Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thryduulf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Thryduulf

final (57/2/1) ending 11:43 2 June 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf has just today passed his 4000th edit on Wikipedia, of which he has been an editor since around Christmas last year. He has worked on a large number of articles on a range of different subjects - notably British geography and railways, and the innumerable lists on Wikipedia. Equally importantly, he is a courteous, helpful, and above all assiduous contributor to many Wikipedia talk pages. Most notably, he does sterling work on VP, the Help Desk and the Reference Desk. There is much vandal reversion in Thryduulf?s contrib list, as well. I feel that Thryduulf would make a good janitor...um...admin. Grutness...wha? 11:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
I am honoured by the nomination and accept it with thanks.

Support

  1. Mais bien sûr! Grutness...wha? 11:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. A very industriuous, thorough and committed editor whose enthusiastic vandal defence would surely benefit from rollback. I am impressed that Thryduulf explicitly drew attention to my comment about his recent intervention with an uncommunicative editor. I believe that his handling of that case was inappropriately harsh but it was only just so; I understand how he got into that position and it is clear from his response to previous suggestions/criticisms that he learns fast and is unlikely to repeat that error (as I see it). --Theo (Talk) 13:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Sjakkalle 13:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. --Kbdank71 14:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Grue 15:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support - not one already? I have been particularly impressed with his work on the Village Pump and the way he participates in policy issues like Wikipedia:Content labeling proposal. FreplySpang (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Thryduulf makes a good balance of contributions to articles, talk pages, and policy issues. Happy to support. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. A well-rounded editor. Rje 16:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Michael Snow 16:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. I just had occasion to single xim out for praise, and now this. Seems like an omen. Meelar (talk) 16:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. I've seen Thryduulf involved with many edits and discussion in the main and Wikipedia namespaces and was just thinking today that he should be in line for an adminship soon. May the Iasson sockpuppets fall trampled beneath the Earth! --Deathphoenix 17:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, enthusiastically. What everyone else said. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. Not an admin already? →Iñgōlemo← talk 18:42, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  15. Support. --Carnildo 19:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support He wasn't already an admin?!?! gkhan 19:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  17. JYolkowski // talk 20:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support, good user Tuf-Kat 20:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support-gadfium 23:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support Not a threat to schools. Klonimus 04:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  21. Strong support. It's funny; just last night I was just considering nominating Thryduulf for adminship—I planned to ask him today. Grutness, you beat me to it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  22. Of course! Radiant_* 07:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Makes good additions to Wikistory, albeit that he's the main story-writer [-Wonderfool][1]
  24. Very Strong Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Vaguely. JuntungWu 13:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  26. This user offends me - he has more votes than my RFA! But then again, I could have sworn you were an admin already. Emphatic Support. (btw I was just kidding :) – ugen64 16:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. You mean he isn't one already? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  28. SupportFlcelloguy 19:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. His maintenance would benefit from admin abilities. Mgm|(talk) 22:48, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Another one who I assumed was already an admin! Certainly qualified. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Seems to be mostly an admin already. — Asbestos | Talk 09:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. Looks good! Linuxbeak | Desk 02:40, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support; expect him to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Helpful, knowledgeable — should make a good admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  36. Definitely. David Gerard 19:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  37. Oh, yes, definitely. RickK 23:01, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Seems to have his head screwed on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support yes sure.--Bhadani 16:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  40. Andre (talk) 19:29, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. I should have gotten here earlier, but now I guess I'll just have to got to the end of the line and wait my turn to say: "What?! You're not already?" --Dmcdevit 20:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. Fire Star 20:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. As has been expressed above, I'm surprised this chap isn't already an administrator.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. Had a good time with while daeling with a mad (crazy) user. And ignore the socks. humblefool® 00:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support I withdraw previous opposition. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. --cesarb 00:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  47. El_C 02:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  48. Hoary 05:44, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  49. SUpport. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support. utcursch | talk 13:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 20:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support – seen nothing but positives whenever I've seen the name. violet/riga (t) 23:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. Ambi 06:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support, of course. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support --Jondel 01:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support. --Idont Havaname 02:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Emphatically oppose. Makes a point of defending all sorts of questionable sysop actions. That does not give me confidence in what he would do if he was an sysop himself. Everyking 18:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. He is a brown noser. He'll get an admin because of it. BeBop 18:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC) Stricken by gkhan 22:12, May 29, 2005 (UTC) Undone by Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC). Leave judging votes to the brueaucrats, it's their job.
    • I object to this user's vote. The stated reason is very childish and should be ignored. The user has only been a Wikipedia editor for two days and has only amassed 42 edits. This would not generally be an issue, but I think it's possible that BeBop has a chip on his shoulder. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:32, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a fairly obvious trolling sock (note RFA nomination above) and edit pattern so far; the only question is who of - David Gerard 19:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree; personal attacks like this are unwarranted. I don't think that wrongly marking his articles as speedy deletes is the correct response, though ([2]). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, look again. He removed a speedy delete tag from an article, which is vandalism and in violation of Wikipedia policy. [3] What I did was not mark "his" article for deletion; instead, I was reverting his vandalism. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
        • Removing the speedy template isn't against policy ("If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself."), and certainly isn't vandalism. He created a useful disambiguation page, and I can't see any grounds for your speedying it. I agree with the following comment, though — he's clearly not a new user. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I'll be. Okay; I was wrong, and I'm sorry for jumping the gun. It isn't in violation of policy. I didn't mean to attack his edits, per se, but I was instead doing what I thought was the right thing. I still think he's a troll and a sockpuppet, but that's besides the point. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • This user is probably a sockpuppet of some user. He reffered to Special:Wanted pages on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#purposeful deadend pages not something many new users would know. Also, how many new users know about WP:RFA really. gkhan 19:05, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • The user was previously 63.124.185.186 (talk · contribs), which got blocked. He then changed to 63.209.14.211 (talk · contribs), and created his user current page as 69.233.106.23 (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:CryptoDerk and page deletion of dispute resolution for the context. --cesarb 19:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I've removed some strikeouts from this vote because striking out other people's edits, particularly votes, is not generally regarded as acceptable. This RFA will be scrutinized closely by a bureaucrat whose decision whether or not to accept any given vote will be respected. We will not pre-empt his decision. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I striked (stroke?) him out because of the fact that he is a vandal and sockpuppet who had been indefintly banned by DavidGerard. I was acting under the policy that banned users cannot vote, nominate or really do anything on wikipedia. Note that his nomination of AlistairMcMillan was removed. If I acted rashly I apologise. I do however like to point out that if Willy on Wheels came in and voted oppose on an RFA, I think it would be silly not to strike out his vote to show that it doesn't count. gkhan 22:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
          • You mean struck? :) Dmcdevit 22:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, thank you! I've been mulling over that one all day..... gkhan 15:55, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • STRONGLY Oppose due to sockpuppet concerns. EdwinHJ | Talk 21:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Due to the information below, I withdraw this vote. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
      Umm... Thryduulf isn't the one with the sockpuppet... it's the second guy who voted oppose to Thryduulf... unless you're saying Thryduulf has a sock? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
      I do have a second user, user:Awkward42, that I created as a "work safe" account. I have clearly stated all the information about this on user:Thryduulf and user:Awkward42. As it has turned out, I have not needed to use that account at all - see the contribution history, there is only 1 edit from that account (and that was creating the user page). If I get adminship and need to see how something appears to a normal user, then I may use it for that puropse. I have been involved in identifying other people's sockpuppets and "public accounts" and on a couple of occasions the troll in question did mark the public account as being a sockpuppet of mine, but this was vandalism that was quickly reverted (see the archives of WP:AN/I for the full story. I do not have any other sockpuppets and never have had, so unless user EdwinHJ wants to make any fresh allegations, this vote should be reconsidered. Thryduulf 22:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
      I think since Thryduulf has declared his sockpuppet and it's easy for anyone to check its contributions, there is no problem here at all. There are quite a few admins who have sockpuppet accounts (publically admitted) which they use to check the effect of editing without sysop facilities or something like that. Is there any evidence the second account is being used for ballot-stuffing, or backing up Thryduulf's comments in a content dispute? We'd all like to see it, if you have any. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Nothing to say Thryduulf doesn't deserve adminship, but nothing to say he does either. No major accomplishments on the Wiki, and numerous little conflicts in his history. Do some quality editing and forget the little wars with other users and I'll support in the future. Harro5 10:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I typically don't do major new additions as I know a little bit about a lot of things, rather than a lot about a few things. Combined with time spent browsing the WP where I learn other little bits this has proved very useful on the Reference desk. I have made lots of small, diverse contributions accross many subjects, and started a few articles, e.g Topfree Equal Rights Association and LNER Class A4 4488 Union of South Africa. For the photographs I have contributed to the project see my contribution list at the commons [4]. Thryduulf 11:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it's worth pointing out that not having made "major accomplishments on the Wiki" is a slightly odd reason for casting a neutral vote. This isn't the Board election; we typically offer the extra technical capabilities that come with adminship to anyone who's been around long enough to understand policy and has managed to stay out of trouble. Your choice, of course. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I will wait to vote until Everyking either gives some evidence to his claim that Thryduulf defends "all sorts of questionable sysop actions", and will request that Everyking return to back up his claim. Harro5 08:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I presume that EK is referring to some of the debates at WP:AN/I. See for example [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Thryduulf 09:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks like you two have had run-ins in the past. Is this mentioned in Q3 below? Anyway, I'd add my support on the base of weak oppose case, but I haven't seen you at work, and you don't list any major additions to the Wiki. Thus neutral. Harro5 10:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • I did mention this in Q3, see the third bullet point. Although I wouldn't call them "run-ins", we have just basically been on opposite sides of debates. Thryduulf 11:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Aside from the fact that I don't like your customary defense of the most hardline admin attitudes and actions (I tend to support people who I think will be moderate and democratic in outlook), there's also the fact that you accused me of harassing User:Snowspinner, an accusation which I feel is so distant from reality as to be almost funny. Everyking 10:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        • We've been over this before (See the links above), basically EK and I have had different views on certain admin matters/actions. Given that we couldn't agree at the time, I don't think it likely we'll agree now, particularly as the debates were wider than the two of us. Thryduulf 11:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Everyking disagrees with every action every admin or arbcom member does except him. Consider the source. RickK 23:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment on the process, not on Thryduulf (who I suspect will make a fine admin): By my count (from WP:LA) there are a total of about 500 current, inactive, former, or nominated but denied admins. Thryduulf is not in the top 1000 list in article space, and ranks >700 in total edits, which says to me that there are probably several hundred editors who have contributed more and probably been here longer. Based on the number of "I thought he was already" votes above, perhaps the admin nomination process should be changed to be more deliberately inclusive. One possibility would be to establish edit count and/or activity length thresholds that cause automatic nomination. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:21, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.
  • I have been involved not insignificantly with dealing with vandalism in the past, and anticipate the rollback feature will be very useful regarding this. Although I hope not to need it much, particularly now Iasson/Faethon appears to have retired from sockpuppetry, the ability to block disruptive users will also be handy.
  • Being able to help directly with some of the requests I respond to on the VP and help desk, rather than having to refer the user to ask for help elsewhere, will I feel give a better impression to those new to Wikipedia.
  • I also expect that I will help with the closing of some old VfD debates, but like my existing contributions to VfD I expect it to be a sporadic blitz rather than a constant thing.
  • I am a big fan of WP:AN/I and will be referring things there, hopefully without doing anything wrong beforehand. I am really not a fan of big discussions involving accusations of inapropriate activity, and so I'd rather be considered over cautious in avoiding conflicts of interest than be the centre of a big scene about whether or not there was one. I am only human though, and so can't promise I will always get it right.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
  • There is no single article or contribution that I hold up as an example of my work that outshines all others. I find that most of my work is the little things that contribute to the bigger picture. I've done little bits on quite a lot of articles that need doing but aren't particularly glamerous, for exmaple:
    • typo/spelling/grammar fixes - e.g. the other day I made a typo when searching for an article and found there were several articles with the exact same typo in (bicyle instead of bicycle), so I went through and fixed them.
    • wikification
    • category sorting - e.g. spinning off Category:Rail transport related lists from the overcrowded Category:lists; and sorting entries so that the 'L' section isn't full of List of... entires, etc.).
  • As well as editing I do a lot of general browsing of the encylopaedia, and if I spot an error then I will fix it or, if I don't know how to fix it, will leave a message on the talk page about it.
  • I've also been involved with some article reorganisations, see user:Thryduulf/Geonamesongs for probably the biggest of these that will (probably, pending any objections) be implemented this weekend.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A.
  • I've not been in any significant conflicts with any users. During the latter period of Iasson's "public accounts" named after ancient Greeks (see user:Thryduulf/Users named after ancient Greeks) I did get a bit annoyed, and may have acted a little harsh at times, but on the whole I feel my actions were reasonable and proportionate.
  • More recently TheoClarke did feel I'd been a little heavy-handed with regards an anonymous vandal who has been repeatedly inserting incorrect information onto the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends series articles for some months now. Following my explanation on his talk page, I think he accepted that my actions weren't as harsh as they first seemed (although he hasn't said this explicitly). See User talk:Thryduulf#User:24.60.128.48 and User talk:TheoClarke#User:24.60.128.48.
  • Everyking and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye on every matter, but I don't consider any of these disagreements to have aproached a dispute level.
  • I have never been blocked or had an RfC brought against me. I have been involved as an endorsing person in a couple of RfCs, and I was a participant in the RfAr against Iasson (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson), but there were no findings of fact against me at all (I'm not certain Iasson even accused me of anything in his evidence or not). There has been at least one other RfA in which I played a very minor part, such that I indicated I was willing to be considered a participant if the ArbCom thought it warrented that, but they did not. I have presented evidence in other Arbitration cases, but not in a capacity as a participant.
  • I do find some editors annoying, particuarly those who repeatedly insist on doing the same thing over and over again. Although I sometimes do feel slightly annoyed at them, I feel that only very occasionally is this aparent in what I type. In offline life, I generally am not someone who gets very stressed (except when cooking!), and I have not come accross anything yet on wikiepdia that has approached giving me that level of stress. When I start to get annoyed I find that a timeout works wonders on my sanity. Thryduulf 12:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)