Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Thumperward

(23/21/6); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thumperward (talk · contribs) - Thumperward has been editing Wikipedia for over two years, and has made nearly 15,000 edits, including 10,000 to mainspace. His main interests include improving articles related to information technology, and developing many templates such as Template:Deletiontools. He is experienced in admin related areas, with contributions to around 50 XfD discussions, 42 requests for page protection, 41 reports to WP:AIV, and 34 posts to WP:AN/I. He has a very good knowledge of deletion guidelines, and I feel he could be especially useful at Templates for deletion. Thumperward is an experienced and knowledgable user, who I am sure would use the admin tools wisely. Epbr123 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination. (I probably should note that my edits to {{deletiontools}} weren't my finest hour, though in the end I think everyone got the outcome they wanted and there was no long-term acrimony.) Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Difficult page moves, copyedits to protected templates, vandalism patrol: the same stuff I've been doing already, but without having to wait for help from an existing admin. I hope to make myself available as a general dogsbody for others who need quick turnaround on simple admin work as well, because I know how frustrating it is to have to wait sometimes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've helped get a few articles to GA or FA status (guinea pig stands out because it was a page I randomly came across and decided to improve for the sake of a friend who loves piggies) and I think my work in cleaning up templates and infoboxes to make Wikipedia look and feel more consistent is good, but Wikipedia is a community as well as an encyclopedia and the thing I'm most proud of is the times when I've been able to help people as opposed to articles. In particular, I helped User:Hazelsct out when he was editing articles on himself, getting the page histories sorted out and responding quickly to his questions, and I helped User:Kekslover out when she was being attacked by a rather bizarre vandal. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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: Quite a few in the past; I'm hot-headed by nature in real life, so Wikipedia was a learning process, but these days more than ever before I'm capable of avoiding conflict. The last one was the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. What I can say is that in this particular case I think that (aside from one particular pointless spat) I've been a moderating force in that article's discussion, and I hope that the article is more stable because of it. I try to reach out and find alternative solutions to problems when it seems discussions have hit a brick wall, and I try to ensure that when policy agrees with my version of events that I try to work within the spirit of said policy instead of wikilawyering. And regardless of the outcome of conflicts, I try to thank editors for their participation and keep from holding grudges on unrelated discussions.

Optional questions

4. What was the worst mistake you've made recently on Wikipedia, and what did you learn from this? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The homeopathy thing would have to be the example here. In the past I've tended to assume that an article's seniority (size, age, quality) is the prime factor in deciding how likely bold edits are to "stick" if they could be neutrally assessed as being within policy guidelines. It appears that there's a very vocal "anti-bad-science" community on WP with some less explicit rules of engagement for such issues. I hadn't previously encountered such vocal resistance for what I considered to be content-free edits. The lesson here is that you can't treat the whole of mainspace the same and you can't assume that community boundaries begin and end with WikiProjects; large articles have their own implicit community rules, and it may be necessary to work with community leaders before even thinking about editing articles under such auspices. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I reading this correctly in thinking that you took your edits up to 3RR? Or is one of those reverts not a full revert? diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Two of the edit summaries (Antelan's and Orangemarlin's second) make no mention of the references and instead refer to parts which I ensured I did not revert. Regardless, the reasonable thing to do when it becomes obvious that one isn't gaining traction with edits despite attempts to resolve them (not reverting issues discussed in the edit summaries, commenting on talk/user talk) is to stop pushing back; I didn't suddenly back off because I feared a 3RR report. Chris Cunningham (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, that seems reasonable. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Never. Chris Cunningham (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Please consider changing your signature to reflect your username, or vice versa. Thanks. Redrocketboy 14:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    This has been on the cards for a long time. If I'm handed the mop, that would seem to be a good time to make the switch. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Redrocketboy here. Thanks for taking this into consideration. :) GlassCobra 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree - other admins have a similar situation with their real name and their account and it isn't an issue as long as it's consistent. It's always open to the user to flip across via CHU at a later time but is hardly necessary. (Just my 2c) Orderinchaos 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Enthusiastic support. --Eleemosynary (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - When I've seen their edits, I've been impressed. — Rudget speak.work 11:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - Yes, he does have a block - but it's for a violation of a not-so-obvious rule, which took place 8 months ago. Od Mishehu 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support Has requisite experience. The block was eight months ago. I generally consider indiscretions > 6 months old to be the distant past. Hopefully, nom now understands such dispute/conflict resolution tools as getting a cup of tea, seeking a third opinion, etc. Dlohcierekim 15:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Struck support per Fill and Daniel. Dlohcierekim 23:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Excellent contributor. Master of Puppets Care to share? 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Won't abuse the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Looks like a good user, and a block in March is hardly "recent". Thumperward has had plenty of time to improve since then. Acalamari 18:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Impressive contribs, and a block (that was misplaced even according to other established admins) to uphold BLP tenets is hardly concerning. Good luck! GlassCobra 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Enough water has passed under the bridge. Good candidate. Daniel 02:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose, User talk:Thumperward/Archive 10#Gaming 3RR is far more/too recent. Daniel 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. I see the block as distant history especially since there have been no further such incidents. I am slightly concerned about you being a self described hot-head. But if you keep it under control you'll be fine. I'll keep a watch. You recent interactions with editors seem to be positive. Use caution with comments about being on "someone's side." That is very unwise. However, in looking back over your recent edits and interactions I see no reason to oppose. -JodyB talk 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just to point out that "our side" was explicitly set off with quotation marks to point out that it was a figure of speech; it referred to being on different sides of an issue (there's nothing wrong with Wikipedians having opinions) rather than favouritism. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. I have seen Chris' edits on homeopathy and I think he is making some good points. I am a scientist but on that page I do find myself agreeing with the homeopaths some of the time too. Chris says he is pro science below but if he is willing to try and make such an article more neutral then this a good trait for an admin. Clearly, sometimes, this will rock the boat a bit but in the end such editors are the ones that win the compromises that give us a more stable article. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. No major concerns here and adminship is no big deal, as the cliche goes. Without meaning to patronise however...do avoid hot-headedness in future if at all possible. Badgerpatrol (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Wpuld like to see a few more contributions to AfD discussions. but plenty of other project space contribs, so no problemo. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - well-rounded. The Transhumanist 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support: A well-balanced editor who has a few minor infractions -- like who hasn't. It comes with the territory, especially if you tend to disagree with other editors or be bold in editing. Hot-headed? I don't see that being a concern. As someone else stated, it's all "water under the bridge." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support It's a learning process, not sainthood. Candidate understands how the community works, and knows how to stay out of trouble. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. The candidate's answer to Tim's question is insightful and implies an administrator who would conduct himself with due tact. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support, though I urge the candidate to stick to areas of little contention for his first admin tasks, until he is comfortable with the tools. Keep a cool head, as acting irrationally will surely lead you into trouble. No concerns otherwise. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Struck vote, switched to neutral. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support. I understand the opposes, and considered doing so, but I do feel that the user will use the tools for bettering Wikipedia and that he can be trusted with them. I do ask that you take it slow, though, there is plenty of help available if you need it. SorryGuy  Talk  02:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Recent evidence is enough to make me reconsider my vote, and I have decided to move it to oppose. SorryGuy  Talk  04:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Balanced opinion, keen to work and able to balance contributions. docboat (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I see a contributor who made some mistakes in his early days but now looks a good candidate, and is remaining civil down there ↓ despite some quite heated exchanges between others. --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. I second Dweller... his editing record speaks for itself, the three revert block was more than 9 months ago (not "relatively recent" in my opinion, as described below), plus has been handling himself with poise and calmness despite people opposing him over what looks like a content dispute. I support also since adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Seems like they will use the mop responsibly. A short block is not a life sentence, and can be removed from consideration by considerable evidence of positive behaviour to the contrary, which has in my view been demonstrated. Orderinchaos 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Meets all my standards; 7500 edits /year is fine. While I understand the concerns of the opposing users, the 3R block was 9 months ago. Somewhat of a deletionist, the user, if made a sysop, ought to be very careful with the "delete" button, which it now appears to me, he would be. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Weak Support. My criteria for adminship: Editor is experienced , Strong edit history , No blocks or vandalism , Good quality articles , Uses edit summaries , Editor is civil , Involved in wide range of areas , Editor is active , No recent edit warring , Shows knowelege of policy . Overall: . STORMTRACKER 94 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but we prefer our admins not to be hot-headed. I am concerned, in particular, about your relatively recent WP:3RR block. Sandstein (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    That 3RR was overturned due to the surrounding circumstances (there was an expansive edit war at the time, mostly fueled by the reporting editor, who currently has a sanction not to edit Middle East-related articles), and > 50% of my total edits occurred after that incident. Furthermore, I see that as a turning point for my attitude towards combative editing. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Chris, I have always found you to be civil and thoughtful, and you indeed were one of the more level-headed editors on the Beauchamp article, but I feel you have some underlying bias issues. This comment in reply to Eleemosynary just last month suggests to me that you have an alliance with this editor, and a "side" that you feel you represent. Perhaps it even hints of a strategic agenda. I appreciate the moderating behavioral example you have provided for Eleemosynary, but at this time, I do not feel comfortable supporting your RfA. I do not trust that you will not abuse the tools in some way. - Crockspot (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    (more background here, too.) All I can say to this is that I've kept my "allegiances" in the open, such allegiances are not only commonplace on Wikipedia but also an acceptable form of collaboration, and when they can be demonstrated not to negatively affect the way one edits I don't believe they should be a factor in adminship. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    You have somewhat swayed me. Based upon your comment, and the three opposes below me :0, I will change to neutral, but I will leave my comment here unstricken, as I still have a bit of concern. - Crockspot (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have been wrestling with this one for a couple of days in both directions, and nearly changed to support, but I must oppose now per Daniel. This evidence confirms my concerns of strategic editing, and makes me believe that he would abuse the tools eventually. - Crockspot (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose. I've observed him at one of the more contentious articles around here, Homeopathy. His edits are confusing such as this one, wherein he removed references that supported the lead, added weasel wording, and generally weakened the lead. This article arrived at a relatively strong consensus (despite the occasional edit- and POV-warrior fighting for the removal of all criticism) to become a GA status article. Yet, he makes this comment as if he is an expert. And what I've learned after 10,000 edits here, when someone claims they're something (he claims he's a scientist), it's precisely the point where I doubt him, and AGF goes sailing out of the window. His edits on Homeopathy belies his self-description. For these reasons, this person should never be an admin. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    I said I'm "pro-science", which isn't the same thing as being a scientist, but all I can say to this is that I'm completely baffled as to Orangemarlin's insistence that I'm trying to insert pro-homeopathy POV into the article when I'm following the rationale I gave on talk here, am following up on here, and tried to resolve with him here. I'm currently attempting to resolve this issue here with another editor, and I'd hope that other editors would look on this series of events as an example of how conflicts should be resolved rather than seeing it as a negative. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please don't feel it necessary to respond to every single oppose. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Extremely strong oppose--Filll (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    ¿Por que, por favor? Dlohcierekim 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    I really am offended by having to justify my vote. However, I have a couple of reasons to oppose. I think that his level of editing experience is only moderate given the length of time he has been on WP (only 7500 edits per year?). I also have been quite discouraged by some of his attitudes in edits, particularly associated with Homeopathy. A GA is a 90K train wreck? This was the result of months and months of compromise and discussion between real homeopaths and real MDs and scientists; dozens of editors in all and thousands and thousands of edits. Then we finally agreed that it was GA status, and it was promoted. It was difficult and a lot was done in a sandbox rough draft. Finally we were all reasonably happy, except for a few trolls who appeared later and wanted a complete rewrite to make it all prohomeoapthy since they do not understand WP:NPOV. A couple were blocked and are probably back as socks, although this has not yet been proven. Thumperward marches into this situation, and without understanding what is going on, starts making imperious charges, claims, declarations and changes as though he was some sort of expert in the subject and science and the article. Amazing.... Therefore, I am not sure he has displayed the correct temperament to be an admin, at least in my opinion. This episode left a very bad taste in my mouth. Also, I am not sure the place to test his theory of "no references in LEADS" is on an article like homeopathy. If he wants to change policy, let him argue at a policy page. This also strikes me as someone who does not understand WP very well and also has fairly suspect judgement. There are obvious reasons for having cited references in LEADs, particularly for contentious articles. If he does not understand the nature of controversial articles, is he ready for adminship? Also, I find that I am put off by people who argue every vote against them. I think it is unseemly and it does not sit well with me. If they have to do this, are they really suited for the position? Please do not argue with me. It looks awful. That is my opinion. --Filll (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for explaining. RfA is a discussion, after all. Some of us do actually read and re-read RfA's and change our opinions as warranted. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not too sure how you can be offended at having to explain an "Extremely strong oppose" vote. Other editors will want to know your reasons if you oppose, so they can decide if they agree. Redrocketboy 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it was a polite request, rather than a demand. No compulsion at all. <<sigh>> Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    And, if I might add a bit of praise, your well articulated rationale is being cited by subsequent opposers. Dlohcierekim 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    You are "offended" at having to justify your "vote"? That essentially goes against everything RFA is or is supposed to be. If you don't explain the reasoning behind your opposition then how can anyone judge it's legitimacy? If you're offended by having to justify your opposition (or support) to anything on wikipedia there is a problem because the entire philosophy of wikipedia is discussion and consensus, which rests upon the fact that all editors must explain themselves and attempt to justify their opinions and decisions. Otherwise the entire thing goes down the drain. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I do not want a big fight about this. When I vote for my congressmen, do I have a few people waiting outside the polling booth ready to beat the stuffing out of me for my vote? I do not think so. If this continues, fewer and fewer people will be willing to vote except those who love to fight about nonsense. These votes can become so contentious and ugly with the post-vote fighting that many people just would rather not bother. And that is not to the benefit of Wikipedia. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    This is not an election. The bureaucrat closes based on consensus, and giving a reason is polite and the norm, especially for opposes. You aren't even being beaten up - your oppose reasoning is detailed and reasoned, and some have gone "per Filll". They wouldn't have done that if they hadn't known your reason. Redrocketboy 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I will also note that most of the fighting on thse voting pages is done by those who are unhappy with anyone who votes "oppose". Now, since I was goaded into producing my reasoning, you can see it was even worse for the candidate, which was not my intention. This causes more animosity, which we do not need here on Wikipedia, and I am very sorry for it. I hope that the candidate can take this advice in stride and modify his attitude accordingly. Hopefully with maybe another 10,000 or 15,000 edits dealing with controversial subjects, instead of the articles he has mainly edited so far, he will have a better appreciation for how difficult the editing here can be on controversial subjects, and how careful one has to be. With more experience, I hope he has more respect for the countless man-hours of work of others with vastly more experience and education than he has, instead of just cavalierly and capriciously dumping on the tremendous efforts of other editors. I am sorry to say this, but what I have seen out of him so far is the equivalent of someone who took a health class in high school and decides to tell a tenured professor of medicine at Harvard that he is full of nonsense. We do not respect authority here much, but there is some value to it, and that is one of the prime complaints levelled at Wikipedia, with some good justification. This really is disappointing. I hope that this editor can learn and grow and that we can continue to work together in a productive manner in the future. By forcing me to vent my spleen, this unfortunately damages the good will which would have already been strained by me voting to oppose him, something I am loathe to do. Do you understand now why I do not like having to justify negative opinions of other editors here?--Filll (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have been taken to task by "supporters" several times here and on my talk page, for both opposing and for being reluctant to state why I oppose at this time. Let me be a bit clearer. My last post was an attempt to lower the temperature here. However, I felt I had to defend myself against people who attacked me for saying I was offended at being asked for a reason, when I did not want to give one. I felt I had to describe why I did not want to give a reason. The reason is, I do not want to make an unpleasant situation worse. Let me clarify further why I am irritated. I personally spent maybe 100 hours on this article. I know several people who spent as much time if not more. I also have personally verified that the editors who contributed substantially included:
    • A PhD in physics
    • A PhD in biochemistry
    • several other PhDs
    • An MD
    • An internationally recognized homeopath and author with a faculty position at a major university
    This editor appears to have no credentials to match this. Nevertheless, he signalled his intention to discard the vast majority of the efforts of this group of people who spent hundreds if not thousands of man-hours on this article, in a capricious, cavalier fashion. This is very discouraging. And encouraging this kind of attitude will destroy Wikipedia. Is this the kind of thing we want to reward on Wikipedia? I think not. When I read WillowW's account, I was even more aghast. I respect WillowW more than just about any other editor on Wikipedia. WillowW is an incredible contributor and a real scholar and works very very hard on her articles. WillowW has a raft of FAs and GAs to show for her incredible efforts. We are lucky to have her. When I read that she had the same sort of experience with this editor that the editors on homeopathy were threatened with, it really gave me tremendous pause. It is painful to work on something very hard for hours and hours and hours and then have it dismissed by someone who really does not understand at all. This is not the way Wikipedia should be heading, at least in my opinion. I think this editor needs a lot more seasoning before he is ready for adminship, if ever. I think that I would like to see at least another 10,000 or 15,000 edits on controversial articles, and a record of success in doing this. The adminship tools are too powerful and there are too many very sensitive situations here on controversial articles to just award them to someone with this type of attitude and level of experience. Certainly I need to have some evidence of competence at handling tense environments around contentious subjects before I would support him. If and when I do, I would be happy to support him. However, by goading me into laying out my reasons for opposing, a bad situation is made much worse. We do not need more tension and animosity here; we have too much of that already. Now by asking me to explain, however, politely, things are made far more poisonous. That is why I did not want to give my reasons. The reason I suspect that the "oppose" votes of people who came after me have not been challenged is because I made such a big stink about it. I really think that the wheedling and begging and pleading and badgering for "support" votes creates more bad blood than is necessary. I do not like it. It wastes time. It looks bad. It hurts feelings on all sides. It makes people not want to vote at all, since it is basically intimidation. That is my opinion. Sorry I do not want to offend anyone, but I loathe this badgering of people who oppose. What good do people think they are doing by hounding those who oppose? It does not make things calmer. It does not help the candidate. It is very unfortunate, and unwarranted.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Filll, this was a well-reasoned critique of the nominee. My observation was the same. Thumperward defines his edits as a "kerfuffle" which really belies the fact that he use 3RR to removed a whole-host of citations and NPOV statements, to put in what he "claimed" were NPOV statements, but were so confusing that I doubt "pro" or "con" thought they were very well done. And the removal of valid citations--reprehensible. I'm still curious why WillowW isn't on the strong oppose, but her statements really make it clear that Thumperward should not be an admin. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just to jog your mind. I'm still staggered at the assumption of bad faith here. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please feel free to add commentary to every oppose. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    As an aside, and unrelated to this discussion, I find the assertion that 7500 edits per year demonstrates a lack of editing experience to be utterly absurd. I know that wasn't the core reason for this oppose, but just wanted to register my strong dissent on this one point. Orderinchaos 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    This comment is exactly why I find it inappropriate to give reasoning. I said I think that his level of editing experience is only moderate given the length of time he has been on WP (only 7500 edits per year?). That is, I said his experience was only moderate. I did not say that 7500 edits per year demonstrates a lack of editing experience. I said it represented moderate editing experience. In any case, this is just my opinion. And for someone to want to chew my leg off for this, is beyond belief. I think this says more about the credibility and judgement of the person who would go out of their way to misrepresent what I wrote, blatantly, for the purposes of mounting an attack and leveling some sort of derision. My goodness. Shameful. --Filll (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Why all the anger over a simple point in response? I made my comment in part after looking at your user page which goes out of its way to stress edit counts - for the record mine is approaching 30,000 and I'm well above your prescribed notion of "moderate", but I know editors who are far less active than me (i.e. have been on the project 2-3 years and have four-digit placing numbers on WBE) that are first-rate admins and whom I'm proud to work alongside. As for justifying "votes", I'm not alone in believing it shows disrespect to the community to *not* justify a vote, whether support or oppose. You're not obliged to reply to criticism of your opinion, but not giving it, or getting unnecessarily angry about being asked to do so, demeans your own vote and reduces its effectiveness. I should note as well that, although I voted support in this instance, I have no strong opinion either way as I have not worked with the editor, but tend to see support as "will not abuse the tools, contribs seem worthwhile, opposes don't convince me (if applicable)". Orderinchaos 21:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    So you support him. So what? Do you want a medal? I might support him at a later date. But for now, I do not. And that is all there is to it.--Filll (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Note, I'm only criticizing Filll's reaction when asked to give reasoning for his opposition. I bring this up in all RFA's that I'm involved in when people provide no reasoning for their decisions or act as if they do not need to provide reasoning. As has been said, This isn't a vote. This isn't an election. This is a determination of consensus and consensus is only reached via discussion. RFA is a discussion, not a pure vote. This means that if someone is unwilling to provide adequate reasoning for any decision that they make, then nothing can be gained from their support or opposition. I'm only commenting on Filll's response that he was offended at the request he provide reasoning for his opposition, Since he has subsequently provided reasoning then I see no point in continuing the discussion about it. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    I actually find it annoying when people find it necessary to question one's motives or reasoning. And some individuals are so well known and so respected on the project, they actually could say "oppose", and that would be sufficient for me. There are, in fact, two individuals who have voted "oppose" who deserve that level of respect. What cracks me up is that you rarely see this kind of conversation with the "support" comments. I think someone should go through each support voter and berate them for their opinion. That's what bothers me about RfA's in general and Thumperward's responses, specifically. No assumption of good faith. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    No one questioned Filll's motives, just his reasoning. Questioning someones reasoning is a good thing and is the best way to come upon what is closest to the truth. Anyone, even the most intelligent people on the planet, can have lapses in judgment, flawed reasoning, etc. This is why having everyone explain their reasoning is not only justified, it's imperative. The reason that the "Support" comments don't get scrutinized as much is due to the fact that a lot of people believe that RFA's are not as much of a big deal and supports don't need to be put into the spotlight as much. However I believe that even supports need to have reasons and explanations. And lastly, AGF does NOT mean "Assume truth". AGF means just that, "Assume good faith", this means that you assume that someone acts in good faith, that does not mean that you assume that their actions are right or their judgments are right. You can assume good faith concerning a decision made and still believe that decision was totally wrong. I'm not saying Filll was wrong to oppose, I'm just saying that the attitude of being offended by requests for explanation for decisions is unjustified. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, Wikidudeman, for constructively questioning the reasoning behind a strong vote. Filll's reluctance to engage in displaying his reasoning is understandable, but it has provided a useful contribution for consideration. .. dave souza, talk 09:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree. I don't think explaining one's reasoning is imperative, or even necessary in the case of RFA's as they are functionally elections. Explaining one's reasons in such a venue may be a nicety but it is hardly a requirement. •Jim62sch• 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. BTW: it's "¿Por qué?" •Jim62sch• 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per concerns raised by Fill. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose per ambiguous answer to Tim's question and concerns raised by Filll and OM. Baegis (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. -- Fyslee / talk 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose (sorry) as per Filll and OM - this sort of behaviour undermines some of the most delicate work we have here. Dismayed to see #RR issues at this point. Folks generally try to be on their best behaviour leading up to RfA so this does not fill me with confidence at all. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Absolutely not. A self admitted "hot head", who is regularly involved in edit wars, including breaking 3RR [1] (not all 3RR violations have resulted in blocks - see this as one example) and gaming 3RR. Isarig (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. For the reasons of Filll above and Willow below. I do want to say, however, that opposing someone at RfA is one of the harshest actions we can take against our fellow editors, though I believe it to sometimes be necessary (both for the good of the community and to give the candidate more time to learn and grow if they are willing to do so). I appreciate Filll's sentiment of not wanting to add fuel to a fire, but when these circumstances arise, I think that those in the opposition have a responsibility, both to the community and the opposed, to justify why their comment was necessary, and explain how it can be addressed. --JayHenry (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Someone with a 3RR block within the last 12 months needs to be especially cautious in the run up to an RFA. The fact that Thumperward is unable to show restraint in the run up to his RFA bodes poorly. I don't think he has the temperament. Guettarda (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. I originally supported citing the fact that I believed "enough water ha[d] passed under the bridge" since the block. However, User talk:Thumperward/Archive 10#Gaming 3RR from only a handful of months ago is worrying, and the response even more so. Spartaz is completely correct in his 19:11, 26 September 2007 comment in your archive. Daniel 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    There's a strong tendency within Wikipedia to look at the clock every time someone reverts. the edit summaries at the time are worth reviewing. Note this one in particular, which does not read like a good-faith content dispute from a new user. I agree that I should have known better than to respond to obvious bait like that, but that's all it was - baiting. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm, the edit summary ""gaming 3RR" my eye, I didn't even notice the times" doesn't make it better. It looks like you just lucked out and barely escaped another 3RR block! — Sebastian 09:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    "Lucked out"? 3RR isn't some automatic banning system. It's a limit imposed in order to prevent people edit warring indefinitely. This wasn't edit warring so much as it was being deliberately baited by constant reverts to a noncontroversial edit. To have "barely escaped a 3RR block" there would have to have been a call by an admin that I had been engaged in deliberate and repeated edit warring. It's bizarre that uncontroversial and well-sourced reverts turn into a big deal (and a long-term black mark) the minute the words "3RR" are uttered even if the spirit of the rule is plainly not being broken. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    You have a point. That really was uncontroversial, once the the misunderstanding was cleared up. I won't hold it against you that you got a bit frustrated about that; that's understandable in a case like that. — Sebastian 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Not every strong editor is fit for adminship. In this case, per the diffs provided here and outside experience, it is my view that the candidate is hot-headed to a degree that makes them untrustworthy. This November version of his userpage and the "sociopaths" comment are but a small example. I would not rest easy knowing they have the tools. VanTucky talk 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. While I had supported, Daniel's evidence when added to the earlier concerns does make me feel as though this user can be rather hot-headed. As such, I can not support the user at this time. SorryGuy  Talk  04:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    In the bot spam incident, Chris acted only in his own interest, without any regard for what's good for Wikipedia, and without RTFM (which would be WP:GRFA, in this case). I'm also shaking my head in disbelief at "No one forces you to read ClueBot's edit summaries" - edit summaries are there for a reason! Chris, let me ask you: Do you not read edit summaries? — Sebastian 09:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
     ???? what is the "bot spam incident"? Where did I ever leave such a comment? Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    SebastianHelm is probably confusing you with Cobi, who has a concurrently running RfA and used his bot to spam it. 68.193.198.41 (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    On the other hand, Bot spam incident would be a great band name. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, 68, that's what I meant. The incident was what Chris called the "ClueBot Canvassing issue". — Sebastian 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. per concerns raised by Filll and others. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. oppose Having worked on some controversial topics with Chris, I think he already misuses the power that comes with being a normal editor with a lot of time for editing and reverting. These abuses result in a breakdown of the community decision making process, they make Wikipedia a frustrating environment for fellow experienced editors and a hostile environment for new contributors. Additional powers would surely only worsen these problems. This is my experience from editing in the domains of free software, GNU, and Linux. Maybe his behaviour is different in other domains. Sorry Chris, I feel bad about having to put this here, but it's nothing I haven't said to you already on Talk: pages, and an Rfa is exactly a call for these comments. --Gronky (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. oppose out of the same reasons like Gronky. I don't think Chris has already understood what NPOV means. --mms (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per concerns about hot-headedness and 3RR block. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per the concerns of Filll, Gronky and Willow, reluctantly think that Chris's approach tends to disrupt consensus rather than building agreement. .. dave souza, talk 09:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral. See my comments under Oppose. - Crockspot (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral, I think he intended well with his WP:BOLD edits to homeopathy, he may not have realised this is a contentious subject. However, I am still concerned that this indicates somebody who is a bit hasty and inexperienced - which doesn't seem to fit at all with how long he's been here. I can't oppose due to a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, but this does raise enough doubts for me not to support. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I have to agree with Tim. I'm very sorry to write this, but my experience with Thumperward was, regrettably, almost entirely negative. In late January 2007, I foolishly decided to improve a contentious article, Wikipedia, inspired by my research on the Encyclopædia Britannica. After a week's worth of work/research and 227 edits on my part — more than I've devoted to most of my Featured Articles — Mr. Cunningham appeared out of nowhere and took a meat cleaver to my work. Over the next three days, he worked efficiently and boldly to remove most of my contributions without giving cogent reasons or asking me why I had added them. Up to that time, I had been spoiled by my wonderful interactions with more collaborative Wikipedians (indeed, I'd just been collaborating with Gurch — then calling himself Qxz — on Wikipedia) and I was shocked and dismayed that all my work was in vain. Part of that dismay is certainly my own failing; we all have to allow that our work can be edited mercilessly, even destroyed without Talking. I'm sure that I liked my work too well and I hadn't then given enough thought to how to deal with situations like that; perhaps if I'd been more patient and skillful, we could've been reached some mutually agreeable consensus. But consensus seemed impossible with Mr. Cunningham; he left me with the fullest belief that he could not imagine that any vision except his own was worth considering. I do believe firmly that Thumperward was and is well-intentioned toward Wikipedia; however, my impression is that he has not yet learned to work well with others and I question whether he can be trusted with the tools. Willow (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    This confuses me: I saw your parting comment at the time, but that (and the comment you made just above it) was the only interaction I had with you during those edits; the rest of Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 13 looks to me like I'd been engaging other editors in productive discussion. I'm not sure how else I could have gone about this at the time. I'm sorry that you feel I'd "destroyed" your work. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Everyone has their own way of doing things, and I can't claim that a slower, more diplomatic way is any better than yours in producing a good encyclopedia. However, for the sake of this RfA, people may wish to examine your way of handling a contentious article that people were labouring on even as you entered the fray. In the space of two days (1-3 Feb 2007), you changed this into this and made no significant effort to Talk to the other editors who were working on the article. Your apodictic edit summaries stated without qualification that your way was "better" and that other's contributions were inferior, e.g., "this whole section is probably a bad idea anyway", "inappropriate in old location", "kill superfluous extlinks", and "rm random whining". You were utterly sure of your own judgment in your edit summaries, e.g., "bah, this will do", "this only needs one reference", and "managed to convince myself that this makes more sense in software section". As is obvious, you were bold in your changes (e.g., "heavy lifting: combine "editing" section with the non-essay parts of "encyclopedia characteristics" section" and "move huge, repeated chunk of criticism out of intro as an experiment, adding a place-holder third paragraph") yet you made no significant effort to engage other active editors, to understand their perspective and garner their ideas. Maybe it's just a harmless guy thing and maybe I should've tried harder to bridge the divide, but your attitude was so obvious that I deemed it pointless to continue editing that article. I probably would do things differently now, but I can't forget that I almost left Wikipedia because of you. I'm very sorry that I'm not being as courteous and self-possessed as I was then, but I sincerely hope that my honest experience of your behaviour will impress on you how you came across and, in my opinion, what a real danger you would pose as an admin. Willow (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think it's important first to note that this was ten months ago and the vast majority of my editing experience (especially outside mainspace) happened after that. Your parting message came as a surprise at the time, and in hindsight I certainly should have left you a note to say that I was sorry for having stepped on your toes, but (and this is applicable to the homeopathy kerfuffle) I don't believe that my dispute resolution expertise was at fault and I think it would be wrong to confuse my bold article editing with my history in working with editors productively after initial conflict. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Forgive me for interjecting here, but even this unwillingness to recognize bad behavior is a very very bad sign. And the repeated efforts of other editors to try to "defend" your actions on my talk page make it even worse. I did not want to lay into this editor. I want him to be able to learn from his mistakes so we can work with him productively in the future. However, I want him to realize that he is does not cover himself with glory in many of his flippant remarks and careless thoughtless actions and cavalier attitudes. What if I came to you, and said everything you have ever done is nonsense and all your work since you came onto Wikipedia should be thrown into the trash, just because I say so and I am king of the universe? It would be a bit unfair, right? Well this is not much different than the attitude you display. And now you are refusing to even recognize it. Not good. Not good at all.--Filll (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Thumperward that the key issue for the RfA is not his courtesy or editing style, but rather his judgment. Will he use his powers wisely — or arbitrarily? Will he weigh alternate viewpoints fairly, even if they don't agree with his own? Will he acknowledge his mistakes and meditate on them, so as to learn? Will he be able to see both sides of an edit-war and reconcile them peacably? Will he drive people away from Wikipedia? I will not oppose his RfA, knowing that he is devoted and has many good qualities, but I'll confess to being wary. Conferring power on someone who might be dismissive and mercurial is always dangerous, as I'm sure we all agree. Thumperward, can you understand and appreciate that we might need to confirm for ourselves that you're sober in judgment and self-disciplined enough to really consider others' opinions? Willow (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Permit me to interject. Willow, your comments are much more serious than most have written, yet you are neutral. I rarely involve myself in editor's votes in RfA's, because I always assume that each of has a valid opinion. But I'm not sure why you are neutral instead of opposed? What you and Filll have written makes me wish there was some vote stronger than "Oppose". 23:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs)
    That's easy to answer, Orangemarlin. I'm neutral because I know the limits of my own understanding and judgment, because I know I can't presume to know Chris' character or his history of editing well enough, and — because I believe in redemption and friendship for both of us, despite the past. I despaired then, but I won't again. :) Willow (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Absolutely. I think that my broader history stands up to scrutiny that I can exercise restraint (even against my own best wishes) for the sake of the community and a better encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    This is a fragile enterprise in some ways. We are dependent on convincing editors to donate time with no remuneration or compensation to write and improve articles. To have someone who appears to be a bit too dismismissive of others, and then willingly endow this person with even more power which can potentially be used in a very negative way really is a bit disconcerting in our circumstances on Wikipedia. To have him not even acknowledge that he has created this impression, however inadvertantly, is even worse; this editor seems not to be able to recognize or admit his own mistakes (Something like a few politicians I know of that have created a very bad impression for the same reason). I am not saying I would never support this editor. I am saying I would like him to learn a bit more first and demonstrate more skill and wisdom in editing, particularly controversial articles, and then I would gladly support him. Why wade into articles like Homeopathy or Wikipedia and declare they are all nonsense, when clearly interested qualified editors are actively involved in improving them? There are many other articles on here that are appallingly written; articles without recognizable English sentences or sentences without verbs. Articles with no references or citations. Articles that are just stubs. Articles with contradictions. Articles marked as needing to be cleaned up for 6 months or a year or 2 years or longer. What is wrong with editing and improving those? Why go out of one's way to offend others in an imperious manner, thumbing one's nose at others and hurting feelings? Very very discouraging. I think it would be best for this editor to get a bit more experience and demonstrate more maturity and wisdom so we can support him whole-heartedly.--Filll (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - Edit count is not a problem but the hot-headedness and Homeopathy article problems cause me concern. PookeyMaster (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. per Tim and Willow, I respect the work you have done here, but I am afraid I cannot support your RfA bid. Admins have to have cool heads and demonstrate consistently sound judgment. —Cronholm144 01:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. The incident User:Willow describes is very troubling, but it is almost a year ago. On the homeopathy issue, I agree completely with Tim Vickers. User:Filll's over the top replies here almost drove me to a support vote, but then I have to vote on the merits of the candidate, not on the demerits of his opponents. — Sebastian 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. Can't oppose at this time, but Filll's comments above are persuasive. Switched from Support, above. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
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.