Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thatcher131

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Edit counts for Thatcher131

Username Thatcher131
Total edits 7825
Distinct pages edited 2546
Average edits/page 3.073
First edit 17:50, 8 February 2006
(main) 1786
Talk 517
User 206
User talk 889
Image 23
Image talk 1
Template 89
Template talk 19
Category 16
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 3922
Wikipedia talk 356


Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Thatcher131 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 134 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 14, Sep , 2006 || Oldest edit on: 12hr (UTC) -- 2, May, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 96.82% Minor edits: 97.83%
Average edits per day: 42.7 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 269 edits): Major article edits: 98% Minor article edits: 99.41%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 20 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (6)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.62% (31)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 11.36% (568)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 16 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 54.56%
Special edit type statistics (as marked):
Deletion pages: 2.3% (115 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.14% (7 edit(s))
"Copyright problems" pages: 0.06% (3 edit(s))
WP:AN/related noticeboards: 49.68% (2484 edit(s))
Bot approvals pages: 0.02% (1 edit(s))
FA/FP/FL candidate pages: 0.04% (2 edit(s))
RfC/RfAr pages: 3.54% (177 edit(s))
Requests for adminship: 1.02% (51 edit(s))
Identified RfA votes: 0.18% (7 support vote(s)) || (2 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 1% (50 edit(s)) (28 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.6% (30 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User warnings: 0.4% (20 edit(s))
User welcomes: 0.36% (18 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1424 | Average edits per page: 3.51 | Edits on top: 13.22%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 70.18% (3509 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 19.52% (976 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 4% (200 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 3.8% (190 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 13.88% (694) | Article talk: 2.22% (111)
User: 3.6% (180) | User talk: 12.68% (634)
Wikipedia: 59.4% (2970) | Wikipedia talk: 5.86% (293)
Image: 0.26% (13) | Image talk: 0% (0)
Template: 1.74% (87) | Template talk: 0.24% (12)
Category: 0.12% (6) | Category talk: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0) | Portal talk: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0) | MediaWiki talk: 0% (0)

[edit] Context of the disputed edit

It took me a while to find the context of the disputed edit in the archive. I thought I would post it here for others to see. The archived material can be found at 59% = consensus? , I have bolded the three comments made by Thatcher131 in this discussion for easy scanning. David D. (Talk) 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

59% = consensus? (use link to see archived section)

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --SPUI (T - C) 05:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait since you lost? 41% isn't consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
With more discussion, perhaps a clearer result could ensue - perhaps for a better policy not discussed yet. Stephen B Streater 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You got it right first time. Consensus descisions are strongly non-zero sum. In a debate with only rational agents, nobody actually loses. (though some might not be perfectly happy, of course).
If you think that a majority vote is the only solution to resolving this particular dispute, well ... I don't know... but ok, I'll grant you that point for the sake of conversation today. I'm not going to argue with your actions.
But let's agree that it definately isn't consensus! :-)
Kim Bruning 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
On many issues, it doesn't matter in the end which decision is made as long as a decision is made. This applies especially to trivial matters. If you check the principles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways, you'll see that this is exactly the tack taken by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 09:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted an attempt to close that as "no consensus", since the admins in question appear to still be discussing it... For the record, my opinion is that consensus is a goal, not an absolute requirement; when something has come to a boil (as with the hint from arbcom) and we count heads on it, a clear majority is acceptable if it'll just stop the arguing. Shimgray | talk | 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've warned SPUI (User_talk:SPUI#State_route_naming_conventions_poll) about his try to close and he has replied with an interpretation of ArbCom's directives in this matter that I do not think is supported. If he reverts back to that "rejected" template, I will consider it disruption and will issue a block. His contributions throughout this matter have, in my view, attempted to stymie the functioning of the process to get to an outcome, any outcome so that this trivial matter can be put to bed. ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Could the remainder of the page be locked from editing to prevent any future vandalism or unwanted editing? I don't think anymore discussion is needed on Part 1 until after the admins cast all of their votes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that that page and proper wikipedia policymaking don't really have much correlation with each other.

Now as to achieving consensus, I wonder if the arbcom ever looked into King Solomon for ideas?

Well, whatever the case... as a start, I propose deletion of all highwaycruft. That'll end the situation swiftly. <looks innocent> Kim Bruning 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Arbcom, an arbitrary decision is better than no decision, and per common sense, 59% is better than arbitrary. Accept it, or get banned. Sorry. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Quote the relevant passage that says I'll be banned please! :-) Kim Bruning 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
SPUI is one of several Wikipedians who takes the tack that "It ain't a consensus unless it agrees with me!" *Dan T.* 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Also the only person ever blocked for successfully violating WP:IAR ;-) Kim Bruning 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Didn't Ed Poor get blocked for deleting AfD? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, as Angela suggested on Wikien-l, we ought to try consensus polling. --bainer (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


I have a solution to this issue: Block anyone who isn't a highway expert. Block anyone who's ever named a highway article wrong. Block anyone who's ever gotten frustrated and made bad edits in the middle of a highway naming dispute. Block anyone who's part of the 59%. The reasoning? Anyone who's made mistakes in the past is likely to make mistakes again, and that constitutes disruption.

Yes, this may be an extreme viewpoint to take. I don't care -- this whole thing is frustrating. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Relax, SPUI, it's just some non-binding poll. Right?

“ Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. ... everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later date. Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding. — Wikipedia:No binding decisions ”

That's official policy for you, and a pretty good description of reality around here too. This has annoyed me often enough in the past, it's just about impossible to just make a decision and move on. Someone will always show up and say: "Hey! I wasn't a part of that 'consensus', it's utterly wrong - let's do things another way." Haukur 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its supporters are treating it as fully binding, and plan to move all the highway pages once the details are hammered out. --SPUI (T - C) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
SPUI: Perhaps if you (and to a lesser extent, others) had collegially worked with everyone else to reach a consensus prior to this, instead of having it have to go to ArbCom, it wouldn't have come to this. It certainly would have wasted far less time on everyone's part. But you and others did not and ArbCom acted. What I see here is disruptive wikilawyering on your part after the fact, trying to block implementation. You need to accept that this is how it's going to play out.
Note that one way to achieve consensus is to block or ban those who are disruptively interfering with the attempt to reach it, until only reasonable people remain. Your contributions to the encyclopedia are enormous. Yet, no less a personage than Jimbo himself has asked you to change your disruptive, contentious ways, remember? No one person is indispensible to this project and if the project has to get along without your positive contributions in order to also get along without your negative contributions, so be it. There are a number of admins who are prepared to block anyone who is contentiously and tendentiously disrupting this process. I suggest you internalise that and move on. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree emphatically with Lar here. This bloody stupid dispute keeps popping up on WP:AN, AN/I, RfC, and now RfArb. Pick one convention – any convention that's not patent nonsense will do – and get on with all your lives. (It seems that the ArbCom-imposed process has generated such a result. I haven't looked at the poll to see what that result is, but from previous exposure to this issue I know that both of the favoured alternatives were reasonable.) Please add me to the list of admins who are sick and tired of this, and who are likely to block any editors who are responsible for this utterly pointless fight returning to WP:AN or any of its subpages. There are lots of useful things to do on Wikipedia. Pick one of them and stop bothering the rest of us with this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe it even made it this far. I'm sorry to say that, as a result of this naming mess, we have loss a great number of contributors to the highway projects because of edit warring, mass page renames, and attacks on character as a result of only one or two people on Wikipedia. It's very sad that these warring individuals spend so much time worrying about something so trivial that it devolves the quality of the encylopedia, through contributors leaving, rather than improve upon it. As a result, many articles are no longer being formed or created out of fear that their contributions will be made meaningless as a result of a shift in the page, or a renaming that makes it inaccessible, or whatever is their reason.
I am sick of this as well and would like to see a consensus made once and for all, even if it upsets one or two heavy contributors. These same opposers to this legitimate vote are also the most vocal, sadly, but they are merely editors as we are all. And as such, I will agree with Lar, that no one person is indispensible to the highway project (or editing on Wikipedia in general), that any disruption in the process of this vote, or disruption after a consensus has been reached (through edit warring) should be blocked and that this nightmare be put behind us. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the poll is 59/41 shows there is considerable support for SPUI's position and we shouldn't belittle him for that. However it is important to consider the Arbcom ruling (which seems to me common sense) that sometimes a decision has to be made and in those cases an arbitrary decision is better than no decision. Of course no decision is final but that does not mean continually fighting over it. To me it means accepting a decision, living with it for a few months, and then revisiting the issue. At this point the only viable options are to close as no decision, meaning the highways articles will remain at status quo ante and perpetuating the argument indefinitely, or closing as decided, resulting in a plausible solution that may nevertheless disappoint or even infuriate one editor. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would have accepted a 59/41 had it gone the other way. We have a definite majority that while not quite 66% generally used for consensus, it is damn close. And it is definitely the clearest will ever expressed in the highway argument and probably the clearest there will ever be. There was nothing uncouth about the vote, it was performed fairly, there was discussion involved and a decision has been reached as arbcom demanded. This should put an end to it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know SPUI and I don't know the long and horrid background, but is there a reason SPUI has not yet exhausted the community's patience? He's got a block log as long as your arm, and he seems to acting in an intentionally disruptive manner today. Friday (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I find myself asking that same question regularly. I think Wikipedia would be more credible and attract better writers if we dropped our bad habit of coddling and enabling sociopathic behavior. You can't blame SPUI - he hasn't been sent the message that disruptive behavior is actually uncacceptable. At least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the bottom line here is that some admin (not already involved) needs to be bold, close the poll per Arbcom ruling that a plausible decision is better than none at all, and be prepared to back up the decision with blocks. SPUI will either accept the result or contest the page moves, in which case he should be blocked. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the process currently in effect. The poll is closed and admins are weighing in. Ashibaka tock 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Benefit to the project. Disruptiveness and stubbornness aside, most of us are extremely reluctant to lose his expertise on highway topics. Powers T 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of us? Should we run a poll? I'm thoroughly fed up with this endless conflict over something so utterly trivial, all caused by SPUI refusing to accept that he could ever have to compromise about anything, that he has to work with others, and that he doesn't have unlimited licence to do whatever the hell he wants. I fully support Lar's block, and if SPUI persists in this sort of behaviour after the block expires, I'd support making it permanent. I see very little benefit to the project in keeping him around. --ajn (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI Blocked (use link to see archived section)

I'm exhausted. I warned him and he argued about what the meaning of the warning is about. Blocked for 31 hours. I invite review of my actions. I assume this needs to go on the ArbCom case page too... I'm not ready for a permanent block at this time, I still hope this valuable contributor can be convinced to not be so abrasively tendentious. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should he? We keep making it abundantly clear that he can do anyting he wants, and it will all be accepted. Would you change? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
He won't. As you stated above, no one person is indispensible to this project. If that means SPUI must be blocked, even if temporairly, to gain some ground on this project and hopefully keep some editors from bailing ship, then by all means, go ahead and do it. I'm sick and tired of going on this merry-go-round of a chase to get SPUI to conform to policy, because it hasn't worked since day one. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) reduced the block to 5 hours saying "Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. Ashibaka tock 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)". That's fine by me, but if when I get home late tonite, it hasn't worked and SPUI is back at it, I'm reblocking. For longer. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the next block being indefinite- I've no idea what his credentials are as a highway expert but it's blatantly obvious that he's been a very disruptive editor for a very long time. Friday (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No user is indispensible - Wik showed us that. SPUI is very similar to Wik, in both his disruptive abilities and the high quality of his many edits. It would be sad to see SPUI go - then again, it was sad to see Wik go, too. I hope things can be worked out. --Golbez 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While SPUI has contributed much to the highway article system at Wikipedia, other users can fill his shoes. The amount of people that we have lost as a result of this debate, SPUI's edit warring, and general mess should tell you there are obvious trade-offs for keeping him on here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I won't shed any tears over SPUI's self-inflicted travails. But, you know, he does have at least a small point. That naming convention poll was vague and confusingly constructed and garnered a weak majority - it should in no way be taken as license to run rough-shod over any remaining objections. But despite my reservations about the actual poll, SPUI has proven time and again to be a real PITA. older ≠ wiser 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)