Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thatcher131: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
removed "====</noinclude>"s ruining the bots parsing |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (139 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata rfa" style="background-color: #f5fff5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a '''successful''' [[wikipedia:requests for adminship|request for adminship]]. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it'''</span>.[[Category:Successful requests for adminship|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]''
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thatcher131|Thatcher131]]===
'''Final'''
'''(
{{User|Thatcher131}} – It is my pleasure to nominate Thatcher131. Quite a number of you may be surprised and think he already was one. Indeed, while a number of editors 'evolve' after they become admins to become more involved in meta tasks associated with project management, Thatcher131 went through that evolution quite some time ago.
Line 33 ⟶ 37:
:::*As I tried to suggest above, I viewed a block or ban as the likely outcome of a refusal to accept the result and move forward (especially in view of Arbcom's finding of fact that even an arbitrary decision was better than no decision at all). At that precise moment I had no thoughts of blocking SPUI for just raising the issue. I freely admit I could have phrased my opinion better and I have certainly taken your comments seriously. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:::*Rory, I'm not sure what you're driving at. SPUI was blocked for disrupting the process being used in [[WP:SRNC]], after being warned not to do so. The block was reported at AN/I (see the talk page of this RfA) and supported. So your comment that SPUI was blocked (or contemplated being blocked) "solely for discussing a judgement of consensus" seems incorrect and not very apt. He was blocked for disrupting the process, and trying to widen the disruption. I stand by that block and I would do it again. Further, there was talk (you can see it in the AN/I thread) that his block be extended to a community ban. Although that had some support, it didn't have enough at that time to be enacted. It still could though. So your taking Thatcher to task for speaking of bans really seems like quibbling. I think the process would be better served if you focused on wider issues. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 12:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am one of the highway editors involved in the dispute. Under the circumstances, I feel that Thatcher131's comments were not harmful. In fact, I view them as helpful to the situation. Many, including some admins such as Tony Sideaway and Fred Bauder, took the same opinion that Thatcher131 did. I can provide diffs if anyone wants them (although I will have to go digging). --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
;Edit statistics
Line 51 ⟶ 57:
:::There was an "issue" last night between 2 editors over the formatting of this RFA, and this section is the result. I'm sure the bureaucrats can sort it out. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]]
*Opposing someone for suggesting that failure to get with the program would lead to a ban is somewhat perverse. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
*I agree with Mackensen. While the diff appears troubling on the surface, the intent, I believe was to note that users who continually defy consensus will eventually find themselves on the receiving end of a ban. This is true, and I think Thatcher131 should become a sysop. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per above. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Seen this user around and always seem to give calm and well reasoned comments. Good use of talk pages. Looks like someone who may well mediate his way out of blocks but should have the conveniance of it when it is needed. Most importantly seems to be the kind of editor that does good research before barging into a situation. I particularly like the arb enforcement contributions he seems willing to make since this inevitably gives more weight to arb com decisions. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 23:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 66 ⟶ 71:
#'''Support''' I could right per above or per nom (or per Syrthiss since my thoughts are almost identical to Syrthiss's unfortunately for me Durin had priority on nominating Thatcher otherwise I would have nommed Thatcher months ago). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
# '''Strong Support''' - insert '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[User talk:Glen S/Templates/RfA cliche #1|RfA cliche #1]]}}''' - but I really did think he was! - [[User talk:Glen S|'''Gl<font color="green">e</font>n''']] 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Infinite Support''' - Definitely one person who deserves the mop and bucket. Cool, Calm and Collected all apply to Thatcher. :) [[User:Torinir|Torinir]] <
#'''Strong Support''' per all of the above. A truly dedicated user. —<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User:Khoikhoi|
#'''Strong Support''' per all above. He is extremely dedicated. [[User:Hello32020|Hello32020]] 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per nom. [[User:John254|John254]] 00:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 84 ⟶ 89:
#'''Strong Support''' As a fellow clerk at checkuser, I have seen Thatcher do tons of stellar work there. His behind-the-scenes contributions are absolutely invaluable to the checkuser process. As Durin has explained with several diffs in his magnificent nom, Thatcher has been heavily active in several important areas of Wikipedia and his actions and reasoning has always been impeccable. I don't think that the diff cited below is a solid enough reason to oppose. On the other hand there are volumes of evidence showing why Thatcher would make a great admin and I feel he's one of the most deserving admin candidates at present. --[[User:Srikeit|Srikeit]] <b><sup><small>([[User talk:Srikeit|Talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Emailuser/Srikeit|Email]])</small></sup></b> 04:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - he does impressively good work in many areas. [[User:NoSeptember/Signature12|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] 07:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', he's not one yet? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
#'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions and a good editor. Deserves to be given the mop. --<
#'''Support''' per nom and most of above (like not cliche #1 because I knew this nom was coming). [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I've been working almost all night today, but that doesn't prevent me from supporting someone who should have been adminned months ago... [[User:Scobell302|Scobell302]] 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' with pleasure. Sensible, intelligent, reliable, and a good editor. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
#Thatcher is an asset to the project and real pleasure to work with. I only regret that I was beaten to the nomination. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' Nom has an excellent grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has interacted positively with many editors and admins about complex and difficult issues at Check user and Request for arbitration. I have no worries about his misuse of admin tools. The example given does not persuade of a problem. Rather it shows me that nom has gained valuable experience dealing with problem users. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 11:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 98 ⟶ 103:
#'''Super strong support''' I already thought he was an admin, but all my interactions with Thatcher have been promising. I have full faith that he'll be a great admin. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 13:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I've seen the candidate around and have no reservations that giving him a bit of responsibility could only help the project [[User:Hoopydink/Esperanza|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''hoopydink'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Hoopydink|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 14:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak support''', was going neutral but.. nah, what's under oppose at the moment doesn't bother me, really.--<
#'''Strong support''' per nom. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#'''Support''' per nom and my own observations of this user. I don't really see what all the heat is about in the oppose section, when taken in context. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - would like to see more article and less policy work, but agree that he seems quite soundly sane, and that the roads business in the oppose section is a vast red herring. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per nom and based on (very limited) prior interaction, hard-working and provides clear, helpful input in a variety of areas, as his contribution history clearly demonstrates.[[User:EricR|EricR]] 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. --[[User:Ligulem|Ligulem]] 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Very Strong support'''. A fair, balanced, thorough editor. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC) One edit is given as the reason to oppose Thatcher131: that only one (marginally) questionable issue has come up is good enough reason for me to switch to strongest possible support. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 20:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
# [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
# The piggy will get you! :O [[User:HighwayCello|H]]
# '''Support''' as having seen this editor in many places and been impressed with the balance, patience and solid work done for the project. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' despite my opposition to his [[WP:CHILD]] proposed policy. [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] | [[User talk:Batmanand|Talk]] 21:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 112 ⟶ 117:
#'''Support''' for clerking at Requests for checkuser. [[User:DVD R W| DVD]]+[[User_talk:DVD R W| R/W]] 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Sounds like he knows his shit; per users above I trust and a quick survey of contribs. Diff below is of concern, but I've no interest in sinking an RfA over one comment if it it isn't representative of the user's overall approach to an issue. I requested more information from the oppose voters, and I'll still look at it if I get it, but things look good to me at the moment. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[
#'''Strong support'''. Thatcher knows his stuff, there is no doubt about that. The most important justification for giving him the tools is that he needs them to do the work that he does for the project. I found this myself when asking him a question about an ArbComm case that involved a deleted page. Without the admin tools he couldn't help me. Making him an admin will mean that he can serve the project better. [[User:Bucketsofg|<
#'''Weak Support''' the mainspace contributions are slightly below my requirements but still are quite reasonable - he wrote at least two good articles and copyedited quite a number of them. Contriburions to the Wikipedia space are quite good. Overall seems to be a good fellow. [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''—Looked at this yesterday & realized this one required a more careful read through than many. Rory096’s concerns about your (Thacher131) advocating "banning" anybody who just "disagrees" with the decision made by the judges over at [[WP:SRNC]] gave reason for pause. However I appreciated David D posting the background to the controversial discussion to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thatcher131]]. After reading it I can somewhat understand your response, but would strongly encourage you to look to the calm, reasonable approach Tony Sidaway took on the same page. Sidaway more closely models [[wikiquote:Laozi|Laozi]]’s dictum: ''“A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, ‘We did this ourselves.’”'' I believe an administrator should strive for the most gracious, minimal impact possible to do the admin job. That said, I am willing to trust the substantial administrative powers to block/ban to you. Please read all of the support and oppose comments carefully, reflect on the lessons to be learned from them & use the admin powers wisely - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] ([[User talk:Williamborg|Bill]]) 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 124 ⟶ 129:
#'''Support'''. Have seen him doing useful admin-related jobs competently, and the incident about the highwaymen is rather to his credit, in my opinion. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 09:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''': reasonable and active user. Willing to listen and learn, so has learned. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 09:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' with a Hope that he understands his mistake and does not repeat in future. [[User:Doctorbruno|<
#'''Support''' per Durin's excellent nomination. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 13:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' We musnt let trolling get the upper hand on RFAs. Would make a good buffer against abusive editors. [[User:Truthseeker 85.5|Truthseeker 85.5]] 14:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 132 ⟶ 137:
#'''Support''' [[User:Oliver202|Oliver202]] 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Like many of the others who are in support, I have seen this candidate around quite a bit. I feel this person is very civil. I am not afraid to say ''Give-em-the-mop.'' [[User:Junglecat|<font color="green">JungleCat</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Junglecat|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Junglecat|<font color="blue">contrib</font>]]</small> 20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - while I would like to see him more active in the namespace, his work with [[WP:RFCU]] has been of very high quality.--[[User:Aldux|Aldux]] 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', Rory's diff notwithstanding. - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|talk]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Crzrussian|email]]</small> 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I like the way they handled themselves, in the worst case scenario which has been portrayed below by oppose voters. A disruptive editor is a disruptive editor, and the block log as endorsed by many independent editors shows that his comment was not without a strong precedent. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>ll</span>]] 01:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Of course; exactly the kind of hard-working, in the trenches, grunt work editor that would benefit from admin tools. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</small>]]</sup> 02:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Has been a positive contributor in admin areas for a long time, and has shown good judgement and temper. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 03:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Kokota|Kokota]] 12:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' wholeheartedly. A valued editor who has become a real asset to Wikipedia. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', a very qualified candidate, and the provided explanation of the edit most oppose voters refer to is perfectly acceptable. ([[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]], [[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|2006]]). 13:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I thought he was an admin already.[[User:Bakasuprman|Bakaman]] [[User talk:Bakasuprman|<sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk</sub>]] 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Very impressive.
#'''Support''' this candidate. Seems a good sort. [[User:Bastique|'''B'''astiq<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>e]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Bastique|demandez]]</sup>''' 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''': already acting well in admin-related areas. [[User:TimBentley|TimBentley]] [[User talk:TimBentley|(talk)]] 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong support'''. Clearly knows policy, clearly makes the encyclopedia better, and, finally, even more clearly willing to wade into difficult situations and make hard decisions. One can see from the oppose votes below that this has given Thatcher some detractors, as would be expected. This is actually a good sign, IMHO. Because of this, FWIW, the oppose dialogue below makes my support of Thatcher all the stronger. --- [[User:Deville|Deville]] ([[User talk:Deville|Talk]]) 21:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per nom, good editor [[User:Anger22|Anger22]] 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#Per Rory096 - suggesting the application of blocks or bans when necessary does not indicate a bad admin candidate, it indicates a ''good'' one. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</span>]] 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#:It was not necessary. SPUI at that particular time (though certainly not at other times) was not being disruptive- he wasn't moving pages, he wasn't vandalizing anything, he wasnt making too many sarcastic comments. He was just discussing whether the poll really resulted in a valid consensus. A ''ban'' certainly wasnt necessary, especially for the reason Thatcher gave. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#::I hope I have clarified above that it was not my intent to block or ban him for his comments at that time, but that a block was the likely eventual result if he did not accept the outcome of the process he agreed to, although I freely accept that my words could have been interpreted that way. I am more than delighted to read below that a compromise is in the works. In a perfect Wiki, admins should never have to intervene in content disputes, whether to prevent disruption, enforce consensus, or for any other reason. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. This is the first time I've voted at a Request for Demotion to Low-level Duties, partly because I hate the way one mistake is typically blown out of proportion; that appears to be happening here. The applicant has a talent for managing difficult WPians; Thatcher131 is brave in the face of criticism and abuse, and shows a rare ability to understand psychological nuances in an online community. I've seen examples of the applicant's good work in admin areas, which indicates a keenness to take up the role. Rejecting this application would be shooting ourselves in the foot. I ask the opposers to reconsider. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 01:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' While I recognise the concerns highlighted by Rory's diff, it doesn't seem to merit such heavy criticism when seen in its context, and doesn't really indicate that there is a problem with this editor which would preclude them from adminship. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 03:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Seems like an asset to Wikipedia and I'm unconvinced that Rory's diff is indicative of a loose cannon. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 11:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. -- ''[[User:FayssalF|Szvest]] 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)''
#'''Support''' Generally impressed by the approach, able to make decisions and doesn't shy away from being firm where required.[[User:ALR|ALR]] 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I have always respected his approach on [[WP:RFCU]], and thought he already was one. Good luck! -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Support''' My run ins with Thatcher131 have always been nothnig but pleasant, even when we did not see eye to eye, a model wikipedian, minus that threatening issue. --[[User:Zer0faults]] 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)</s> Changed to oppose --[[User:Zer0faults]]
#'''Support''' A user that will contribute a lot with the tools, and I'm not convinced at all on the strength of one diff that he'll go ban users willy-nilly. [[User:Borisblue|Borisblue]] 20:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer ]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo|iablo]] 21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Does good work. Seems to be sound. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b>]] 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Good work. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 06:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per the strong and detailed nomination. Thanks to [[User:David D.|David D.]] for providing the transcript of the disputed edit on the talk page. Looking at it in the context of the months old acrimony and disruption caused by the Higways naming issue, I don't see a problem here. I am sure Thatcher131 will make a fine admin. --[[User:Cactus.man|<span style="color:#2B7A2B;">Cactus'''.'''man</span>]] [[User talk:Cactus.man|<span class="Unicode" style="font-size:large;">✍</span>]] 07:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Puts an effort into less thankful parts of wikipedia, as such shows his commitment to the project. [[User:Agathoclea|Agathoclea]] 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. No issues here. [[User:Alphachimp|<font color="OrangeRed">alpha</font><font color="black">'''Chimp'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Alphachimp|(talk)]]</sup> 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I can't see any reason why a user as well-rounded as Thatcher131 should be denied adminship over a single sarcastic comment. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Support''' - to be honest some of the opposes surprise me; quite simply any call you'd state you'd make before having the tools is irrelevant when you actually ''do'' have them in reality... I am certain Thatcher would not indef ban ''anyone'' once he actually can without serious thought. I see no problems at all - [[User talk:Glen S|'''Gl<font color="green">e</font>n''']] 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)</s> Duplicate !vote - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]][[User:Tangotango/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">a</span>]][[User Talk:Tangotango|ngo]] 08:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' While in retrospect Rory096's comments may indicate an sense of mistaken hostility, one must remember that at the time, discussion and tempers became so heated that there was talk of opening another RfAr over SPUI's antics and refusal to accept the results of the poll (and was hence agreed upon as disruption by numerous admins and editors). In the context of the time, I believe that Thatcher's comment(s) fitted the mood, and should be commended for bringing the gavel of reality down to earth, not demonized for trying to stop others from whining about a result everyone else agreed on. --[[User:Physicq210|physicq210]] 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Has done an excellent job of cleanup and clerking. Should, by all means, have the tools to sweat the "small" stuff. [[User:Choess|Choess]] 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''You-mean-I-haven't-already-supported-yet...geez,-how-did-I-miss-this-[[WP:RFA|RfA]] Support''' - great user who could benefit Wikipedia by having the mop, especially regarding this users' interest in RFCU (being a clerk and all) and the enforcement of the results of these checks. <font face="sans-serif">'''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel]][[Special:Random|.]][[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|Bryant]]'''</font> 05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. My dealings with Thatcher131 have been entirely positive, a review of contributions to talk space shows that this is also a fair-minded user who can admin when an opponent has a point. Should be even more of an asset to the project as an admin. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#::I suspect that Guy meant "admit" rather than "admin" there. But actually, either one works. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 17:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Nothing to add to what has already been said. [[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong support,''' I thought Thatcher was already an admin a couple of months ago. Thatcher has a very cool head and is fair-minded, and isn't afraid to get tough when Wikipedia policies are at stake. We will be lucky to have him. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange;">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 17:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' [[User:Sugarpine|<span style="color:red;">S</span>]][[User:Sugarpine|<span style="color:blue;">ug</span>]][[User:Sugarpine|<span style="color:green;">ar</span>]][[User:Sugarpine|<span style="color:darkyellow;">p</span>]][[User:Sugarpine|<span style="color:orange;">in</span>]][[User:Sugarpine|<span style="color:purple;">e</span>]][[User talk:Sugarpine|<span style="color:oceanblue;">t/</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sugarpine|<span style="color:aqua;">c</span>]] 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' per [[User:David D.|David D.]]. Many thanks, David D. for all your research work on the talk page for this RfA! --[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] 01:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Great user, will make a fine admin. --[[User:Nishkid64|<span style="color:red">'''Nish'''</span><span style="color:blue">'''kid'''</span><span style="color:green">'''64'''</span>]] 14:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' On the balance of things, I think it will benefit the community to give Thatcher admin tools. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 15:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. He's already been doing the job for quite a while anyway, and the supposedly controversial diff doesn't bother me in the slightest, given the context. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Naconkantari|<span style="color:red;">Nacon</span><span style="color:gray;">'''kantari'''</span>]] 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#User does good work and therefore I '''support'''. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#I've seen Thatchet acting as a voice of reason in complex or tense discussions, and while the issues raised by the opposers gave me pause, I'm convinced that he would act reasonably and according to community standards. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
#I'm afraid I'm going to have to '''oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=73213156 This comment] just two weeks ago shows that this user is not yet ready for adminship. The user advocates "banning" anybody who just ''disagrees'' with the decision made by the judges over at [[WP:SRNC]]. This shows that this editor is not familiar with our policy at <s>[[WP:NBD]]</s> [[WP:CCC]], and seems to think that people should not be allowed to express disagreement with a decision, whether that decision is valid or not. The user may make a good admin sometime in the future, but I don't think that now is the time. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#:I'm puzzled by your above comment. Considering how contentious that discussion was and the continued rounds of blocks and revert wars that comment seemed to be one of the most sensible made in that context. The entire point of the poll was that some standard was needed. Furthermore, this isn't an issue of [[WP:CCC]] since Thatcher's point seems to be in the context of the user in question declaring the poll to be invalid and complaining at ANI. Given these circumstances Thatcher's behavior was reasonable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 167 ⟶ 219:
#:::::::::::::Excuse me but I don't *have* to do anything. You seem to be missing this point so let me repeat it, '''I am not trying to change anyone else's opinion with my oppose vote.''' Therefore, go do your own research and draw your own conclusion, I don't care what it is, but use your own brain, not mine. I'm not giving diffs no matter how long you argue about it or what you say about it or even if you were to get my vote thrown out for lack of proof, so please leave it. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 04:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#::::::::::::::Do what you like. In my opinion, however, this approach is not consistent with helping Wikipedia make the best decision possible. We're having a discussion here, in an effort to reach consensus, so if you're not trying to change others' opinions, what was the purpose of commenting at all? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 07:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Oppose''' per attitude to banning - precisely the sort of bullshit we can do without. --[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 08:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)</s> changed to neutral pending question.--[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
#:Charming. I suppose you prefer civility from admins as well? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#::Civil admins? what will they think of next. --[[User:Zer0faults]] 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. There's been way too many questionable blocks in the recent past. Additionally, the candidate seems not interested in main space editing, which is the only reason why this project exists. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|<span style="color:#FC4339;">Ghirla</span>]] [[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|<sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-</sup>]] 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#*Could you please explain what you mean by that? His block log is empty and obviously he can't issue blocks himself. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#::Subject to Ghirla's correcting me, I assume he means that there have been controversial blocks of other users by existing admins, and that he fears Thatcher131 would behave similarly. (I disagree with him; I think Thatcher131 behaves with fairness and restraint, and I doubt that he'd ever hit the block button against a good-faith editor without major cause.)
#*Dont mind him. Ghirla just wants to secure his right to be incivil by voiciferously campaigning against due blocks and people who might use them, knowing his behaviour would merit such a move. [[User:Truthseeker 85.5|Truthseeker 85.5]] 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Oppose''' per Rory. I understand that the comment came in the midst of the heaven-forsaken, heated roads debate, but its brevity and tone are still troubling, especially when the user wasn't an admin, and had no authority to block or ban anyone. Moreover, it suggests editor is unclear on the difference between a block and a ban, a subtle but basic point. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)</s> Changed to '''Abstain''' per Jonathunder. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#::Xolox, I respect your opinion and often agree with your take on RFAs, but I must respond here. This warning message to a very problematic user came after several blocks had already been given and warnings that the disruptive behavior was not acceptable had come from multiple admins, the arbcom, even Jimbo himself. In this context, a ban really was possible, as this candidate correctly saw. I left this project for a time, in part because of idiotic insistance of this disruptive user that he knew better than I the names of roads I not only wrote articles on and drive every day but that my father helped build, and the failure of the community, for far too long, to stand up to bullying, mass moves of road articles, and general nonsense. That Thatcher131 correctly and plainly told the most disruptive of the road warriors to accept and move on or be banned is quite to his credit. Durin nominates only the very best candidates for adminship, and I really encourage you to give this one another look. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 17:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#:::I'm so happy to see you back, Jonathunder, that I would eat dirt if you asked me to, much less abstain from an RfA. :) [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''No''' per the first diff. [[User:EFG|EFG]] 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#::Note - this user's first edit was only 3 days ago. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#:::This user is Freestylefrappe. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#:<s>Strong oppose. [[User:Craigleithian|Craigleithian]] 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)</s>
#::User (Craig, not EFG) seems to be a sock, possibly vandalic, see contribs and talk. <s>Note that I didn't indent this, he added it as #::.</s> Singopo moved it to just # (damn edit conflicts). --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 00:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 183 ⟶ 238:
#'''Strong oppose'''. Threatening bans on well-respected editors in absence of a serious offence is definite no-go territory for admins. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 07:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#:You know the comment was directing toward SPUI and not Kim, right? -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 07:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#::I don't want to rehash all that's just been said above. But I think it's important to note that Thatcher's comments should not be interpreted as a threat to ban anyone--he is not yet an admin and has no such powers. [[WP:AGF]] surely requires us to assume that he was saying that ignoring an ArbComm ruling would result in a ban (imposed by someone else). Now, you are free to oppose if you think that his remark was too intemperate for an admin, but you really shouldn't oppose because he threatened to ban anyone, since there was no such threat. [[User:Bucketsofg|<
#'''Oppose''' per Rory. --[[User:CFIF|CFIF]] [[User talk:CFIF|☎]] [[Special:Contributions/CFIF|⋐]] 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Rory096. - [[User:Mike1|Mike]] 16:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#:(In response to MIke, Samsara, Mcginnly and Ghirla) I admit that I did not express myself carefully. I should probably have said something like, ''Per Arbcom, an arbitrary decision is better than no decision, and per common sense, 59% is better than arbitrary. You agreed to this process, and I'm sorry the outcome is not in your favor. You have to choose now whether to accept the results or to continue to be disruptive, in which you will eventually earn yourself a permanent ban.'' If you oppose me because I was hasty and imprecise in my comments, that is something I can be more careful of in the future. (In fact, there are many times when I will get half way through a comment and decide to copy it to my sandbox and think about it for a while before posting it.) I think my record of edits to the talk pages of problem users and AN/I shows that I generally have a good record of being careful about what I say. On the other hand, if you are opposing me because of the ''intent'' of my comment, that if SPUI did not accept the results of the poll he would not last long, then oppose away, because I stand behind that sentiment. I believe I understand the difference between a block and a ban, the need to warn first, the duty to avoid blocking someone with whom you in conflict, and the other aspects of blocking and banning policies. In fact, I have recently been accused of being too [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Terryeo (2)|lenient]]. I also intend to state explicitly on my talk page that any other admin may undo my blocks no questions asked (applying [[WP:OWN]] to my adminstrative actions). [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Moderate Oppose''' per Rory, Singopo. [[User:Markovich292|Markovich292]] 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Oppose''' per Rory. [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="blue">'''Rama's arrow'''</font>]] 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)</s>
#'''Strong Oppose''', per Rory. Not the right attitude at all. [[User:Grue|<span style="background:black; font-family:Courier; color:#FFFFFF;">''' Grue '''</span>]] 07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#:Question. What's your solution to resolving the long, protracted, and acrimonious disupute over highway-naming, particularly given the unwillingess of parties to agree to any kind of compromise? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
#::Simply use the official names. [[User:Grue|<span style="background:black; font-family:Courier; color:#FFFFFF;">''' Grue '''</span>]] 06:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#::Uh, Mackensen, the parties have agreed to a compromise and are working together to perfect it. The highway dispute is virtually resolved. --[[User talk:Rory096|Rory096]] 16:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Per Rory and others.[[User:People Powered|People Powered]] 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#:Thanks for all the updates to the New Hampshire election results you did. We're always on the lookout for New Hampshire contributors here ;). [[User:NoSeptember/Signature12|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] 01:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
#::While I support this candidate myself, I do not think this is the right way to counterargument an opposition ([[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]], [[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|2006]]). 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
#:::I wasn't actually engaged in counterargument here. Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of my comment. On an unrelated note, I can honestly say that '''New Hampshire''' is a beautiful state, and that the comment above has nothing to do with whose RfA this is or whether I have a position on the candidate or not. [[User:NoSeptember/Signature12|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
#::::I understand the purpose of your post; I disagree with the way it is formulated, however. ([[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]], [[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|2006]]). 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
#:::You have me at an advantage Liberatore, I do not understand what my home has to do with my opinion. Maybe us [[New Hampshire|Granite Staters]] are just plain better people, thus the value you put to my vote. :-) [[User:People Powered|People Powered]] 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
# '''Strong Oppose''' per Rory. [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Rory. —''[[User:Jared Hunt|Jared Hunt]]'' <span style="color:gray;font-size:70%;">September 20, 2006, 04:26 (UTC)</span>
#'''Oppose''' Per Rory, and recent enlightenment of this user mocking others. I think admin civility is now a big issue for consideration and this user seems to thinking mocking others is ok. --[[User:Zer0faults]] 13:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#:Mocking? Cites? --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#:*Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mackensen&diff=prev&oldid=76622714 this]? From my chair, not being involved in that situation, the comment does not appear to be directed at you, but is instead a humorous comment shared with Mackensen at nobody's expense. There's quite a bit of truth to the sentiment; screw up once around here and you're often marked for it for a considerable period of time. That said, I went digging for the mocking you refer to because it is a very serious issue to me. If a user seriously mocks another user, they are indeed unfit to be an admin. I've opposed for it before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NickBush24&diff=prev&oldid=25459524] after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A129.15.120.186&diff=24711656&oldid=24711607 this comment] and would gladly do so again. In fact, if I felt there was substantial evidence showing Thatcher131 to have engaged in willfull, hurtful mocking of another user I would retract my nomination of him. It's that serious to me. I don't see the case here. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#::I am not sure why this is in response to me. If you cannot see that my name is above the section, then I do not know how you can think it was not directed at my situation, nor do I see why you attempted to discredit my view. There is a place to post your views on this adminship, i will would like it if you did not attempt to discredit my view or others. Mocking users to me and the civility of admins is a big issue. Good day. --[[User:Zer0faults]] 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#:::I did not attempt to discredit your view. I asked you to expand on it, and did some research on my own. As I noted above, if there was substantial evidence showing Thatcher131 to have engaged in willfull, hurtful mocking of another user I would retract my nomination of him. I too take it seriously. If the only evidence you have of that is the diff I found above, then I personally don't feel this to be sufficient. That's not discrediting you. It's voicing my opinion on the matter, which is entirely proper and relevant to this RfA. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 13:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#:*The irony here is delicious. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#::Yes like Milk and Cookies, as usual Mackensen your insights are always well appreciated and quite helpful to the continued growth of the community, I thank you for refraining in your language considering your history. But your reply here only serves my point. --[[User:Zer0faults]] 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#:::Considering my history it would be unlikely for me to be anything ''but'' restrained in my language. How's that RfC coming? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#::::Both of you, please take it elsewhere. This RfA isn't the forum for it. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Rory's diff. Judging by the massive support, this won't make much of a difference at this point, but that's a very disturbing attitude to see brought across for someone requesting the tools to do exactly that. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strongly oppose'''; alarming attitudes. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 19:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Rory and alarming controversies until a clear, transparent and implementable deadminship is developped. Also, I am dissatisfied by the mainspace contibution. How can the user work on providing the comfortable environment for editors unless the person knows for sure what is editing and how editors act in real life? --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#:What controversies, plural, please? -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 21:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': Lacks experience in article space. Attitude to banning is concerning. Primarily we are here to write an encyclopedia, I feel he needs more experience in this department first. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Giano. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#Changed from weak oppose. – [[User:Chacor|Ch]][[User talk:Chacor|acor]] 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. Re above, one diff does not an oppose make for me, particularly given supporters pointing out how difficult the discussion was. However, I find this user's contribs fairly radically skewed to the Wiki space and I generally expect a plurality in main space. Thus, a neutral. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 09:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. Very few of those edits are to core article content. That is the fundamental mission here, after all. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
# '''Neutral'''. I really like his work with RFCU and AE - AE in particular because it is such an under-watched page. I strongly wanted to support him, but the comment brought up by Rory leaves me concerned. --[[User:Idont Havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont Havaname|Talk]]) 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' Edit mainspace more. [[User:Kevin Breitenstein|Kevin_b_er]] 15:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' although Rory's point is quite valid, I don't know if I can't apply [[WP:AGF]] and know that Thatcher131 will improve. He certainly has other positives. [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="blue">'''Rama's arrow'''</font>]] 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' If I'm to believe the rory comment is a one-off in context remark, under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
:''The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
| |||