reverts by this editor are retaliatory in nature. Therefore I have been reluctant to enter my opinion here, because of the prospect of further such actions. In my opinion this editor would use his stated interest in locking articles after he applied his desired changes. His deletionist attitude is extremely worrisome, especially since he appears to actively and aggressively pursue deletions instead of finding ways to salvage and improve. As an administrator he should be able to abstain from active pursuit or voicing opinions about such actions, rather act in the sole role of executing editor consensus. An administrator should rank below editors in status, and should perform the elevated powers with expert efficiency and skill at the discretion of editors. While he has the skill and knowledge, an administrator however should be a support and service person to editors, not a superior or dictator. In this regard, it appears the candidate is not a proper match for the position. The candidate had a previous failed request for adminship. While the nomination text above states that the candidate has learned from experience, the reality of his track record and the reflection thereof in this poll do not bear this out. The nature of complaints against the candidate are much of the same nature and the numerical level of opposition is much the same if not higher. Since the candidate presumably knew of his future desire for adminship, he should have exercised extreme care not to raise any concerns or controversies over his record in the time since his first request, yet he obviously hasn't done so. From this fact, one cannot expect that he will exercise restraint once bestowed adminship. Kbrose (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall I'm concerened enough by a number of the opposers comments above that at this time I have to oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Aggressively deletionist. --Davidp (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: That really seems like a personal preference, rather than a reason to oppose adminship (and, just for the record, I am an inclusionist myself). Why do you think that being an "aggressive deletionist" is a problem for an admin, and would you still oppose if he was instead an "aggressive inclusionist" who looked like they'd close obviously "Delete" AFDs as "No Consensus" so that it was kept? (This question is completely optional; I'm just curious) –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral at this time as I am wondering if he is really ready for the mop. I have met with him accross many AfD's and his interpretation of guideline is occasionally a bit too selective to best benefit the project. I congratulate him for being around for 3 years, and admire much of what he has done, but my worry in studying past edits, and myself taking a look at those provided by A Nobody (above), is that intermixed with the good are enough opinions that seem to be a bit narow of vision... which would then make me worry that his being givin the mop might be an invitation to future wikidrama based upon past actions. No, I do not have acrystal ball, and so can only extrapolate the future based upon the past. Its enough of a worry for me to withhold support at this time.I will check back when the questions are answered and further consider. I will not immediately jump to a "support" or an "oppose" without first hearing what the candidate has to say... as I have concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the discussions and comments and from these have formulated a few questions for the candidate, now posted above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. A productive editor, who I don't think will abuse the tools. However, his posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2, where he sees Gavin's contributions to the D&D project (which consisted of tagging hundreds of articles, followed by edit warring to keep them in, all while doing little to nothing in the department of actually looking for sources or improving the articles) as perfectly OK behavior which improved the project really concerns me. Calling those who protested against that behavior for "scapegoating" doesn't fly either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It seems like he would do a reasonable job as an admin, but it is very important to understand the difference in terms of responsibility. An admin has to be impartial, in action and in perception of their actions. You can not get involved in a debate and then drop the admin hammer on it later. If you recognize your own bias on an issue, you should stay as far away from it in an official capacity as is possible. If you can not recognize your own bias, you are not fit for the job. If you can not set arrogance aside, you can not honor that responsibility. Most of the issues I had with this user's style of editing have been resolved on their own, as other sites stepped in to fill a hole being created in Wikipedia's coverage of fictional material, and in most cases outside sites have done a better job. This user has done a good job of enforcing Wikipedia's rules as he interprets them, but the rules themselves have always been poorly-suited to categorizing fictional elements in popular culture. If Thumperward's intent as an admin really is just to focus on high-level cleanup, more power to him. Wikipedia is fortunate that there are people willing to shoulder that type of work as volunteers. If it is to focus on inclusion/deletion debates, there are other people better suited to the job. Unless his attitude regarding that subject has changed fundamentally since December, he brings too much drama into it. Khanaris (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(switch to oppose) Neutral I remember some bad actions by this user but I cannot seem to recall what they were. Oppose !votes raise good questions whether this user can be trusted to be coolheaded when faced with criticism and if more evidence like that is brought forward, I may consider opposing. So Why 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. neutral -- changed to oppose His rather cryptic answers --to other questions than mine -- do not give me the necessary feeling of confidence. But there's nothing actually wrong with them. DGG (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC). Over the last few days, my feeling of doubt has intensified. Not being actually wrong is not enough. DGG (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's hard for me to support someone without evidence they will be able to handle situations calmly and without undue drama. Malinaccier P. (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Upon further reflection on the answers provided, I no longer oppose this candidacy. I think User:DGG says it better than I could. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Protonk's reasoning here and here (as well as my respect for his abilities), and Thumperward's obvious technical abilities are enough for me to remove my Oppose vote; however, there's just too much "I know Linux - I know best" attitude there for me to go full support. Granted, it's not a particular diff I can cite, but rather my impression of attitude. I understand that working in contentious areas can have some danger flags, so I'm willing to withdraw my convict/Oppose !vote (so to speak) - And I hope this one doesn't come back to bite us. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 18:42, 14 March 2009 (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.