Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2


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

The Thing That Should Not Be
Final (123/59/21); Closed by Rlevse at 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
– I am nominating The Thing That Should Not Be for adminship. The Thing is a clueful and diligent editor. He has been editing since August 2007, and he has since amassed over 165,000 edits and a clean block log. The Thing is one of Wikipedia's most well-known vandal-fighters; he has over 3500 edits to WP:AIV, which is the second largest of any editor. He is probably the largest user of Huggle. Vandal-fighting isn't the only thing he does. He also reports username violations to WP:UAA, and he is also found tagging articles for speedy deletion. With these things, The Thing would make a great addition to the admin corps, and I'm sure he'll use the mop well. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination
The Thing That Should Not Be is one of the most patient and stable editors we have, having edited continuously and frequently since August 2008. The majority of these edits are made through Huggle. Having used Huggle myself occasionally, I can tell it is quite tedious, and I admire the patience it takes to come back to it so often, and the willingness to continue to give us his free time when so many of our best editors are running out of patience and leaving the project.

Having looked through TTTSNB’s previous RfA’s, I notice he has been opposed in the past for several reasons. One argument that was raised was that Flagged Revisions and the Abuse Filter extension would reduce the need for anti-vandalism measures and essentially make Huggle obsolete. We have those things now and I think we can all agree that the need for anti-vandalism patrol is as great as ever. He has also been opposed for lack of content contributions, and while that is a good argument against a candidate seeking to focus on difficult content disputes and areas such as AfD, I don’t believe it is a good reason to oppose someone specifically seeking to work in AIV, UAA, and CSD, all of which are areas that need all the help they can get.

Based on his patience and willingness to get things right no matter how much effort it takes, I believe TTTSNB will be an excellent administrator.  — Soap  —  17:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Very Late Co-Nom
I have seen The Thing That Should Not Be in action, and his huggle work is nothing short of flawless, along with very good CSD and UAA patrolling. Despite being the number-one target of 4chan vandals, he never lets it get to his head- he just calmly reports them to AIV and keeps on going. He always stays civil no matter what the circumstances, and he would make a most excellent sysop. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend, for the most part, to generally focus my work in these three areas:
 * Speedy deletion: I've been tagging articles for speedy deletion for quite some time, tagging over 200 pages since June, 96% of which were deleted. I've found the average amount of time it takes for them to be deleted is 1 hour and 23 minutes, last I checked around 2 months ago. To me, that's far from "Speedy". Usually I specialize in articles where notability is not asserted, vandalism, attack pages, and blatant advertising.
 * Dealing with inappropriate usernames: I have reported hundreds of usernames to UAA. Pretty much all of my reports have been accurate, with a mistake occurring only only once in a while, which I usually rectify immediately. In there, I specialize in attack usernames and blatantly disruptive usernames.
 * Anti-vandalism: I am still largely a vandal-fighter, with over 2 years of experience in this area. I have also requested semi-protection of pages receiving heavy vandalism, and have made thousands of reports to AIV, pretty much all of which were correct, as far as I know.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have contributed my vandal-fighting efforts to Wikipedia for over 2 years. I have used various tools, like Twinkle and Igloo, but mostly I use Huggle to do this. I have made over 3,500 edits to AIV. Reporting them to AIV and waiting for them to be blocked while they do more damage, when I could just block them if I had the tools, is not exactly efficient. I have also reported nearly 400 usernames to UAA, nearly all of which were blocked. I have also tagged over 200 pages for speedy deletion since June of this year, with plenty more before that as well. Of those 200 pages, 96% of those were deleted.


 * Of course, those are all just statistics, which don't do much good at telling people anything about my experience. I feel these are my best contributions, because I believe I have gained significant experience in not just those areas, but in discussing disputes with other users, and explaining policies to newer users, or those who have trouble following them. I believe I have gained experience in when to block people, whether to block them after 4 warnings, as in the occasional persistent vandal, or to block immediately, as in 4chan raids or Grawp vandals.


 * I also used to be an accountcreator a while back, and was on the ACC team. While I have since ceased activity in that area, I had created over 100 accounts upon request while I was with the ACC team. I also have some experience with AFD's, though it's mostly stuff that could be described as "clerking".


 * I have also found several of my content and media contributions. They're not much to look at, but they're something. Article contributions:  Media contributions (Which are used in severe weather alert articles): 1 2 3 4 5 6


 * 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: To say that I haven't had any conflicts would be lying... who hasn't gotten into a conflict at one time or another? More often than not, I'm confronted with an IP asking why I reverted their edit. When this happens, I explain why their edits were reverted, and attempt to explain the relevant policies and guidelines to them.


 * Additional optional question from Collect
 * 4. What is your general philosophy about AfD closings? Are they too often ruled "keep" when the arguments for keeping are too weak? Too often closed as "delete" when the arguments for deletion are not compelling? Too often closed as "no consensus" when the admin doing the closing should actually make a decision?   Are your criteria significantly different for MFD closings?
 * A: My thoughts on *FD closes are actually neutral, more or less. There are a few strays as you describe, of course... some are kept or deleted with respectively weak arguments, some are speedily closed with hardly any votes, etc... but I feel that nothing is hard-set in the general scheme of closings.


 * Additional optional question from The Utahraptor
 * 5. Since you intend to use the tools to block vandals, how many warnings do you think are necessary before a block is implemented?
 * A: That depends on the type of vandal/vandalism. If it's the everyday common vandal, 4 warnings should be used. Severe vandalism on the other hand requires a more stern approach. 4im's, for example, are used for severe vandalism, blatant vandalism, gross violations of the BLP policy, gross personal attacks. Other types include prolific sockers... those are often blocked without warning. 4chan vandals are the same way... they know what they're doing, and they're doing it en-masse. They don't respond to warnings of any kind, and should be blocked on sight.


 * Additional optional question from Kingpin13
 * 6. Most of the areas you mention involve very little discussion or real collaboration with other editors, let alone and serious consensus building. CSD in particular, which is specifically designed to remove discussion. Have you ever worked at consensus building on-wiki, if so where and how? Also I'd be interested to hear your general thoughts on consensus - what is it? What does it mean to you?
 * A: I'm not entirely confident that this is exactly what you're looking for, but a couple months back, I was involved in the proposal to make a "vandal-fighter" user right, an effort to give limited blocking abilities to experienced vandal-fighters such as myself. I attempted to help craft the proposal, but eventually it fell through as, even though me and a couple other users tried to keep everything simple and concise, it ended up leaning towards a sort of full-blown mini-admin right, which nobody wanted, even myself, and it fell through. My thoughts on consensus is this: We have a problem, or a proposal. We work out certain things, add something to it, remove another, until the proposal is roughly made up. But even when that is done, not everybody is pleased with how everything turns out, disagreeing with certain parts of the proposal, agreeing with others... we keep working on it, and working on it, and working on it, asking questions, making suggestions, until we come up with a compromise that we can all (or most of us) live with. Sometimes it's possible to do this, sometimes it isn't.


 * Additional optional questions from Zalgo
 * 7. Do you ever plan to work on article buliding instead of just vandalizing fighting all the time?
 * A: Someday, perhaps, when I can find the time, and something that I'm interested in that hasn't already been written about, I probably will do that. Until then though, I plan on continuing what I've been doing.


 * 8. Do you ever plan to use the help of a bot?
 * A: No, I'm not planning on running any bots. I'm not experienced in programming, other than my recent fixing of Huggle, and very basic C++ programming.


 * 9. Let's be in this situation as many admins have been in before... You come across a very profilic vandal, a longtime reconized one, he keeps vandalizing, changing IP's, sending checkusers haywire on false tracks... What would you do? Also, how would you handle editors with pedophiliac tendencies?
 * A. I would do whatever is necessary to limit and mitigate the disruption caused by the person, such as blocking all of the IP's they use on sight as soon as it is established that he's using multiple IP's in a clear pattern of disruption. As for editors with pedophiliac tendencies, I'm not entirely sure on that matter. I would probably relay my concerns to Arbcom.


 * Additional question from Wayne Olajuwon
 * 10. Do you plan to continue to use Huggle as an administrator?
 * A: Yes, I do plan to use Huggle as an administrator, though if I pass, I will keep the admin functions turned off until I get the hang of things.


 * Additional optional question from Scientizzle
 * 11. I, personally, won't worry too much about your sparse content creation as long as I can be sure you've got your head around what makes good content. With that in mind, here's an opportunity to show your thought processes. One of your article creations, 2010 United States tomato shortage, was proposed for deletion today. The nominator didn't provide a rationale (or notify the article creator) ...First: Devil's Advocate. What rationale(s), if any, would you consider a valid argument for deletion if you were the one nominating the article for deletion (via prod or AfD)? Flip side: if you wanted to argue against the deletion, to keep the article, what claims would you make and how would you back them up?
 * A: You've given me quite a conundrum in this question. I must admit, I've considered that one of my weakest articles, and am not surprised to see it go. If it didn't have as much coverage as it does, which I believe isn't much anyways, I would consider asking it be deleted as not meeting the criteria for notability for events. The flip-side? I may just argue just the opposite, that the effects of the event were far-reaching, and received coverage from reliable sources like CNN.


 * Questions from Strange Passerby
 * 12. How do you view WP:IAR? Is it one of Wikipedia's more useful or more divisive policies? In what situations as an admin would you feel justified in applying it?
 * A: IAR is a double-edged sword. In one way, people use it correctly in the way it was intended... to justify certain actions that allow them to improve the encyclopedia. In much the same way it can be detrimental to the encyclopedia. People invoking it may have good intentions, but sometimes the ends do not justify the means. And, I'm not entirely sure what specific situations I would be justified in applying it... There is one thing though... Say there's an unprotected page, under a dispute of some kind, editors and IP's alike involved in it. Protecting that page would be out of the question for me if I were involved, for example. But if that very same article suddenly got hit with something like a large 4chan raid, and no other administrators were around, I would temporarily semi-protect it to prevent disruption, and the unprotect it once the attack thread expired. (If there were other admins active, I would ask them to protect it first.) That's the only situation I can think of.


 * 13. In the style of an RFA oppose, please sum up why you think you shouldn't get the admin tools. Please follow that up with a good rebuttal showing how you'd respond to your self-oppose.
 * A:


 * Additional optional question from Rockfang
 * 14. What different account names have you used to edit here?
 * A: Here they are, but not all of them have made edits.
 * My main account was originally named User:Vandalism destroyer, before I requested a usurpation of User:Until It Sleeps, after which, about a year or so later, I requested a rename to my current username.


 * My alternate accounts:
 * User:The sock that should not be, my alternate account which I primarily use to edit via public computers.
 * User:Vandalism destroyer, a test account under what was my old username before I requested a username change.
 * User:TTTSNB, a doppelganger, also used in my signature.
 * User:UntilItSleeps PublicPC, a doppelganger made after I renamed my alternate account.
 * User:V D on a public PC, a doppelganger made after I renamed my alternate account.
 * User:Kitten cannon lover, my first account, abandoned.


 * Additional optional question from   Wifione    .......  Leave a message 
 * 15. (I'm really sorry for asking this as an apparently pile-on question. Please don't answer it if you don't wish to. It will not affect my vote.) Is it humanly possible for an editor to undertake 23 reverts in a minute while fighting vandalism? Is it possible to continue having multiple 20 plus reverts per minute, like you have had, while fighting vandalism? In the sense, if a vandal-fighter like you takes less than 3 seconds to revert a page, warn the suspected vandal, and in between, report the apparent vandal to AVI, and all in less than three seconds, are you able to devote enough time to ensure that the revision being loaded is appropriate?
 * A: I... don't recall ever making such a large amount of edits in a single minute, except possibly when I've mass-rolled back a vandal... if you're referring to the RPM rate reported in Huggle, or on the Template:Vandalism information page, that's the combined whole of all of the reverts that everybody is making at the time, not just one person.
 * I marked only your contributions; I can provide one example here if you wish>> 23 reverts in one minute starting here for instance. If you wish, there're more instances. But I have to necessarily mention out here that you already have my support vote. And I have requested you to slow down in this area because I do believe you are doing one fantastic job in vandal fighting, at the same time need to have a resolve to view each revert with emphasis.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  04:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I do resolve to review each edit before I revert. After doing this for 2 years, I'm better able to quickly spot things like "So and so is a fag", or entire pages being replaced with "He sucks", things like that. I do make a mistake every now and then, but I revert myself, and remove the warning quickly. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  04:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questiona from DGG
 * 16A.I'm concerned about your plans for speedy. First, do you think content work is needed to decide is an article is, for example, qualified for G11 promotional, where one of the conditions is that it can not be fixed by normal editing?.
 * 16B. Then, why do you think 1.5 hours too slow for speedy deletion? I think that's remarkably good performance, considering that clear vandalism and abuse get deleted almost immediately? There was indeed frequent background two years ago, but not today--unless there's an unsually heavy load of images. I do not see you have experience with images -- or copyright.
 * 16C. Do you plan to delete only articles others have tagged,  or do you routinely plan to delete those you yourself identify without giving another admin the opportunity to check?    DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A: A: I believe that if one doesn't have much content work, then they should restrict themselves to the most blatant of advertisements, as I have. (e.g. Here at company x, we strive to give you the best service possible. Call us today!) If something is even remotely borderline, I would leave it for somebody else to patrol. If I do get more content experience in the future,  B: I have seen certain pages, attack pages and vandalism, that have stayed up for hours at a time. I believe any CSD tagging should grab the attention of an admin immediately. Yes I do realize that this isn't the case, mostly because we are all volunteers here. We all edit on our own time. I simply wish to help expedite the process for certain kinds of pages, like the aforementioned attack pages which stay up for hours at a time. C: One of the reasons I am running for administrator is the ability to be able to do things myself without having to solicit the help of another administrator. Thus, I do plan to do the latter on a regular basis, unless the page isn't clear-cut. If that is the case, then I will probably tag it/request a second opinion.
 * 17. I'm also concerned about your use of automarted tools. Does placing notices via automated tools provide sufficient information to users? Do you plan to add personalized summaries?     DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Warnings placed via automated tools are essentially the same as regular warnings... with them, the tools allow you to place your own comments with the warnings.
 * 18. What is the next step for the article Lee Abramson -- Page log  which you nom'd for A7 when it contained only:  "The first person to sell pork rinds on the Internet porkrind.com

Music

-Piano Rock

-Mystic Poet Rumi set to Downtempo

-Greatest Hits 1985-2010  DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Comment -- this was not intended as a hostile or even a skeptical or even a concerned qy, but asking how you would deal as an admin with this, the most difficult current Speedy article I could find open.    19:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A:


 * Additional optional question from Lear's Fool
 * 19. (Sorry to pile on, a yes or no will suffice) Do you intend to be open to recall?
 * A: I will just say that if the community feels that I have abused the tools, I will do whatever is requested of me, regardless of what I may feel at the time.


 * Additional optional question from Secret
 * 20. What are your interests in real life, and the answer can not be Wikipedia. Would you start editing articles with your interest if you pass or fail this RFA?
 * A: My real life interests involve helping to maintain and repair computer systems, personal computers, things of that nature. I am a certified A+ computer technician in real life, and am currently taking classes that gravitate towards administrating computer systems, as well as computer networks... (On a side note, figuring out IP ranges is not an easy task if you are unfamiliar with how they work, like I was a couple years back, and I sympathize with admins who are reluctant to apply rangeblocks.) Right now, I have yet to find an article that I could improve, or one that I could write, that currently matches my interests, that hasn't already been written up better than I could write myself, but that may change as I take up more interests in the field.


 * Additional optional question from Zalgo
 * 21.Why was your relationship with iMatthew so hostile and when he applied for RfA, why were you so negative towards him?
 * A: With all due respect, this is a very old IRC matter that I would rather not relive or recollect.


 * Addition question from tofutwitch11
 * 22a. If you were given the mop, will you be willing to take constructive criticism from the community?
 * A: If I happened to be doing something wrong, violating a policy or a guideline in some way that I overlooked, and I was informed about it, I would take that kind of constructive criticism whether I had the tools or not. I have always, and will always intend to edit within the policies of this website to the best of my ability.
 * 22b. Why haven't you taken our previous constructive criticism?
 * A Let's just say that, when it comes to writing content, this essay describes me pretty well. I can't write all that well... I'm able to picture something in my mind, but when I go to write it, I find that I simply can't do it right. I feel that focusing on something that I know I'm not good at is counterproductive in more ways than 1. The immaturity? I consider the one post on this RfA a very isolated incident. Other than that one post, I keep myself in line on Wikipedia. Even so, I recognize that one measly post can make someone their own worst enemy...


 * Additional optional question from Gggh
 * 23A. A user begins adding obnoxious comments to your talk page, calling you names and accusing you of abusing your status as an admin. On checking their contributions page, it seems that the guy has made a fair number of good contributions to the project, but has recently been attacking other users besides yourself. What would you do?
 * A:Several variables come into play here. If it's only been one or 2 users over the past few days, I would give him a personal warning about not making personal attacks. If he's suddenly making dozens and dozens of personal attacks in a timeframe of a couple hours, and he continues despite warnings from me or other users, I would block him for a short time for making persistent personal attacks.


 * If the user, an otherwise agreeable and constructive user as you describe him, hasn't edited for quite some time, say about 2 or 3 months, and then suddenly comes back online attacking dozens of other users in quick succession, I would consider the possibility that the account has been compromised, and block the account as an emergency measure. I would then bring the matter to ANI to discuss the situation, and, if possible, request a checkuser to confirm whether or not the account has been compromised.
 * 23B. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
 * A: I assume by "business article" you mean an article about a company or organization? Well, I would look for things that make it a blatant and obvious advertisement, e.g. "Call us now, and for a limited time, you'll get 2 for the price of 1!", one that does nothing but promote their products or services, and I would make sure that it composes the vast majority of the article. If I found an article that has been on Wikipedia for some time, I would make sure that nobody else has edited the article to include that spam, that the author is the only contributor to it. Otherwise, I would revert the spammer's edits. Now, as for articles about corporations which are generally good, but have a few blips of advertisement in one place, those wouldn't not qualify for G11, because those said blips could easily be removed or rewritten to not be spam.


 * Additional optional question from Mr.Z-man
 * 24. Say this RFA were to pass, and about a month from now, a user comes to your talk page and asks you, as an uninvolved administrator, to close some long discussion about the non-free image policy. How would you respond to this request?
 * A:


 * Additional optional question from Morgankevinj
 * 25. Do you use a strong password?
 * A: In the interests of Security through obscurity, I will only state that it would take the average brute-force method about 100 sextillion years to crack my password.

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for The Thing That Should Not Be:
 * Edit summary usage for The Thing That Should Not Be can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I would like to point out that even if I use a tool to revert vandalism, I don't think it should detract on my judgment. Huggle is not some bot which runs on one's account. In fact I would hardly call it automated at all. All it is, is another interface by which I can revert vandalism and warn the user. When using Huggle, I still have to look at the diff. I still have to decide whether or not to revert and warn the user. I still have to decide whether or not to report the user to AIV. I have to approve every edit that I make in Huggle. I have to look at the level of warning the user has, if they've been reported to AIV or not, etc. It is not a tool which you go about blindly reverting vandalism. It requires the same judgment as reverting and warning the user manually. I do make an occasional mistake, but I revert myself immediately and remove the warning. All it does is make things easier, and quicker, which gets more work done, and gets vandalism off of the pages faster than if I were to do things manually. The faster vandalism gets taken off of the pages, the better, so I use the fastest method that I know of. The exact same things apply to using Twinkle. Please consider this when you consider my request to become an administrator. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It should also be pointed out that a majority of the opposers are not opposing for you using Huggle, but your persistent refusal to follow community consensus. This is a problem that contributed to my oppose. ( X! ·  talk )  · @091  · 01:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree you can be quite stubborn, Thing, though I knew that when I signed my co-nomination and it doesn't make me think any less of you, or make me any weaker in my support. All in all, being persistent is probably a good thing, though it would be nice to make exceptions sometimes.   —  Soap  —  13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit stats posted on talk. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 23:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To the people opposing due to these so-called temperament problems: Everything that has been described here has occurred off of Wikipedia. Is there any evidence of these problems onwiki? Any evidence onwiki that I would abuse the tools in a conflict? The set of tools isn't akin to a baseball bat that you use to take out someone who disagrees with you. The tools are use strictly to maintain and protect the encyclopedia... I intend to use them for absolutely nothing outside of that scope. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  01:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a very minor issue: Above there was a link described as showing TTTSNB making 23 reverts in one minute. It is actually 23 edits, of which 12 are reverts and the other 11 are the corresponding talk page messages.  —  Soap  —  14:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the most analytical RfA I have ever seen.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to throw this out here, Lots of people here "expect/demand" The Thing to contribute to main content. Everyone here should not expect someone to do something they wouldn't be good at. It is a absolute mockery to see that vandalism fighters and people who do maintenance are treated like crap and disrespected with RFA's for there constant vigilance and dedication. Honestly, he has been here consistently for a long time now. To the people who oppose on the basis of lack of content I plead for you to at least neutral or support him. He has proven to many people he can be trusted and hated by others for minor, silly reasons. The community has nothing to lose in the approval of this RFA. If anything I just wish to request that The Thing be Open to Recall and be given the tools. He CAN be trusted with at chance in my book. If he really is the failure that so many people who oppose see then he can be booted out of here. Anyways, Just fucking let him have the damn chance, he has at least proven he could handle it. Sidonuke 08:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't people expect that? I too think that every pure vandal-fighter should spend a day or two trying to work on an article, just for the added perspective. Similarly I also think that every pure content-builder should spend a thousand edits on new page patrol or recent changes. Those are two extreme sides of the project, and everyone agrees that both ends need to be covered. But it's natural that each end will fear that the other end doesn't know what it's like on their side, sometimes without cause, but sometimes for good reason. I don't think it's asked too much to try and alleviate such fears before an RfA. Amalthea  09:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean yes there are two extremes here, but do you honestly thing The Thing would go around to the content side of the project and interfere with things? He has expressed the fact that he would help with anti-vandalism side of things. Which at sometimes of the day vandals will run out of control for at least a few hours. Someone like the The Thing will be a extremely valuable asset with the sysop tools at hand. And I'll honestly say some vandal fighters would like to inspire to be admin's one day so they themselves could actually do more. The Thing has a huge amount of experience, witnessing and watching. He may not have as much content type edits as you think but he does try at times diff and the sheer amount of anti vandalism experience outweighs that. Sidonuke 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is not that The Thing isn't producing GAs and FAs like there's no tomorrow, it is that virtually all of his contact with other editors here is negative: reverting their edits, reporting them for blocking, or speedy-ing their articles. There is no real experience of discussion, consensus-seeking or consensus-building, and no experience of positive or constructive interaction with us, his peers. My concern is that this gives him an extremely one-sided view of the project which, should the extra tools be available, could lead to too many wrong "judgement calls" without thoroughly exhausting the available alternatives or considering the possibility that he may in fact be wrong. It is difficult to assess a person's suitability for adminship when all you have to go on are thousands of Huggle reverts and warning templates. Gwen Chan 22:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Open to recall was exposed as a farce last year, I believe. I can't remember the admin, but the tipping point that got users to support her 2nd/3rd RFA attempt is that she agreed to be open to recall. RFA passes. Later, she royally fucks up. Supporting editors demand recall. She declines. Arbs tell editors to go to hell. I think it was admin User:Elonka that ruined any notion that WP:AOR had any value, but it may have been another admin. Recall is worthless. Vodello (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It happened to Ryulong as well but he was later desysopped by ArbCom, there's a few admins that decided to go though recall and desysop themselves, so it's a mixed record. Secret account 19:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On another topic, Adding content and maintaining content are both equally important. Adding content in the first place is what is always needed to get started but what would be the point of having content if it was destroyed or altered to be unreliable. Wikipedia maybe the place where you can edit whatever you want but if it was really left unchecked, this never be as popular as it is today. Sidonuke 08:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the subject of "23 reverts in a minute". Firstly, it was 12 reverts and 11 automatic user talk page notifications by Huggle. Secondly, I have looked at the 12 reverts involved, and every single one of them is such blatant vandalism that, using Huggle, it is perfectly possible to see in a couple of seconds that it needs reverting. For example, when the section heading "References" has been replaced by "Tony ate a salmon on Tuesday in the rain in Milwaukee" it does not take long to make a decision. Or when the words "wikipedia is not the best place to get info" are added completely out of context in the middle of the article Harlem Renaissance. There certainly are plenty of cases where over-hasty use of Huggle causes problems, but the example given is not such a case. In my experience of The Thing That Should Not Be makes excelent use of Huggle, and acts quickly when appropriate, but not over-hastily. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * James, I agree, and those kinds of edits do not concern me at all--very often it is immediately evident what's vandalism and what's not. 23 (or 12) CSDs in a minute, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish. In general, I have no reason to think that the candidate misuses Huggle. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To anybody interested, I have listed some of my content contribs on the talk page of this RfA. For the sake of redundancy, I will list them here as well. Article contributions:  Media contributions (Which are used in severe weather alert articles): 1 2 3 4 5 6  The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I pity the crat who has to close this. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree more NativeForeigner this RFA is similar to only other one I can recall that was Aervanath's RFA and I believe the Rationale there is applicable to TTTSNB . Further it much closer than the numbers indicate TTTSNB and as user Rd232 and . Alexandr Dmitri cite below the project needs all kinds of people and admins from all backgrounds. Aervanath has been a good admin.Here Hopefully the crat provides a  detailed Rationale whatever his/her decision is.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Strong support as nom. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Super support Airplaneman   ✈  22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Excellent vandal-fighter, content creation is not that important for vandal-fighters.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support: Fought a lot of vandalism with Huggle.  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak support. Your content editing isn't up to the standards it should be, but based on your answers to the questions in this RfA, I'm going to support. The Utahraptor Talk to me/Contributions 22:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as nominator.  — Soap  —  23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per Eagles, mainly. Not every admin has to be a top-notch content contributor (and incidentally I doubt I'm the only admin who has written much more audited content since being given the mop than I had before I got it). I can see the point of view that says that admins need to have content experience before getting involved with the tools in sorting out content-based disruption, but I don't get the impression that TTTSNB is going to wade into that territory like a bull in a china shop anyway. BencherliteTalk 23:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, The Thing's help is sorely needed. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: User is a very active vandal fighter.  Fei noh a   Talk, My master 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * CAT:CSD and AIV get more and more backlogged lately. Promoting this candidate will obviously help the project in that respect. The opposes don't explain how their reasons for opposing relate to the candidate's competence as an admin, except for a vague reference to dealing with edit-warring.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Earlier in my Wiki-career, my opinion was to support good vandal fighters at RfA simply on the grounds that they can make good contributions as administrators, even without content experience. Now—and I say this for the benefit of those who will oppose for lack of content work—I actually have come to think that there is, indeed, the need for candidates to demonstrate that they can deal with arguments in a thoughtful, civil, and articulate way, not simply to be grumpy mouse-clickers. But that doesn't mean that a candidate who hasn't plumbed the depths of the FA process will be unable to be a good administrator. It depends on the candidate, whether or not they communicate intelligently when the IPs complain about being reverted and templated. I need to see that the candidate can be depended upon to reply politely, patiently, and based on policy. So I looked through the candidate's talk page and talk archives. And I support enthusiastically. And opposers who conclude from the lack of content work that this person lacks the temperament to be an administrator haven't done their homework. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Even if he doesn't create content, his contributions here are very helpful. If he created a ton of content and had no experience in administrative issues, I would be more inclined to oppose, because we want our best content contributors to keep creating content, not deal with vandalism and the behind-the-scenes tasks. Netalarm talk 23:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support- does a lot of work in admin-related areas and does a good job. Giving him the tools would be a net positive. Reyk  YO!  23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support: Regardless of how you put it, TTTSNB would make great use of the admin tools, specially by blocking users. I would've liked to be the one that nominated him, though. ;) — W aterfox  23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Go, baby, go! He is THE anti-vandal... Frozen Wind  want to be chilly?  23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support - Quite a few vandlism fighters passed in the past few, I see no reason why The Thing should not join them. Derild  49  21  ☼  23:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Fo' sho. I thought you weren't going to attempt RfA again. Best of luck,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 23:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Yes.  Tide  rolls  23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) It seems like the immaturity comments come from IRC, that's not a reason to oppose someone, supporting to cancel out these votes. Secret account 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall copy and paste something that I have brought up in the oppose section "When one applies for a job, the employer certainly asks for information about past professional experience- which is directly related to the job that is being applied for, as it involves past experience in said field of work. Employers generally also require personal history- which is separate from the specific position, as it involves one's personality and general maturity as demonstrated outside said field of work. Apply this here." Therefore, incidents on IRC that were related to onwiki involvement are certainly relevant. Also, I see that you don't have a reason for supporting, other than canceling out oppose votes. Do you have a reason for supporting? We have a neutral section for a reason. Besides, if you're under the impression that some of the oppose votes have no backing, I think it's quite irrational (also a bit hypocritical) to post a support vote without backing.  IShadowed  ✰  00:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting mainly because to cancel out IRC votes, that's a reason to support. We all act immature at times at IRC, I was a regular there for years, it's a break from the real life wiki stress, as long as the immaturity is not on wiki, that's fine with me. Secret account 01:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that you're supporting to cancel out the well-explained oppose votes, however, do you actually have a relevant reason for supporting? Also, yes, we all act immature on IRC sometimes. However, it's really not wise to act immature on IRC and then run for something that requires maturity onwiki. For example, if something is said in a courtroom, and the judge tells the jury to disregard it, you know they're not just going to forget about it. The same with the job interview example; suppose said applicant had a misdemeanor offense. That's something that happened outside of the workplace. It's not an incredibly serious offense, but there are tons of applicants applying for the same job that do not have a criminal record.  IShadowed  ✰  01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok good vandal fighter, there. I seen plenty of adminstrators and even crats and former ArbCom members act immature in IRC, so what go ahead and desysop them. It doesn't make a difference. Hell I seen adminstrators who all they do is act immature in IRC passed because of the IRC vote. Secret account 01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IShadowed, you talk about me being immature off-wiki. Opposing me for something that occurs off-wiki, that has nothing to do with the admin tools. But let me ask you, how mature is something like this?. Hmm... The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * However, Secret, you seem to forget that I am discussing overall temperament. We all slip up and act immature sometimes, I can respect that, however, it is the constant temperament issues that I've seen the user in question demonstrate frequently that concerns me. And to Thing, yes, that was indeed immature of me. However, do you see me running for RfA? No. And there is your difference. Also, Thing, your temperament offwiki is certainly relevant to the admin tools, as I initially explained in my oppose vote.  IShadowed  ✰  01:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment above from the candidate only furthers my concerns. IShadowed is not applying for adminship. "But let me ask you, how mature is something like this?. Hmm... " It was completely condescending, and if anything, just verified all !voters concerns regarding maturity. Vodello (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To use Gary Larson's modified version of the famous quote, though, "He who live in grass house shouldn't throw spears". I see no issue with pointing that out. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and let's also say that anyone without a degree in political science shouldn't be allowed to vote in elections.  IShadowed  ✰  09:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that like it would be a bad idea... ;) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 12:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodello I told The Thing in IRC last night that it was a bad mistake, rebutting another editor about maturity by showing an immature example. I acted way more immature than him before on wiki, (mainly health related impulses) in fact my reputation is tarnished because of immaturity so I can't oppose anyone based on immaturity. I have major concerns about article writing, but I can't be flip-flopping around in a RFA. Secret account 17:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a bad idea, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Not like it wouldn't eliminate many ignorant votes, but it would destroy the democracy (in this case, consensus) that holds the collaborative effort together. My vote is well supported by examples and concerns over the user, and therefore I do not appreciate your implication of hypocrisy. Also, Secret, I don't see why you "can't" oppose based on immaturity if you're also (self-declared) immature also. Takes one to know one?  IShadowed  ✰  19:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to budge in, but it seems the most immature person here is actually IShadowed. You seem to have something to say about everyone's votes...we know you don't want him to be an administrator, nuff said. Thankyou T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Since when has speaking freely and honestly been immature? RfA is an open process; The Thing can handle the commentary, every other user can handle the commentary. Did I miss some amendment to the policy which prevented people criticising each others votes? "the most immature person here is [commentator], who has something to say about everyone"; and the winner of 2010's passive-aggressive bitching competition iiiis... you! Congratulations, though; in posting about how immature IShadowed was, you managed to outdo her. Great stuff. Ironholds (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, some of us do have a sense of humor, you know. Relax, and can we end this ridiculousness now? (Hint: it's a rhetorical question)  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys... I do want discussion to happen on here. What I don't want is for this to turn into a bloodbath. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tofuwitch11, god forbid there should be discussion on the discussion portion of the RfA! And Thing, to me, this is not a bloodbath, and if others wish to make it so, then that's really not my problem. I'm here to discuss ( note that Secret called himself immature, I was not the one to bring that up. ).  IShadowed  ✰  20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You also called yourself immature, several times, stating that that was the reason you don't have an RFA... T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I said that that specific edit was immature. As far as my lack of RfA; unlike the candidate, I understand and therefore do not want to have to handle the responsibility that comes with adminship. However, as I have previously said, I see no need for you to re-state any of that, there is no need for redundancy... especially when it is really irrelevant to the RfA in question. My lack of RfA and my edits onwiki have nothing to do with this RfA, nor with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Basic critical thinking for you, here, Tofutwitch11. "I am immature" does not mean "I am the most immature person in all of RfA". Just sayin'. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironholds hit the nail on my feelings about this candidate, both in the oppose section and here. If he could handle the criticism here, that's mature. Look at the RFA which I tried regaining my tools back, I couldn't handle the criticism at all and went balistic. Secret account 00:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Candidate, you say that you do not want a bloodbath, but it's two of your own edits on this RFA that caused your Support to Oppose ratio to plummet. You were at 32-5 before the condescending remark, with IShadowed's vote only being a WEAK oppose. What was only a few concerns of what was at the time only potential temperament issues became a complete RFA-killer. Had you not shown your hand before getting the tools, it was looking like this RFA was going to easily pass. You let loose several firebombs in your own RFA, torching any chance of success. There's always a sixth RFA, I guess. please don't. Vodello (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A sixth RFA is fine as long as he listens to the comments of the oppose votes, and do stuff that isn't anti-vandalism or CSD tagging. I offered to tutor him on the finer aspects of wiki if he fails this nomination. Secret account 02:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The opposition has already noted that he ignored the same concerns raised over and over again by the community in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th RFA. I really don't think the old saying goes, "Fool me five times, shame on you. Fool me six times.. I.. I won't get fooled again." As he has not listened the previous three times, there is little reason to believe he will listen this time. Vodello (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I would strongly oppose this candidate if he hasn't changed since this RFA, I only supported to cancel out the IRC immaturity votes, and because I don't want to flip-flop supports and opposes over this candidate (I agree more with most of the opposes than the supports, so this is a moral support), I think this discussion is getting too long here and should be moved to the talk page. Secret account 02:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be long, but it is all an on topic discussion of very serious, valid concerns with the candidate. I am not in favor of this being hidden away from potential voters and the beureaucrat at this time. Vodello (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I told The Thing that I could guide him to other parts of wikipedia that doesn't involve vandal fighting I haven't gotten a reply yet. Secret account 18:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I got a reply and he agreed, I also told him to withdraw this RFA as it's a bloodbath and nither of us are helping the cause. Secret account 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is a bloodbath... Maybe because he's being opposed? Most (ahem ahem) of the opposes have been rather civil, and on the whole this RfA has been too. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I am opening an art museum and need a curator and some guards. Applicants should have painted at least three museum quality masterpieces so that they have a thorough understanding of what went into the items they will be working with. That or they could know how to do the job they are actually applying for. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, user knows his anti-vandalism stuff, and as apparent from the answer to Q11, his deletion stuff too. Who says candidates must have a GA, FA, etc.? All good faith contributions, be they vandal fighting, gnoming, locating sources, or writing FAs, are valid and valuable&mdash;they help make the encyclopedia better. To "prioritize" one type of contribution over another is contrary to the spirit of a project with many volunteers, all of whom may contribute more strongly in some areas than others. I see no reason to believe the candidate will act abusively or poorly with the tools. (And per Beeblebrox, who I just EC'd with and who says it exceedingly well.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportGood user, great antivandalism, but honestly I DGAF about content creation. Mop and bucket != pen and paper, as Thing stated on Bsadowski1's RfA. Pilif12p : Yo  00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is not about content work, though; this is his third RfA. In the other two, he was told to go away and come back when he had content work. This is about a user refusing to listen to community consensus and expecting to be trusted. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems like a great candidate.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 00:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Excellent vandal fighter. Has experience in the places they want to work at which is always a plus. In general, a net positive. Also, the opposes are really unconvincing.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Offered to nom nultiple times, but never did :P NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Have seen editor around on RC and I trust their judgement.  Gfoley 4  /  Wanna chat?  00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Great user. Tyrol5   [Talk]  00:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Switched to neutral Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good vandal fighter, seems well rounded enough to become an admin. Btw: I agree with TTTSNB on his stance about Huggle/Twinkle being not so automated as people make them out to be. Jarkeld (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support You Go TTSNB! -  Dwayne   was here!   &#9835;  01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Supported last time, and nothing has changed as far as I can tell. faithless   (speak)  01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support Writing articles isn't as hard as one would imagine. The hard part is getting oneself to actually jump in and start. I think the concerns over judgment are valid, but I'm really hoping that, as this is yet another RfA for you, you will not disappoint. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Can be trusted with the vandal fighting tools. Stickee (talk)  02:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support. I am thrilled you decided to run- show em what adminship is all about! Tom my! 03:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support Awesome editor. Beats me to me almost every revert though. I n k a 8 8 8 Contribs  Talk  03:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Strongest possible support Excellent anti-vandal work, good CSD and UAA patrolling, and doesn't let the /b/-tards get to him. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 03:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Has contributed more content than I have or ever will. I guess I'm a bad admin :( --Closedmouth (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A distinguished vandal fighter, the candidate's answer to Q2 speaks to a compelling need for the tools.--Hokeman (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Purely for his vandal fighting and purely because I feel trite guilty asking a pile-on question. This is irrespective of the fact that I would implore The Thing to slow down in vandal fighting. I do not believe it is humanly possible to handle such levels of vandal fighting without losing relevance of the quality of content and without erring. One reason why some issues of immaturity might have cropped up could be due to the impulsive orientation of The Thing. But that's purely my opinion. For now, support.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  04:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Leaning towards strong support, given the rationales of the opposes. I've never seen anything but good things from this candidate. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, vandal-fighting is a valid route to adminship.- gadfium 05:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) hell yes. :) Talk tome (Intelati) 05:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - excellent vandal fighter, past interactions with user have all been positive and user seems to be very kind and good faith assuming. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм  •  Champagne?   • 6:04pm • 07:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) On balance. I was just never able to convince myself that a breadth of content contributions should be considered a prerequisite for adminship. I admit that the opposition regarding a potential lack of maturity has me somewhat concerned, especially considering how they are allegedly based off of incidents that occured off-wiki - leaving me no way of knowing what has been said, and therefore no way to disregard the claims being made (which I find to be almost unduly harsh, in all honesty). However, in the absence of evidence which indicates that this user will not be an overall benefit to the site as an administrator, I am supporting.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 08:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Good track and truly committed user and the user has extensive experience in WP:UAA,WP:AIV and WP:CSD where the user plans to work and the project stands only to gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Weak support. This would probably have been stronger but I'm not impressed by some of the comments in response to the opposes. However, these are clearly the exception rather than the rule. Outside of RfA, TTTNSB's contributions are almost always excellent, even if they aren't the most varied in nature. Lack of content creation doesn't worry me unduly (poor content creation is far worse IMHO), and there's just enough there to convince me that I don't need to concerned. I can't support as fully as I want to becaus some of the opposes are rather convincing, but I'm still going to support. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong Support Need I explain?-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Voting is bad. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well in order:
 * To the people with editcountitus, The Thing has over 100,000 of them.
 * To those who look for project space edits, TTT has over 3,000 edits alone to AIV.
 * To those who look for hard work on the project, upon looking at his recent edits (and more) TTT is the most prolific editor around save for Tide Rolls or J. Delanoy and he appears to show no signs of letting up.
 * To those who are worried about his lack of content contributions, see WP:NEIA.
 * Now, need I say more?-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Do you have a response to claims of temperament and maturity problems, as later escalated by this remark from the candidate? Thank you. Vodello (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not TTTSNB's lawyer but, in response to your question, take a look at this here. IShadowed has over 30 edits to this RFA and is the second largest contributor to it beside TTT himself. Now, one must ask him/herself why he is. Just take a look at his edits on this page, he is arguing with people who only asked for diffs! When Tommy asked for a diff to back up his "Strong Oppose", not only did he fail to provide one but he began making edits like this. Ladies and gentlemen, we are !voting on whether or not TTT should have access to admin tools on Wikipedia, not elevating him to God status. Believe it or not (based on his number of edits) TTT is only human, he may "Loose his temper" at times but we all do. Furthermore, that diff that you provided is not an example of a "temperament and [or] maturity problem" but rather a misguided example of TTT only trying to defend himself. No condemnation of that edit is deserved and quite frankly, the 40+ editors who have opposed are not taking in the true "net positive" value that TTT brings to the admin table. Rather, they are focused on content contributions as the greatest rational for their opposition in this RFA (Which I am too a fan of on RFA)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Rather, they are focused on content contributions" Hardly. Most of the opposes (mine included) cited his apparent inability to take in criticism from his previous RfAs &mdash;Dark 05:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken Dark, the last three opposes alone cited content contribution.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have said multiple times that I have five major concerns about the editor. You say I am focused on his content contributions alone, and that is false. Out of the five problems, that is the least of my concerns. Maturity and temperament problems are at the top on my list of red flags, two concerns that many voters brought up and you insist that they did not. Vodello (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodello, you're throwing around boulders in a small glass house here with your frenzied accusations of immaturity and temperament problems. The dead horse of a comment which you are rather disgustingly thrashing about in this RfA shows little more than annoyance on the part of TTTSNB. The fact that you keep bringing it up shows to me that you are blatantly clutching at straws here. Thing's behaviour makes him look like a saint in comparison to your distasteful general incivility. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you list for us the five red flags you're worried about?  — Soap  —  22:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lothar, I should note that Vodello isn't requesting adminship. His behavior is immaterial to this RfA - if you have problems with it, I suggest you take it through the appropriate venue. &mdash;Dark 02:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dark, how about he shows TTT some respect? RFA is not a playground to attack the candidate at every turn.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My criticism of Vodello's childish hounding was meant more to show that TTTSNB does not have so-called "maturity issues" when you consider that he hasn't sunk anywhere near to the level that those slinging mud at him have. He has shown himself to be calm and collected in the face of such frustrating behaviour, an attitude which will carry over into adminship, no doubt. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Had noted (and appreciated) TTTSNB's contributions before I knew of this RfA. --DGaw (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - knows his way around ANI, should make a good admin providing he takes it easy to start with. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Always the wingman for me while I fight vandalism. Special Cases Spit out your confessions,vandal 17:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Come on, it's going to happen at some point, might as well make it now. Seems qualified enough for me.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support Due to exceptional track record. For an open access project anti vandalism is just as essential as content creation. Some candidates who lack article building experience might be at risk of misusing the tools in areas like article protection, but I dont this applies here due to candidates good clue level and that fact he seems to understand content (Im thinking of Ottava who in a previous RfA said even he was found the candidates advice on writing of great help, so its not that The Thing lacks skill just motivation.) Writing and researching articles will develop valuable skills much more than vandal fighting, but it his choice and because The Thing and others puts in so much time defending others work, those who like to spend 90% of their wiki time writing articles are free to do so. Please take WSCs advice on board about hasty CSD tagging and thanks for your much appreaciated work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as an outstanding vandal fighter. I would trust The Thing with the mop. There are a lot of different jobs to be done on wikipedia, but there are lots of people who might do them; we need people who are great at each job, not people who are great at all jobs. (As an aside; there are thousands of neglected articles that came from Google Translate or from ESL authors which need some cleanup, and thousands more on other wikipedias that could be brought over to en. Shall we restrict the mop only to those who have shown fluency in a couple of other languages?) bobrayner (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongest possible support Fantastic vandal fighter, the project would benefit hugely from having The Thing as an admin, I trust the user given the amount of time he has already given to the project. Acather96 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support the lack of content creation isn't a problem to me as Beeblebrox has eloquently justified. Beeblebrox looks to be a good admin but has only just learnt how to use named references in articles, clearly demonstrating that being an admin doesn't require an in depth knowledge of article creation. Personally I couldn't spend forever reverting on huggle, so if TTTSNB is happy to do this, then I see no reason not to support him. Giving him a mop will cut down on other admin's work if they can block vandals immediately. Smartse (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Just give him the bit already, he's earned it. Let's not forsake our valuable vandal fighters. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Adminship isn't an award. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That comment makes me think that you think it is. Adminship is not a big deal and The Thing is more than capable. Tom my! 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes zero sense. "Adminship isn't an award" in actuality means, "I think adminship is an award"? This is at least your third attempt in this RFA to deliberately instigate conflict and all-around drama with editors. Each passing comment like the one above only hurts the candidate you're supporting. Vodello (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. OE's support rationale is completely valid, and then someone else interpreted it as "It's not an award!" which was completely unrelated to the user's support, which tells me there's some paranoia or more than what people are willing to say. And don't post my contribs here, I can't stand it. And my actions are not related in any way to the candidate which only shows how 'grown up' the Wikipedia community is. Tom my! 20:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not completely unrelated I see "he's earned it" as suggesting adminship as something you earn (funny that ;D), a bit like an award. I think adminship should be more about actually using the tools well, and having community trust. Also, not giving The Thing adminship != forsaking him. I think it's a shame how adminship seems to be viewed by OE, it shouldn't be something which if you don't get then the community is abandoning you, nor should it be something you earn (or certainly not in the way I think OE meant it). Also, I'm not paranoid.. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's not an award, nor is it something you should covet for yourself and deny it to others who could greatly benefit from it in their work. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really happy we agree on this... You're yet to explain how adminship is something you earn by making lots of edits in huggle. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you look at adminship as just a tool, a huggler with lots of anti-vandalism edits is certainly more deserving of that tool than someone who hasn't made any edits at all. The fact that some of us have rfa criteria pages shows that adminship must be earned, certain criteria must be met before you receive the tool. -- &oelig; &trade; 01:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of deserving, imo. It's a matter of if they've demonstrated that they can use the tools properly, and if they have gained the community's trust (among other things, but these are the two I try to keep foremost in my mind when reviewing an RfA: Trust, Ability). Yes, someone who has done good work with Huggle has demonstrated that they would be able to use the tools better than someone with no edits. As to gaining community trust, that's more a case of if you are willing to abide by consensus, listen to the community, communicate well with others, can be trusted to do the right thing for the community as a whole etc. I think The Thing hasn't managed to listen to the community enough, as evidenced by them even running for adminship again without addressing concerns from the previous RfAs. Also I don't see any evidence of him being able to judge consensus or what is best for the community in complex cases. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Thing has worked hard here for a long time, and while more content creation would be a definite plus, I think even without it he has demonstrated sufficient experience and maturity to handle the admin tasks he seeks to do. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I value vandalism fighting highly and see that this editor would use the admin tools to continue working in that area. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Tireless and highly effective anti-vandal. I believe that the qualms raised about a scarcity of content contributions are outweighed by the diligence displayed in vandalism control. A specialisation of jobs is, after all, an important thing in a civilised society... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support The Thing is a great vandal fighter, always looking for ways to help. Active user in CVN among other things. -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Super Strong Support One of the best vandal fighters on wikipedia and can be trusted with the mop, if he becomes an admin vandals would be blocked super fast! Peter.C  •  talk  00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support The Thing sits on Wikipedia and lives off of it. Granting sysop tools to someone who is ever so vigilant on this wiki would help "eliminate" the a majority of problems seen in the anti vandalism area. The English Wikipedia is one of the top visited sites on the internet and from that The Thing would greatly help maintain a better quality of content, safe from the constant destruction of vandals. As a side note, opposing due to lack of content seems wrong, There are other people approved aside from that fact and admins who has stopped adding content to maintain. Anyways, give The Thing some sysop tools already. An additional note, Most the people opposing him right now have a personal dislike to him. I think some of the opposes should be ignored because of that fact. Sidonuke 01:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Thought he had the mop already!!! -- Addi hockey  10  01:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I have seen no evidence that he cannot be trusted. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support seems to be an esteemed anti vandal patroller, having the tools would make a real difference in that area. We can't all be der first violiner in der orchestra you know, some of us has to push der vind through der trombone.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support wiooiw (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support that should not be. We need more good admins patrolling WP:AIV.  Allmightyduck   &#xF8FF;  What did I do wrong? 02:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Support The Thing is a very good contributer who I quite familiar with. Usually I see his username in huggle, something along the lines of "Error already reverted by User:The Thing That Should Not Be". He is a excellent vandal fighter. With over 165,000 edits and three years of experience I see no issues of incivility I support. I don't see the big deal about lack of featured articles. The administrator tools are not a big deal. If there is no signs of likely abuse, the user is experienced, and they have a need for the tools I don't have a problem with supporting a candidate. The administrators would be quite helpful to The Thing That Should Not Be. He does quite a bit of vandal fighting. The tools would help him do this work. I remember Tide Rolls RFA passed. Tide Rolls is also a very good antivandal fighter and passed partially because of it. Why is this RFA any different? -- Alpha Quadrant   talk    03:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if we want to attempt yet again to completely ignore all opposition concerns on temperament issues, you're 100% correct. A lot of these support votes are pulling the exact same tactic. "What's so wrong with being a vandal fighter? No other problems? Nope? Then promote! Beer for everyone!" Of the five major red flags with this user, content creation is the absolute least of the problems. Requests for adminship/Tide rolls had exactly two oppose votes in regards to a single problem. You are comparing apples to machine guns, and frankly its insulting to the users below that have expressed concerns far beyond what you are insisting they are doing. The closing beureaucrat is not a selective reader, ignoring all oppose votes or portions of oppose votes that say more than just content editing issues as you and your companions have repeatedly gone out of their way to imply. Vodello (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodello, do us all a favor and knock it off. Badgering every other support !vote will not help your case at all but rather make it seem like you are a man on a mission. You've made your voice clear....over and over and over again. No need to keep it going man.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support - I'm quite familiar with The Thing's vandal fighting and am unaware of any immaturity concerns. This is exactly the kind of editor the mop is for. Net advantage to the project doesn't even to begin to describe the potential benefit of the Thing's adminship. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Firm Support. I do not believe that one needs to have a certain number of FAs, GAs, and DYKs to be a good administrator. Moreover, the more such persons who become admins, the less content contribution we will get from them. There is nothing inherently wrong with an admin who wants to only work in a narrowly defined area as does TTTSNB. I believe that he knows in what areas lie his strengths and weaknesses. I take him at his word when he says that he would defer to other admins in areas beyond his ken until he develops more understanding in those areas. Also, he would not be the only admin who works primarily in vandal fighting (e.g., Tide rolls, a vandal fighter whose elevation to admin was a step in the right directon). Finally, I concur with Shadowjams point that TTTSNB would produce more help than harm. —  Spike Toronto  07:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Adminship is no big deal. You seems like a reasonable, level headed fellow and so I give you my support. Basket of Puppies  08:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Firm Support I have supported him in the past and will continue to do so again. he is a strong net benefit for his skills at fighting vandlaism. Heck can we not say the amount of work he does fighting vandalsim allow us to improve articles without having to worry about it so much? Plus one all the way. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a badge should not put you above the law, much like clicking an undo button should not make you exempt from acting mature. Do anti-vandal fighters simply ignore all concerns they cannot address, as though nobody has ever brought them up? The candidate and many prominent anti-vandal fighters that have expressed their 'strong'and 'firm' support have all seemed to go about this RFA as though there is one concern and one concern alone. In the candidate's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th RFA, the opposition requested he at least attempt to build content. He ignored the comments as though they were never made, and here we are for a 5th dance. There is no elephant in the room, and there never was, apparently. I can't support a candidate with this mindset, and I sincerely hope the closing beureaucrat asks him/herself why these votes are deliberately ignoring all other major concerns raised by the large opposition as though the concerns simply do not exist. It's a disturbing trend. Vodello (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodello, you have made your opinion clear, both in your vote and in the many responses to others'. I don't see the need to continue piling it on; it is in no one's interest. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am asking a question and request an answer. I apologize if I am being "selfish," but I want to know why many strong supports are implying there are zero concerns beyond lack of desire to create content when that is not true. "Stop asking" is not an acceptable answer to the question. Vodello (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not asking a question when you say, "I can't support a candidate with this mindset, and I sincerely hope the closing beureaucrat asks him/herself why these votes are deliberately ignoring all other major concerns raised by the large opposition as though the concerns simply do not exist." You've said that already, I believe. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe his question was this: "Do anti-vandal fighters simply ignore all concerns they cannot address, as though nobody has ever brought them up?" The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm due for a further explanation/clarification of my support which ill attest is fine. I do find it interesting (and im flattered even) that my support seems to have garnered a rather large thread of discussion. But i fear maybe i havent elabroarted enough of my rationale. My rationale is laregly based on the fact that 'The thing's' involvment with vandal fighting has allowed someone like me (a former old school type Vandal hunter)the oppertunity (and valuable time) to branch off and edit and create articles without needing to worry about fighting vandalism every day. I mean were here to build the wiki collaborate, and you cant with the vandals at the door, someone needs to stop em. Its such a big role that really deserves more recongnition than it gets. Im fully aware the opposition wants him editing/creating articles, but im also aware his niche allows others to do this just as well. Editors work together. Further to my support as with the previous RFA of the thing I re-iterate that so many hard core vandal fighters like 'The thing' stop the anti vandal fight after a few months fatigued and just needing to get away from wikipedia altogether, He's still going, and despite the set backs continues trucking so to be. So take it for what you will. I’ve seen the thing’s work and I trust him to continue the valuable contribution to the project he’s done the past few years and stand by my opinion, I think the tools will help him, I see him as a net benefit. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To summarise, for those of you who look at Ottawa's comment and go "TL:DR" - "I wasn't paying attention to what Vodello actually said and don't feel like answering the question, I'm just thrilled people are talking as a result of my actions". Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is weird as hell. There's several major problems, and many supporters that attach a 'strong' or 'firm' to their vote seem to act just like Ottawa4ever, completely acting like the only complaint is in regards to total lack of content contributions. I'm just really getting confused here. Is it just a coincidence that they're acting like no other complaints have been brought up, or are they deliberately feigning ignorance because temperament and maturity are such major, RFA-breaking problems that they don't even want to acknowledge that it exists? Vodello (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, I think it is you who isn't paying attention to what Ottawa4ever is saying here. It's really quite simple; The Thing That Should Not Be's anti-vandal work is so good that it allows the rest of us to put more effort into article writing.  Now, you don't have to agree with that rationale, and I can understand your argument, but throwing up a sarcastic ad hominem attack is not only blatantly unproductive, if that's what you truly think of his response, it's a particularly obvious ignoratio elenchi.  Given your four RfAs (I took a gander), I'd think you'd be a bit more sympathetic to keeping the heat to light ratio down (this isn't a criticism of you, I just noticed that your RfAs for whatever reason got overheated in spots; that's what I'm getting at).  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not forcing anyone to agree with me for the same reasons that made me support. Above I have only elaborated on why I have indicated support, which is what I should do. And for those reasons with considerations and in my opinion, i believe the candidate to be a net positive as said in my original post. Thank you Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Stront support Really experienced, very active user with huge editcount, who has greatly contributed to Wikipedia for years and extensively fought against vandalism. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of those 180,000+ edits, about 0 have been used to create so much as a Start-Class article. The concern was raised on RFA 2, 3, and 4, and ignored in 2, 3, and 4. Vodello (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodello, you are now in the top four of contributors to this RfA, practically tied for third. Yet, each post is essentially a restatement of your previous posts. Your position is understood. You do not need to continue to annotate “supports” that focus on the relevancy of content contribution. Please, you’ve made your point. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not apologize for asking weak support rationales that ignore the actual concerns to explain themselves. I am not getting answers from the previous voter, so I go to the next voter. Have a friend of yours indef block me if you're so desperate for me not to get a straight answer from even a single editor of the 'strong firm support' anti-vandal fighting bloc that's piled on to the end of this RFA en masse.
 * See, now you're just being obnoxious. Calm down; it's only the internet. Trolling every other "support" vote here is not helping your case one iota. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think you need to write articles to be a good janitor. This is a dedicated user and I respect that. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, since several opposes are relying on a single quotation which is, indeed, accurate (if content creators vanished people, albeit fewer people over time, would still read the site, which is not true if it were overrun with vandalism). Personally I don't think such hyperbolic hypotheticals mean much, but I also don't think it says what those opposing are reading it as saying. Chick Bowen 23:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Thing is one of the most level headed editors I've met here since I started editing "seriously". When tempers get frayed Thing can always be relied upon to attempt to keep it civil. Thing is also one of the most helpful; on numerous occasions I have seen him (her?) respond with excellent advices to newbies (myself included) seeking more information.  Also, Thing is the epitome of how one should use the various anti-vandal tools on the site (a problem I personally run into frequently).  Millahnna (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongest Possible Support Great editor, great track record, except for a few mistakes here and there. I see a lot of people complaining about the accidental reporting of NW.  There's no reason to oppose because of that.  I mean, he has apologized, and I'm pretty sure NW has forgiven him.  Very strong support.  ANowlin  talk 05:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Since picking up again on AIV I have noticed that TTTSNB is one of those filing reports where a review invariably indicates that all boxes are ticked and the buttons just need pushing. Outside of AIV I see a lot of thoughtful comments on the drama boards - I don't always agree, but that is not the issue; application is. Per this Request I notice an applicant who considers it part of the process to make mistakes, recognise them and put them right; if taken into the admin remit this would be a refreshing approach in handling the mop, because admins do make mistakes. So, yup! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, leaning towards neutral I think that many of those in the oppose section should view this objectively and the unreasonable opposes are the reason for my support. I find the "hounding" of supporters very, very distasteful. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, no need to bug those who support just because you feel otherwise. Besides, the major point is whether TTTSNB will abuse the tools, and I don't think so. Bejinhan   talks   13:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Supporters can question the opposition, but the opposition can't question the supporters, am I right? That's quite a double standard on RFA. Vodello (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) For crying out loud YES! Simply allowing him to block the vandals he encounters would massively reduce the workload on AIV. I understand many of the concerns raised in the oppose column, but we need more admins and if we keep turning down good offers of help, the shortage is only going to get worse, which means things like AIV response times will get worse and an ever-increasing workload will fall on the shoulders of an ever-decreasing number of active admins. I can think of few non-admins more capable or more knowledgeable than The Thing That Should Be an Admin! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support User will not abuse admin tools imo. --> Gggh  talk/contribs 20:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support There is no pattern of behavior that indicates future problems. Ronk01   talk  22:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I see no problem with this candidate. Experienced user and great vandal fighter. (and seems like someone beat me to nominating this candidate) NHRHS2010 | Talk to me  23:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Finally decided Support - the issues brought up (mainly maturity and no articles) were not enough to sway me - but were pretty close to doing so.... but you have my support. Good luck!  ∙:∙:.:  pepper  :.:∙:∙   23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support - Checked out the diffs. The "content vs vandalfighter" comment I don't agree with, but understand the thought.  As far as immaturity goes, I disagree with how severe it was.  In fact, I see maturity issues for several others, not Thing.King Pickle (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Support Changed from oppose. My concern was that there was no track record of positive creative interactions with the wider WP community, only vandal fighting, but the more I think about this there is nothing to suggest that this means he will suddenly turn tyrant on the community if given a block button. Gwen Chan  00:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - moved from neutral to cancel out some of the more egregious opposes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) +S Let me invite everyone to step back a bit. This editor needs to be whacked with a veritable gauntlet line of trout-wielding editors for personalizing the debate (the "how mature is this?" comment is a completely unacceptable example of personalizing a debate, of course). Admins should make an attempt to be bland and polite all the time, and never personalize their interaction that occur in an adminly context... But who doesn't need to be trout-whacked? Off hand, in all of Wikipedia, I can think of a small handful of extremely exceptional exceptions. Some Opposers cite a lack of maturity, but all I see are accusations. Do I see any blocks in TTSNB's log? Do I see him standing tall before ArbCom for incidents of dickery? Not that I can see. Other Opposers state that he hasn't learned from previous RfAs. Well... he has very clearly said that he is not a content contributor. Why is this a sin? Admins are... admins. They sweep the floors and fix the handrails; they don't paint the paintings. Some Opposers cite a lack of communication with the community. This is more troubling, but I couldn't find myself believing that it outweighs the positive. Let TTSNB whack vandals. Let TTSNB stick to whacking vandals; if he wants to branch out into other areas, let TTSNB find a mentor to help him/her (not "them", shudder, and fie) learn how to handle the various challenges and interpersonal interactions involved. The worst thing I see here is the yapping of The Thing That Should Not Be's friends, some of whom need to be whacked with even more vigor. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Switching from oppose per discussion on talkpage. A great vandal fighter will be a real asset at bocking vandals. I still have concerns about use of deletion button, but am reassured by the candidates comments on this talkpage. As for the issue of contributions, the candidate has now furnished examples on the talkpage where they've added referenced material to the pedia, so my concern about never having contributed content has been resolved.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  05:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support (from neutral). Upon re-consideration, I feel that the remarks made by The Thing at this RfA that prevented me from supporting were missteps, rather than being symptomatic of broader judgment issues.  Indeed, whatever concerns I might have had in that area have been allayed by impressive way in which The Thing has handled what has been a difficult and oftentimes unnecessarily mean RfA.  Some concerns regarding deletion philosophy remain, but given there have been no examples of particularly concerning taggings, and The Thing's stated intention to move into the speedy deletion area slowly, I don't feel these concerns warrant an oppose. I would also point out that I find the opposes based on the lack of response to concerns raised at previous RfAs unconvincing: consensus can change, and what could be seen as ignoring consensus could also be seen as re-testing it.  That said, I would implore The Thing to try to write a couple of small articles: you'll find it a whole lot easier and more enjoyable than you might think.  -- Lear's Fool 10:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I believe that, with more tools, The thing would be a net positive. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Was a bit conflicted on this, but (as per GwenChan) I see a fair bit of indication that this user will not become a tyrant-with-a-block-button. My concerns about deletion were partially ameliorated by some of the diffs the candidate provided (as per WereSpielCheckers). I don't read the "X is more important than Y" diffs the same way some other editors do in context, but I certainly understand and sympathize with why those comments are problematic for many editors. To balance out these negatives, the candidate appears to be a serious force for good here in vandal fighting, you can't "build an encyclopedia" when people are shooting holes in your construction faster than you can build. I'm also glad that the candidate recognizes the problems with the bundling all admin rights not only through his words but through his actions (working on a vandal fighting mini-admin proposal). In the end, I always ask "Do I think I can trust this editor?".  My answer is "yes."  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support based on my experiences with the user. He is a vigilant vandal fighter and I believe the tools would be beneficial to him. As for the content creation thing...I just don't see it as that big of an issue. Not everyone is cut out to write content, and if he's happy keeping his work in anti-vandalism then fine by me! I don't believe The Thing would be the sort of admin that would unsympathetically make life difficult for the content writers. Ooh Bunnies! Not just any bunnies... 19:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support If this RfA goes well, good for you. If not, forget Wikipedia and start thinking about your real life (if you have one). --Diego Grez (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Often been seen around. I'm sure he would use the tools constructively.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - This user should already have sysop access. -- Jeffwang16  (Talk)   (Contributions)   (Email me!)  03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - After a bit of think about it, I have decided to support per my RfA criteria, with the candidate passing all my key RfA criteria. For key criterion 4, there have been concerns raised of maturity off Wikipedia, though I only consider this if the evidence is "substantial and solid". I don't consider the candidate's views on the importance of content creates vs. non-content creates as relevant to their suitability for adminship, since it is a political issue (non-criterion 8). This one diff is probably the most concerning, though I will regard it as a one off incident in a tough RfA. While I stated earlier that if I was in TTTSNB's shoes I would have diversified my editing a bit more before coming back to RfA, that's because there is a large enough minority at RfA to bring a request down due on content creation issues, not because I think it is necessary. In fact, I believe TTTSNB has learnt and done enough as it is to be an admin, and unless I think they were justified, addressing the concerns raised in a previous RfA are not a requirement for me to support a subsequent one. While I expect admins to stick to policies and guidelines, and respect community consensus in general, TTTSNB's previous RfAs (with the possible exception of the first one) failed as consensus was not reached, even if more people supported than opposed, and the views of the opposition in these RfAs did not equate to a community consensus. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect to that last bit... I never thought about it that way. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  12:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Some of the opposers have made reasonable points, but I believe the candidate would do good work within the scope of his stated areas of interest, and as such make a valid contibution as an administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I appreciate The Thing's anti-vandalism work, but was waiting for more information about his content contributions before voting. Now that some examples have been provided, I am satisfied with his ability to create and improve content. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of it in the future. Reach Out to the Truth 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - As per NYB, there are some issues as the opposes have commented but I also believe that the user will do a good job in the areas he has offered to use the tools in. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Although I have been on holiday, I have been following this RfA closely (aren't mobile phones wonderful things...?) and have had a lot of time to weigh up my opinion. I feel that the candidate meets my standards and would advise The Thing to bear in mind the criticisms and advice given at this RfA --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support (from oppose) - I am switching my vote out of sheer blinding disgust at the repeated opposes who are deliberately misinterpreting a single statement, when that statement has been explained repeatedly here. → ROUX   ₪  00:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Worst support rationale since Secret's. Congrats, you officially have no reason why he should be an administrator, you only think that the oppose voters should shove it because many of them object to an idiot comment made by Thing. However, they have valid rationales for their votes.  IShadowed  ✰  01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you not understand that comments like the above are the exact reason Roux moved to support? Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 01:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We get it. You don't think that TTTNSB should be an admin. What you need to do is shut the hell up, however, stop making unsupported allegations, and generally walk away from this page. Nobody is interested in hearing your immature nonsense anymore. → ROUX   ₪  01:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Access Denied, that's not a reason to move to support. Support/Oppose sections are about opinions toward the candidate, not "Rawr rawr these rationales are stupid, I'm going to cancel them out!". Also, Roux, that rant of yours is really quite hypocritical. Commenting on my supposed "immature nonsense" in the same rant as your comment "shut the hell up" proves that that entire rant was really quite hypocritical.  IShadowed  ✰  01:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I suggest we drop this before it gets out of hand. We don't need yet another bloodbath on this RfA to make it 4x the size of ANI. If you want to discuss this, I politely suggest that it be taken to the talk page. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, stop with this trolling. Secret account 01:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Secret, it's not trolling. However, I agree with Thing. I have no need to raise my blood pressure on a perfectly nice, rainy night. Happy editing!  IShadowed  ✰  02:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support (from neutral) - for maturity throughout this RfA. Some of the opposes have reasonable concerns, but not enough that he should have to go through this whole mess. PrincessofLlyr  royal court 01:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The Oppose comments are, basically, based on two points: not enough content creation, and something about off-wiki behavior. As to the first, hey, so what? His jones is for fighting vandals. Let's focus on what people can do for us, not what they can't do. You known, his comment to the effect that would you rather have all the content creators take two weeks off or all the vandal fighters is, actually, spot on. As to the second, I don't know what is being spoken of, but there are two kinds of bad character markers, those which indicate a problem and those which constitute a problem. If his off-wiki behavior was beating up members of the Foundation or strafing the building housing the servers, well, OK; that would constitute a problem. But if his off-wiki behavior was skinning squirrels alive or walking naked in downtown Tulsa, well, who hasn't done that at one time or another? That is only an indicator, and these indicators are often miscontrused. I trust him. Herostratus (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing out the key point the opposes make. It's not specifically content creation: It's ignoring the community. Despite being told - by several dozen people, repeatedly - that if he were to create a single start-class article he'd win their support, he's refused to do so, instead reposting year-old content edits. Ignoring the community that badly is a bad sign for an admin who has cunningly avoided the recall question. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So if the community told him to learn to whistle Dixie through a soda straw, and he didn't do it, we should oppose? What I'd like to see is "Oppose, person does not create content, and therefore X. If "X" is "is liable to call the Chairman of Oriental Languages at Columbia University a 'mindless content-creator drone'" or that sort of thing, then OK. Is he? Give me something to work with here. If he disdains content creators, thinks they're useless mouths or whatever, OK. But he doesn't. If its only that he lacks understanding and sympathy with the content-creation process and therefore isn't qualified to handle certain subtle issues, what's the problem? He doesn't want to get involved in that stuff anyway. (And besides you don't need to create content to understand the issues.) He is what he is. And he's proud of it. And he should be. He's a Very Useful Engine, and he'll be that much more useful if he's an admin. Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: supported last time, would support again. The Thing isn't perfect, but few candidates are; he's made mistakes, but I believe he'd be a net benefit to Wikipedia with the tools. Yes, I would have preferred to see some more content contribution after he was criticised for lacking it in his previous RFAs, but I don't make it a condition for my support. Robofish (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I switched from oppose, because after watching you vandal fight today, it would most definitely be a net positive for you to have the tools. We have enough backlogs, and I don't see you going rogue. :) MJ94 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the candidate can clearly be trusted to use the administrative tools appropriately, as their vast experience demonstrates. I've checked the candidates (numerous) AIV reports in the last few weeks and they all resulted in a block apart from one (where a bot accidentally removed the report, the vandal was clearly blockable). There don't seem to be major issues regarding speedy deletion, though and  are questionable. The opposes are primarily based on lack of content contributions, though given the areas the candidate intends to work on I don't think making them write more articles would make them a better administrator. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I'm sorry, sir, but I am afraid I'm unable to hire you, as I have word from a reliable source that your personal attire on weekends does not meet company dress-code standards. The opposes here are pretty ridiculous. Also, per Beeblebrox (Support #22 at the time of this comment). Badger Drink (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: Fighting vandalism is important and you are doing an excellent job! Morgankevinj(talk) 23:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Might as well support. DS (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear lord, yet another vote without a reason.  IShadowed  ✰  01:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Badger, badger, badger, badger. Mushroom, mushroom! Snake!  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I love that thing. Fell asleep to it once. Really quite soothing with it's regular rhythm etc.  IShadowed  ✰  01:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore her, she even tried to harass me on facebook over her constant ideals and she just can't help herself. Tom my! 03:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support Ordinarily, I don't support any candidate that doesn't have content work. However, considering how exceptionally dedicated this Wikipedia is to his anti-vandalism work, I know that the tools would be put to good work.  But one caution, please avoid any controversial deletions; someone who doesn't work with content shouldn't be making the final call in XfD's.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Switching from Neutral to Weak support based on the contributions the candidate has linked to just above the "Support" section, particularly the media uploads. Demonstrated commitment to Wikipedia. (More content work would still be nice.) Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support An excellent contributor. Among the "oppose" arguments we have the inevitable "not enough article creation" over and over again, but there are many first rate admins with no more article creation background. Oddly enough we also have "Adminship is not necessary for vandal fighting". Well, I suppose it's not "necessary" in the sense that you can contribute to vandal fighting without it, but admin tools are a very important contribution to vandal fighting, and I am certain that The Thing That Should Not Be's contribution would benefit from those tools. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per testimony above re: the accuracy of Thing's Huggle work. It's easy to mess up with huggle, so if he's doing it right, let him do all the work. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Successful organizations have a diversity of people types; if The Thing doesn't want to do content himself, and instead protect the content others create, that's perfectly valid specialization. And at least in this instance we know that adminship won't lose us a prolific content creator diverted to janitorial tasks. Rd232 talk 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I understand that content creation/improvement is key to the project, and hence a number of people have opposed due to this candidate's decision to work in other areas of the project. However, I believe that the project also needs people to remove the vandalism and block those responsible, delete some of the inappropriate articles that get brought to CSD and perform other rather boring tasks without which the project's content would be worthless. That someone is willing to dedicate their time to ensuring that other people's hard sweat is preserved with such accuracy and diligence, thus freeing up content-oriented editors to work on content, is a good enough reason for me to support this candidate. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, let the guy fight vandalism. It's useful work, somebody's got to do it, etc --JayHenry (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. per RD232's and Alexandr Dmitri's rationales. He is a vandalism fighter, and a prolific, conscientious one. While I understand that content generation is very important to some people, being a content protector rather than creator should not count against someone who wants to volunteer his time to mop some floors. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I don't believe he would be a detriment to the cause at all. Maturity issues have been brought up; but I think since his last RfA he has matured vastly. Net-positive. Sunderland06  (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. In my first-ever RfA involvement, I am supporting The Thing.  He is an excellent candidate, and because the word "content" was used 198 times on this page which is utterly ludicrous.  The Thing is incontrovertibly a good candidate here, clearly demonstrated by his contribution history.    Thorncrag  22:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Storng Support - Per Thorncrag. Mlpearc   powwow  22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose
These kinds of behavioural issues aside, I will just firstly say I (obviously) think The Thing does extremely important and generally good anti-vandalism work. But really, this is all he does. As I mentioned in Q6, none of the work he does regularly actually involves collaboration or consensus building, and this working together is extremely important for administrators in particular. Also I see no evidence of him demonstrating an ability to judge consensus, also important for an administrator. Of course, there are those users who will say "but he only wants the tools for his anti-vandalism work". True as this may be, I think there is more difference between blocking a user, and reporting them to AIV, or deleting a page and tagging it (the admin side of thing normally involve more explanations and justifications). Besides which, if he’s not going to use the tools for these things which actually need more administrators at the moment (AIV and CSD are well manned) then I don’t see that he needs them. He does good enough work at the moment, I say leave it at that. But really the problem for me, is I don’t trust this user to make the right decisions as an administrator, I trust that he wants to do the best for the project, but I don’t always agree with his method of doing this. It’s a real shame he hasn’t contributed any real content to the project, because doing so would allow him to much better understand the way this works, and empathise better with other users (which as mentioned earlier I see a lack of). Also the semi-automated edits are a bit of a problem, not because he is using a program, but simply because he’s allowing it to make him go a bit too fast (yes, speed is important in AV, but you need to find a balance). Making stupid mistakes and sacrificing quality for quantity as mentioned earlier (just a few examples out of many: this this and this). Of course, some mistakes are inevitable, but I feel these are due to a fundamental problem with the way The Thing works, rather than brief lapse of concentration. Sorry for the long rationale :/ - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Secondly, I'm not sure I trust you with the extra buttons, because I think you may be a little trigger-happy. Edits like this are alarming, or would be if you had the block button. I've not looked extensively through your CSD work, but only this month you tagged an article about an album for A7 (db-band). This was two minutes after creation. Did you think that A7 applies to albums, or did you not read the article properly? Finally, this interaction does not show the kind of attitude I think an administrator should have. Given the fact that you don't really need the tools (not normally a reason to oppose, let's face it, most of us don't need the tools), the fact that this is your 4th (?) RFA makes me wonder why you want it so badly and worry that you might be a little power-hungry. If that's not the case, I apologise, but that's how it's looking to me.-- Beloved Freak  10:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose I really hate to do this, as you seem to be an excelant vandal fighter. However, I cannot support an editor with this few content edits. I cannot trust you without some content work, as it helps with issues like edit wars etc. I don't subscribe to the 10 FA standard, but I need a little more than this. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I respect Soap's judgement, I in the side that you need to have at least some article work before trying an RFA, unless there are special circumstances. The question to number 4 in his last RFA makes me Oppose. Sorry Secret account 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why an answer to a question in a past RfA that took place 9 months ago makes you oppose? ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  23:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it sums up his feelings about article work, and I don't see any article work since the RFA, so I'll assume he still has that feeling. The comment that all the article work that needs to be done is already finished doesn't help the situation. I may change to support later, to cancel out those immaturity votes without evidence. Secret account 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 99% Strong Oppose combined with a 1% very weak support. Candidate was only exclusively partcipating in vandal fighting, not constructive article building. I see that he started to nominate articles to delete... I mean, he doesn't have any GA, FA... The only I feel that this is not the time yet as i feel he's quite immature at some times. Altough he earns this right to be a admin due to the past oversight drama... Blame it on User:Drini for this shit. I'm just expressing my opinion on this. I'm sorry man, but i'm going to decline my support. Good luck next time! Zalgo (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I opposed but can you explain further, especially with the immaturity? Secret account 22:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The recent discussion on my talk page may prove useful to you. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea that's a bunch of immaturity, but by other editors not you. Secret account 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  Weak Strong Oppose This time around (Yes, I supported him last RfA), I feel I have to express my serious concerns over maturity, as well as concerns with contributions. I've found that although Thing's intentions are undoubtedly in good faith, but I would not necessarily trust him with admin tools. I feel a conflict with an editor/IP vandal could result in abuse of admin tools, as I've found that this user can be exceptionally quick tempered, irrational, and generally immature while in a conflict ([edit]as demonstrated throughout this very RfA). Due to this, I think abstaining from admin tools would be appropriate at the present time, especially seeing as he's doing a fine job as it is without admin tools. Also, I do have to express my concern over lack on content contributions. Seeing as this is a collaborative encyclopedic effort, I'd like to see a bit more of content work. I understand that Thing enjoys Huggling (let's leave that in the context of wiki), however- as stated- I'd like to see a few more attempts at content work. I understand that admin tools would definitely be beneficial to this user, however I presently find that I cannot bring myself to support.  IShadowed  ✰  23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that he enjoys "huggling" a bit too much in my own opinion. Zalgo (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IShadowed, could you provide an example on Wikipedia (diff) of such behavior? Netalarm talk 23:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Netalarm, when one applies for a job, the employer certainly asks for information about past professional experience- which is directly related to the job that is being applied for, as it involves past experience in said field of work. Employers generally also require personal history- which is separate from the specific position, as it involves one's personality and general maturity as demonstrated outside said field of work. Apply this here. As I've said, the work that Thing has done onwiki is quite satisfactory as it is, but there is also what he is not doing.  IShadowed  ✰  23:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe what I'm reading. wow. I have a comment to say, but that'll be misconstrued as a "personal attack," so I'll say nothing. Tom my! 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...speaking of immaturity...  IShadowed  ✰  03:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Tom my! 03:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that you must resort to personal attacks, Tommy, I would advise that you stay off the more controversial parts of the site, such as the RfAs.  IShadowed  ✰  03:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I'm beyond your games of instigation. Re-read what I wrote above, and while you're at it, don't take yourself too seriously. Tom my! 04:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'd advise you to stay away from discussions where you cannot handle yourself.  IShadowed  ✰  04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's just drop this argument. Everybody is entitled to their opinion here. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me.  IShadowed  ✰  04:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While I believe vandalism fighting is important, I cannot support for adminship anyone who does not have sufficient experience with other functions. Your answers to questions 1, 2, and 7 show me that your skill is too narrow. While being an account creator for a time was a good sign, recent activity has all been deletions (vandal fighting is included in this) of one type or another. You're a good editor though, which is why it pains me to cast the vote this way. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em; color:black;">Talk  23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's anything worth mentioning, I am active in reporting username violations to UAA as well. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, there is a linear spectrum of contributions. At the creation side lie new page creation, account creation, content addition, article reviews, and other things that actively add to the quality of the articles. At the opposite end (deconstructive but not unconstructive) lie vandalism fighting, XfD, and sadly, much of AN/I. I like to see people with experience and willingness to work in both sides. I prefer balance, but I am more inclined to support editors that are heavier on the creative side than the deconstructive side. As I said, you're a good editor, but I need to see something outside of the deconsturive side, otherwise I'm just not comfortable. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em; color:black;">Talk  01:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  Oppose Strong Oppose Maturity and temperament concerns per IShadowed. We have quite enough current admins with these traits already, and it more often than not leads to the exact scenario IShadowed described involving abuse of tools in conflicts. I won't take the chance in supporting the addition of another potential problem admin to the drama pile. Vodello (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your oppose makes me wonder if you're taking in all of the picture. The concerns are off wiki, and off wiki alone. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the moment, yes. Is there a chance that, given the tools, it will not be taken on-wiki ever and there will never be a problem? Yes. Am I willing to take that chance after seeing time and time again this turn into a total cluster? No. Furthermore, I was unaware that this is in fact your fourth RFA, and not your second. Also, total lack of content building, which has been brought up many times on the previous RFAs, was ignored. One red flag by itself may not lead me to auto-oppose, but each additional red flag (four) increases my concerns exponentially. I can not support. Vodello (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote updated to Strong Oppose per unacceptable comment from candidate to IShadowed that validates the opposition's concerns of maturity. Can never support. Vodello (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just not following why that's not mature. That's a bit of frustration, leading to him raising a fairly valid poitn. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He really isn't introducing a valid point. He is immature and running for RfA. I am immature and not running for RfA. I know that running for RfA after exhibiting immature behavior is an unwise choice, and therefore am not running.  IShadowed  ✰  03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "I know you are but what am I" from the candidate was not a valid point at all. If he is so easily 'frustrated', he is not ready to handle the responsibility of the tools. Vodello (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's frustration. I get frustrated. You get frustrated. He voiced his point fairly civilly, pointing out everyone has faults. Not the best thing to do, but I wouldn't strong oppose anyone for that. Still, definitely your choice. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As Vodello said, "If he is so easily 'frustrated', he is not ready to handle the responsibility of the tools.", and I can only echo this here. He needs to be capable of handling frustration as an admin, not lash out against it.  IShadowed  ✰  05:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone has faults, but he is the one requesting the bit, not you or I. Yet, yet, yet again, I am not opposing just because of displays of immaturity from the candidate. In addition to the four red flags, a fifth has come in. He believes vandal fighters are more important than content creators That's easy to say for someone that does not create even Start-Class content and has automated edits in the 6 digits, but to say people with the ability to click an undo button or use an automated tool is worth more than content builders feels like a complete disconnect from just what Wikipedia is. It's far, far easier to destroy content on this encyclopedia than it is to create. An undo click is not worth more than a good article, and all the brownie point barnstars in the world will not convince me otherwise. I have at least five major problems with the candidate's attitude and credentials, all of which have been cited as reasons to oppose or be neutral by others. Cherrypicking one of those five points while ignoring the other four outright and insisting that the candidate was condescending just because he was so easily frustrated will not invalidate my opinion. I do not want a user (can't classify as an editor, really) like this as an administrator, period. Vodello (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Read what I said to Cunard; I think you're misreading his comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I am not. Once again, someone is cherrypicking just one of the many major concerns. I suppose every problem we have with the candidate is just a big misunderstanding. Considering his stance on not creating content and deliberately ignoring pleas from three previous RFAs to improve in this area, I'm not going to buy this for a second. Do you insist that his condescending comment was also nothing more than a "misread?" I opposed with concerns that he may have maturity problems because of past precedent with current problem admins and him seeming to fit that same mold, so he responds to the claim by acting exactly like one of those problem admins, verifying the concern completely. The continued weak attempts to try and explain away the candidate's large deficiencies is getting tiresome. I'm done with this RFA and done with these games. Vodello (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't have any issue with the so-called "condescending comment"; sometimes people need a reality check. Besides, I'm not cherrypicking, just pointing out that you're badly distorting a quote.  I could debunk your other straw men, but if you're done here then I won't bother.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You really haven't "debunked" anything, seeing as there are now more opposes that have been solidified by said comment from Thing to myself.  IShadowed  ✰  20:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you fail to see the straw man in the argument above, I'm not sure how else to explain it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for the same reasons I did last time. The candidate's returning here for a fourth time with the same problems (no content work) that got him rejected three prior times is a major "I didn't hear that".  When you've been told three times what the community wanted to see and willfully decide to ignore it, in the hopes of getting through, there's no way I can support.  If this is how you respond to concerns as an admin hopeful, I shudder to think how you would act if you already had the tools. Courcelles 01:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well-phrased.  IShadowed  ✰  01:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I think he should be an admin, I'm still not too sure if I should support or oppose because, regardless of my own opinion, he should have noticed that the community does *not* want someone who does only anti-vandalism work. —<span style="border:3px solid silver;background:black;padding:1px;color:gold;text-shadow:white 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> W aterfox  20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - pretty much in the same vein as Ishadowed. MtD (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose (shifted from neutral). Yes, lack of content contributions doesn't normally faze me. But the insinuation that Wikipedia would be no worse off without content creators – and that, per Lear's Fool's neutral below, somehow vandalism fighters are better suited to deal with BLP violations than content creators – have convinced me that perhaps the tools are not for you. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to neutral, but my point stands. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per this comment. We do not need admins who do not work on content believing they are more important than content creators. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reread it, then; that's not quite what he was saying. He said that the task itself, not the people behind said task, is more important; we can brag about the amount of content we have, but if people don't keep it in good shape it won't mean anything.  I do a variation of The Thing That Should Not Be's work in the form of New Page Patrolling, and I only recently got around to writing (well, constructing something out of an unusually well-referenced stub) my first article. I guarantee you the article in question is viewed once every few days if that, and is not important to many people besides myself (although the subject is plainly notable), whereas the sorts of things I come across on NPP need to be dealt with very quickly, lest we have another Slow Blind Driveway sneak through and compromise our integrity.  It's not that content writing isn't important, it's that it needs maintenance, and only a limited number of people seem willing to do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've revised my oppose rationale. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Revised rationale to: Administrators should have some content contributions or at least demonstrate that they can work well when "frustrated". The behavior in this RfA (diff) leads me to conclude that he may behave likewise as an admin. I agree with the rationales of Vodello and Iridescent who put it better than I. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I don't entirely disagree with you, I just think that his other work outweighs it. I see where you're coming from, though.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Regretful oppose Per Courcelles. Try contributing some content and I'd be happy to support. AniMate  09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps you are too hung up about what is involved in "writing". There are thousands and thousands of unsourced articles out there. Instead of just fighting vandals, if you took some time to build some of them up with sources you'd be able to sway opposers next time should you run again. Sourcing articles is one of the biggest parts of content creation, especially with so many articles already written. Hit your local library, there are plenty of online resources for students, or check out google news archives or books. Just don't keep coming here trying to become an admin without some attempt at article building. AniMate  23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be interested by this comment I just made regarding my content contributions. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Although I've supported The Thing at RfA previously, a number of things have changed my mind since then... I believe there are some maturity concerns here, and don’t think The Thing has the right maturity or mentality for adminship. These aren’t only based on off-wiki actions. For example, The Thing seems to concentrate way too much on his edit count, and numbers, rather than the actual quality of the work he is doing, just see User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be/Archive_7 (also I don’t like that, as displayed here, The Thing is always a bit too keen to show off their work) or Q2. I think administrators should be more concerned about how well they do their work, than how much they can get done. As to maturity, his response to his last RfA (saying he was not going to run again which he confirmed in June) was slightly disappointing, especially considering he is now running (on the subject of his previous RfAs, I find it poor form to repeatedly submit RfAs when nothing has changed, especially when his last RfA partly failed because nothing had changed even then. One of the concerns back then was also maturity, I particularly agree with PeterSymond’s oppose from that RfA). Also I wasn’t impressed by his response to the accidental oversighting of his edits – he knew it was being sorted out, and it would have been better for him to simply sign out, and wait until they were back, ignoring Wikipedia in the meantime. Instead he seemed to contribute to the small amount of drama which surrounded that incident (this, among other things such as this edit mentioned in the previous RfA, seem to suggest he doesn't handle stress particularly well). Also the response to IShadowed’s concern was immature, ironic considering that the concern was about his maturity.
 * 1) Oppose Absent anything more than a lot of deletion work and reverts of vandals - neither of which require one to be an admin, there are no reasons to support. Add to that an apparent emphasis on number of CSDs and a lack of any response to the issues raised in some questions (Yes - I find the absence of any comment at all to my question 4 to be troubling) and I can not offer support. Collect (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'd like to see some content work even if it was just the typo fixing and categorisation that is my stock in trade. I respect FAs and GAs but as an admin with neither I certainly wouldn't set the bar that high, but I do think that an admin needs to have done something to build the pedia as well as defended it. One reason why admins need that experience is to screen out those who are overhasty at deleting good faith contributions, aside from the 4% of your CSD tags that you acknowledge were declined, this was tagged A3 the same moment it was created. I'm also concerned at your remarks implying that speedy deletion should all be handled in an hour or so, with attack pages that's fine - and most of your tags were correct and the articles needed to go ASAP. But good faith newbies often deserve a bit longer.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness, that one you mention above that was tagged for deletion at the moment of creation read (as created): "God! I love [redacted]. She wears no makeup, she is naturally beautiful. Uber pretty. Super clever. Goes to a Grammar school in Walsall. Sexy. Fit. Whenever you want to say but God is she hot. Woah! She is smoking! Sexy!! Hell YEAH!! We all love her. We love [redacted]! Natural straight hair. Great swimmer. Great runner. Super fit in her cycling shorts. Phwoar!! SEXY!! HELL YEAH!! I sooooo wanna do it! Oh yes!! She is wicked. You diss her, you dissing everything I believe is hot. PHWOAR!!!". I don't thing there was any great likelihood that the usual 24 hour wait before tagging was necessary in this case. – iridescent  17:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK that was the previous edit which was one minute earlier than the one I saw. The Phwoar nonsense had been taken out by the time The Thing's tag came in - but he was presumably judging it by the combination of the two. - I've struck that example and moved to weak oppose.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Switching to support per discussion on the talkpage which includes examples where the candidate has added referenced information to the pedia.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Concerns I have expressed in your last RfA still apply. &mdash;Dark 11:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) As far as I can see, you've completely ignored the concerns raised in your last three RFAs, and keep coming back here expecting a different result. While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. Kingpin and Vodello above put it best; despite your edit count, I don't think you really understand how the internal dynamics of Wikipedia actually work. You fall squarely into that group whom I'd support if we had a working and binding recall process, but not otherwise; as it stands, there seems too much risk we'd just be adding another trigger-happy block-first-and-ask-questions-later problematic admin to the pile. – iridescent  12:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Maturity concerns, as well as lack of content contribution...off-wiki activities questionable (again, maturity). And this is, like, the 5th RfA? THENEW M O NO  ™ 01:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What does off-wiki activities have to do with what happens on-wiki? IRC ≠ Wikipedia. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The content issue concerned me, then this interaction solidifies my oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Immaturity. Seems a little too anxious to gain adminship without taking previous failures into account. Gigs (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) From neutral. Kingpin basically sums up what I'm thinking. RfA is a question: Do you trust this user as an admin? Quite frankly, after considering it, I don't. My impression of him has been that he seems to be unable to handle stress well, and insists on being able to edit. Additionally, his refusal to make a full effort to improve for his next RfA shows lack of maturity and refusal to respect consensus, something which is essential in an admin. ( X! ·  talk )  · @803  · 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely goddamned not. The Thing came to RfA. He was told, by the community, "go away and don't come back until you've touched an article with more than AWB". He went away, came back, and was again told "go away and don't come back until you've touched an article with more than AWB". He went away, and now he's come back. My response? "go away and don't come back until you've touched an article with more than AWB". This is no longer about content edits; it wasn't, for me, when the second RfA came around. This is about a user who, when faced with community consensus about his behaviour and actions in relation to community trust, chooses ignoring it and biding his time as a preferable option to listening. Any RfA is based, as X! says, around the question "do you trust this user as an admin?", and the answer has to be "no". Why? Because an admin has to listen to the community. Because an admin has to be able to accept when he's wrong, or when his opinions on a block, or delete, or article protection, are different from those of everyone else in the room. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that The Thing is capable of that; on the contrary, as I have shown, the only evidence is that he ignores community consensus. I do not want an admin who does that. I particularly do not want an admin who does that on issues of trust. Ironholds (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose But perhaps not as vehemently as some above me. This diff has been badly misconstrued - it's a view I have peronally also long advocated - for I believe over two years in fact; TTTSNB has perhaps being less than articulate in the way he's expressed it, but he's simply not saying vandal fighters are more important than content contributors and it's a shame that people have interpreted it that way. I'm still not happy to support however. I note that the candidate acknowledges his odd mistake, and indeed rectifies them (I commented to this effect on his talk just a few days ago regaring this very odd revert/self reversion ) with automated tools; nevertheless this worries me. The almost desperate desire (IMHO) for the admin bit also puts me off. The lack of content I could live with, but really something would help. Sorry, and I totally respect and value your hard work - I'm just not convinced you're right for the bits at the moment. Pedro : Chat  20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, with regret. The candidate's work overall is fine, but the concerns raised by Pedro and Ironholds persuaded me to oppose. As Ironholds notes, this is RFA #5 and there has been very little change in editing patterns from RFA #4 - which speaks to the candidates willingness to take community criticism on board and adjust behavior accordingly. Sorry. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose again, with regret. This user is an excellent vandal-fighter, and I would be more than happy with them entering into that field as an administrator if it weren't for the fact that they've been told multiple times now to edit content by the community, and multiple times they've ignored this advice. I don't mind someone with such outstanding contributions not having a GA or an FA but administrators need to respect the authority and suggestions of the community and I just don't see that reflected in this user's conduct. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Oppose: More than willing to do what he wants with vandal-fighting, but shows a lack of interest with community matters and community opinion. Diversify your portfolio. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Great vandal fighters (and we have one under consideration) don't necessarily need buttons to do their work. I like my admins to have more experience with and love for the other aspects of building an encyclopedia--writing, discussing, consensus building, etc. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Regretful Oppose. This one was a very tough decision for me, and I really don't like having to oppose. I've encountered The Thing around the place a lot, and what I see is an extremely prolific vandal fighter who has contributed an enormous amount of good work to the project - I'm another who often gets beaten to reverting vandalism, and seeing The Thing start a session makes me feel OK to knock off and go get some rest. I don't insist on lots of content creation in order to make my decisions, and I have no objection to admins whose focus is essentially anti-vandalism only. However, I do think that admin requires a different approach to what I have been seeing. Rather than the "hit them as fast as possible" approach, admins need to be able to look at things slowly and carefully, ponder decisions carefully, and explain and discuss things with people they anger by blocking and deleting (because admins will inevitably anger other people - it comes with the job). And while I'm not saying that The Thing isn't capable of that, my problem is that I really have no way of knowing. Tens of thousands of rapid semi-auto vandal reversions, AIV reports and CSDs are great (though I do think that a lot of people are often too trigger-happy with CSDs), but that doesn't really touch on what I want to see in an admin candidate. I want to see discussion, negotiation, compromise, consensus-building, support, encouragement, sympathy - in short, I want to see a significant amount of person-to-person interaction. What I suggest is that The Thing should spend some time engaging in some other activities, perhaps WP:Wikignome things, AfD discussions, typo/spelling corrections, a bit of Wikification, maybe even some copy editing - just a general spread of things that will help us to evaluate interaction abilities. Or just forget about admin and carry on with the great anti-vandalism work. And, erm, sorry for waffling so much. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose on the answer to 7. You can find the time to click buttons, but not to write articles?  We need admins who understand and sympathise with editors watching articles they've written be turned into battlegrounds, not admins who block people for adding "TUCKER JENKINS IS GAY LOL".  I don't think its possible for you to be that person if you haven't written at least one article. Parrot of Doom 22:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, IMO, the answer to question two must include content work. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be interested by this comment I just made regarding my content contributions. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for the fact that you've been asked 5 times to work on one, just one, article and develop some content.  Also is doesn't matter a jot if an article survives for 1 hour 23 minutes before being deleted (copyvios and attack pages aside.) --Stephen 23:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be interested by this comment I just made regarding my content contributions. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  15:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose because of his stated intention to delete articles unilaterally. This is something which is as it should be, strongly discouraged in most cases. As I see the long discussions on this, the main reason it is not out-and-out forbidden is because it is actually needed in some special cases, and nobody has been able to clearly delineate them--so it has to be left to good judgment. I would certainly vote for the recall of any admin who does so delete routinely, and most certainly not add to their number.   DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something. In part C, were you not referring to pages that fall under CSD criterion? The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  00:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point DGG is making is that, apart from articles that need to be deleted straight away, (G3, G10, etc.), it is a good idea to either tag articles for speedy deletion and let another admin delete, or review articles tagged by others, thus giving some time between the tagging and the deletion. I may be wrong, but I think DGG's concern is your stated intention to delete articles for criteria such as A7 without ever having tagged them, which gives neither the author time to address the concern nor any other editor the chance to review it.  -- Lear's Fool 03:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was something I was thinking too, but I'd already waffled enough. Speedy deletion, even when warranted, is one of the things that really can turn potentially valuable newcomers away. So unless it's, say, a blatant G10 or G3, article creators should get a bit of time to see the tag and be able to address it if they wish. I've also seen a lot of CSD tags used incorrectly, by admins too, so I think an admin who spots a CSD candidate should in most cases tag it and leave it for someone else to decide after a respectable interval. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did he assert he'd delete articles unilaterally? I'm actually surprised that Boing! is piling on here, I thought there was a more intricate understanding of the deletion criteria than I'm seeing here. These "concerns" are speculation from a contingent of editors that are known for their inclusionist/deltionist views. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for the answer to question 16C? Also this isn't exactly a pile-on.. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Maturity and temperament. Townlake (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, concerns over temperament, and lack of quality content experience. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.  I share the views posted above by Boing! said Zebedee at 21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC), so I won't repeat all that.  – Athaenara  ✉  01:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The criteria for a repeat nominee at an Rfa is different than a first time nominee, IMO. Did the nominee pay attention to the "opposes" at the previous three Rfa's? Did they listen to the "If they do 'x', I'll support next time" ? Nope. Victorian Mutant (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Administrators should have substantial content creation experience.  Sandstein   05:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose with regret. I'm sorry, dear The Thing That Should Not Be. I know how hard vandal-fighting can be, and you really do it excellently, but it would be nice if you had a bit more article work (as users said in the previous request). I know - that said, I should take my own advice and try to write some more real content.. :P So many unsuccessful RFAs are rather troubling as well. However, it isn't so much these concern as the concerns of maturity I'm worried about. Your reply to IShadowed on your talk page, while understandable, was a rather tu quoque response which could have been more politely and kindly worded. I'm very sorry, but because of all these reasons, I must sadly oppose. You are obviously a great and valuable asset to Wikipedia, so if this RFA fails, I sincerely hope you'll continue your lovely work. There are better ways to help Wikipedia than being an admin, remember! :) Love, Clementina   talk  06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No No No! I know he's done lots of rollbacking but he's made too many reversing actions and I wish he could do some article promoting. Also, too many RfAs even though the last one was a while ago; and yet he still hasn't been much different. I can now tell that he's a trigger-happy type of user and he may not realise how harsh some of the administative actions might be. Minima  c  ( talk ) 07:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Scratched that, decided to go back to neutral. Minima  c  ( talk ) 06:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - not foreman material. Crafty (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining your reasoning? Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 20:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * see hereCampbell Drive (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Firstly, because content matters. I don't see anyone here asking for a string of FAs or GAs, but given your past feedback, it would be nice to see you put some effort (and concentration) into demonstrating that you think content matters. Comments from you here and elsewhere seem to suggest the opposite. As an administrator you will have the ability to delete pages, protect/unprotect pages and block editors involved in content disputes, so it's important that you have some experience here. I find it hard to believe that there is no article on anything you are interested that needs work. Again, not necessarily looking for FA standard, but how about adding references to a completely unreferenced article?
 * 1) Oppose Dear Thing: You've worked admirably at vandal-fighting but it has been made clear over your several failed RfAs that there is (to put it mildly) considerably more going on around here and your reluctance to contribute has been inter alia  a deal-breaker for many. Questionable temperament and maturity are also regular issues raised and these concerns are well-founded IMO. That it is necessary to point this stuff out yet again shows that little or nothing seems to get taken in, not a trait that inspires confidence either. Everything about your RfAs suggests to me that you view Wikipedia as some sort of MMORPG and adminship as a bad-guy-buster weapon and award combined - and that you'll get it by wearing down/outlasting the opposers and a sympathy/aww-give-him-a-chance !vote by your similarly-inclined peers. That's the impression I get and its a shame because you do work hard and mean well. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose; I simply don't trust that you've sufficient common sense to an effective admin, given that this is the fourth RfA you've gone through, while changing nothing based on the feedback from previous ones. Basically what User:Ironholds said, except he put it more eloquently. C628 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) nothing new to add, so oppose per DGG, Townlake, John Vandenberg, Sandstein, and probably others but this is enough. -Atmoz (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: Per all other reasons brought up. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose ~ per Courcelles' reasoning. Cheers, LindsayHi 18:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose&mdash;while I agree that anti-vandalism activities are important and necessary, the creation of new encyclopedic content is the fundamental mission of this website. I worry about that the attitude expressed here on the importance of new content creation.  I worry this candidate would be too trigger-happy in his decisions and would potentially drive off content contributors because he does not understand their importance.  It would be helpful if the candidate attempted to improve even one article to GA or FA status, just to better understand the concerns of high-quality content contributors.  –Grondemar 03:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per this, lack of content creation, and immaturity, among other reasons mentioned above.  Goodvac   ( talk ) 04:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to the AIV edit: Several IP's were attacking NuclearWarfare's userspace at the same time in a 4chan attack. I was reporting all of the IP's, and thought that I might be able to expedite the process by reporting directly from the "Action complete" "Reverted edits by x to last revision by x" page. As that example shows, I was wrong... And, as far as I know, that is one of the only mistakes that I have made when reporting to AIV... 1 out of 3,600+. Obviously using the block button itself is a different matter, and I would check the username that I would be blocking carefully and thoroughly before I carried out the action. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  13:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I cannot support due to the other reasons given.  Goodvac   ( talk ) 21:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Plutonium27 and Grondemar above. We don't need any more admins who see themselves as a separate "admin corps" with a sheriff's badge for vandal bashing. Take time out from vandal "fighting" - which is hardly a demanding task when you're using huggle anyway - and get into real content creation, which doesn't come with automated tools and forces you to interact positively with the community and understand consensus. You'll be a better editor, and all-round member of the community, for the experience and at your next RfA there may be more confidence from your peers that the tools are deserved and will be used with the benefit of past experience and wisdom. Gwen Chan 09:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Changing to weak support Gwen Chan  00:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Reading other !votes here, I want to clarify my reasoning. I don't think that you need to create reams of high quality content so much as I think you should spend time in that area. At the moment, virtually all of your contact with other editors here is negative: reverting their edits, reporting them for blocking, or speedy-ing their articles. You have no real experience of discussion, consensus-seeking or consensus-building, and no experience of positive or constructive interaction with your peers. My concern is that this gives you an extremely one-sided view of the project which, should the extra tools be available to you, could lead to you making too many wrong "judgement calls" without thoroughly exhausting the available alternatives or considering the possibility that you may in fact be wrong. Gwen Chan 22:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry. Like Ironholds said, you have been told in every RFA that you need to develop more content. And while I do not agree that all admins must be content creators--specialization is good--I do feel that if you want to be an admin, you gotta listen to what people are telling you. And what they have told you repeatedly. I will be very disappointed if you try for another RFA in the future without at the very least taking an article from, say, a stub to GA. → ROUX   ₪  13:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)  To support, solely out of my sheer disgust with people who insist on misinterpreting a single edit after it has been explained multiple times on this page. →  ROUX   ₪  00:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose When Nihonjoe ran for 'crat for the 3rd time he hadn't acted upon previous guidance from 2 prior RfB's. So I wrote I was going to pose it as a question, why? But I decided that if you really wanted to work in these areas, then you would have gained a some experience therein. You would have taken to heart the comments from previous RfB's questioning your preparation for the tasks at hand. You would have taken to heart the objections posed to others who have failed their RfB's. The fact that you have not done so says that you didn't listen to the community's voice when it speaks or you don't care.  The same holds true for you Thing... the fact that you haven't followed the advice in your previous RFA's indicates that you don't listen to the community's voice or you don't care.  Now I bring Joe up not to drag up old skeletons, but rather to use him as an example.  Joe failed his 3rd attempt at becoming a 'crat, but he took the criticisms there to heart, acted upon them, and passed his 4th attempt.  If you want to have ANY hope of passing the next time... act upon the guidance provided!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Changing to strong oppose per Explicit below.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose insufficient evidence of the judgement and content evaluation tools that need to be seen in an administrator.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Concerns over temperament, maturity, lack of content creation.  Chzz  ► 01:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Regretful oppose A good user, has reverted my userpage several times, does great anti-vandalism work across the board and will, I'm sure, continue to do so. However, having watched his talk page for some time Thing does not have the detachment and calm needed by an admin, a discussion with Gurch about the - in my view - unnecessary (Custom) appended to every HG revert springs to mind as an example  Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 14:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose. Although your anti-vandalism work is excellent, I'm a little worried about how you'd do as an administrator. I have two reasons that I'm saying this. Admins must have excellent communication skills, which means that they must remain civil and calm when disputes arise. This recent edit worries me. The second issue I see is that you don't seem to hear advice that's given to you. Many of the opposers have the same reason to oppose as they did in your previous RFAs: lack of content contribution. I realize that vandalism fighting is your area of interest, but I strongly suggest you try editing content. I realize that not everyone is an artist, but try to keep an open mind. That's all that we want: you to try. Sure, it may not be perfect. No article is and no person is. This is a wiki, and that means that anyone can edit. You (or anyone else) can fix mistakes, and make the article(s) shine. If your going to be an admin, you need to listen to what people are saying to you. Listening is the first step to improving, and as I said before, not everyone is perfect. Please don't be discouraged. Keep up the good work. You are excellent at fighting vandalism, and you are a great Wikipedian. All I ask is that you read the opposes carefully, and try to fix any problems they bring up. Cheers, MJ94 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Oppose - This is where a block only flag would be nice, but the opposes have had a lot to say. --  Nolelover ' It's football season!  17:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Moving to Neutral.  Nolelover  It's football season! ' 01:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I couldn't agree more with Courcelles's analysis regarding the last three RFAs. As Ironholds stated above, it isn't even about the lack of content work, it's the candidate's failure to take the community's concerns to heart and attempting to address the issues. Additionally, the following line from the answer to question one worries me: I've found the average amount of time it takes for them to be deleted is 1 hour and 23 minutes, last I checked around 2 months ago. To me, that's far from "Speedy". Speedy deletion has never been about length of time of time a page gets deleted, and racing through CSD is what leads to careless and flat-out wrong deletion decisions. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  20:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I agree with X! above. While I appreciate and give a nod of approval to the vandal fighting and other contributions, I believe that TTTSNB doesn't have the patience and appropriate maturity to deal with disputes with others. --Auger Martel (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, given concerns about maturity/judgment.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The Thing That Should Not Be An Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific reason as to why you are opposing me, or are you just opposing so you can use my username as a bad pun? The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  18:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad pun was an attempt to lighten things up. You do some great work but you do not have the personality to be an admin. This is not an insult, as I would also make a poor admin. I came to this conclusion partly though our interactions, but also by reading the concerns raised above (about you not me). I do hope you will not take this setback too seriously . . . in other words be The Thing That Should Not Be Discouraged. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Adminship is not necessary for vandal fighting, it seems the candidates' behavior would cause more problem than it solves. Campbell Drive (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. The candidate is either quite daft or lacks the communication skills needed to be a good admin. A good admin doesn't need to have extensive content-building experience, but I don't appreciate TTTSNB's content-be-damned comment and refusal to heed the community's advice following the last RfA. Majoreditor (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I opposed too... but I won't let this stand. For one, he's not daft. For another, his comment had nothing whatsoever to do with a sentiment such as "content be damned." It was, as has been explained on this page several times, pointing out that when there's a crapflood of shit threatening to overrun your town, it's all well and good to keep making the buildings beautiful--but you need the guys who are maintaining the walls. Or to put it another way: without guys who come and take away the garbage, we would soon be knee deep in our own filth, and content at that point would not matter. → ROUX   ₪  20:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. I hate this piling on. "Thing" does some great work. A few more nasty comments and I might actually switch to support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, his comment confirmed to me that this RFA is a bloodbath, and if he's capable of handling this RFA (I couldn't handle at all my recent RFA half a day into it, the two I passed, I cracked under the pressure but still passed for one, and the other one the reconfirmation one, I passed easily), he's capable of handling adminship. Thanks Secret account 23:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose based on lack of contributions to the key element of this project: the content. I appreciate that vandal-fighting is important, but I don't think that a pure vandal-fighter is capable of judging and acting on consensus, as is required of admins. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We already have way too many professional Wikipoliticians who contribute little or nothing to content. Sadly, there's no reasonable mechanism to get rid of them, but the least we can do is to keep from appointing more. Moreover the arrogance and immaturity present in some of the diffs given above are not the qualities we need in admins. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are really suggesting that we desysop all active admins who specialist in vandal fighting. I'm sorry, that is going too far. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 05:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we could all quit blocking vandals for a while. I'd imagine it'd take, what, maybe an hour of that to change that attitude real quick. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument. SBHB said "too many professional Wikipoliticians who contribute little or nothing to content" not "admins who specialist [sic] in vandal fighting", These are two different things, and it's important to understand that. Because most of the opposition praise his anti-vandalism work and tell him to keep at it. But it's possible to do this without making it the only thing you do, it's even possible to specialise in this without it being the only thing you do. Also, SBHB said nothing about desysoping all of these users (either specialist anti-vandals, or Wikipoliticians without content creation). They simply said there are too many, and it's a shame we don't have a method of getting rid of them - doesn't sound to me like "we should desysop every last one". @Seraphimblade So now you're creating a hypothetical situation in which we would need The Thing's help, and using that to justify your support, when in reality the situation is nothing like that? Huh. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: I am not going to put content creation or one little error in for my oppose, but it is a combo of little content creation (Which I think only a bit is needed, not a massive amount, like a GA or 2), the strike back another editor comment made from somewhere around oppose number 15, and a little to fast huggling (concerns of not reading the page enough to do a revert, like the night of the 15th I think it was). --  DQ  (t)  (e)  11:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per all the reasons above. -DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I was actually kind of hoping to not oppose this one, but this RFA is scheduled to close in <1 hour, and the candidate hasn't yet answered my question from more than 3 days ago. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But isnt your question stated as optional? Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr.Z-man's support is also optional ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Also note the candidate has 23 additional optional questions. -- Addi hockey  10 <sup style="color:purple;">e-mail  22:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that The Thing That Should Not Be has not answered Q13 and Q24 testifies to his unwillingness to take a stance. The lack of an answer to Q13 shows especially that he is unable to admit his own faults and rebut them. What I seek in an admin candidate is evidence that he can own up to his own flaws.  Goodvac   ( talk ) 22:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 13 is not labeled as optional. So i agree with you, in that, that probably should be answered or some sort of reasoning given. 24 is labeled as optional though, and it just doesnt seem right to fault on that one. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg has it right. Every question is optional, in the sense that one can theoretically pass RFA without answering them. But if I, personally, didn't care about the answer to the question, I wouldn't have bothered to ask it. You probably wouldn't question someone if they opposed because of a bad answer to an "optional" question, I don't see how a non-answer is that different. Mr.Z-man 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, questionable maturity and little article work. --Aqwis (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I don't know. I supported his last RfA, but the answer to question 4 in the last one is rather worrisome. If someone doesn't have the patience to edit articles, I don't know that adminship is for them. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have much content work either. I'm a terrible writer. Does that make me a bad admin? T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not because he doesn't have much content work, it's because, "it's slow and demands too much concentration from me." Admins should not be afraid to do something because it demands too much concentration from them. I'm not sure he's really cut out to make difficult decisions. Still, I voted neutral instead of oppose because in the AV department he has made some fantastic contributions. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to that question is more or less outdated. Nowadays, it's because, well, everything that I would want to write about has already been written about. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  23:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullcrap. So every article you wanted to write about is an FA already? ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I never mentioned anything about how well the article is written. Everything that I would want to write about is already written about, and I can't find, or think of anything to add, or think of ways to make them better. It doesn't matter if it's an FA, or a stub. Maybe someday I'll find something that I haven't thought of yet. 2. Was the "bullcrap" comment really necessary? The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to start articles from scratch, you could always find sources for something or add a decent amount of content to it. I didn't mean to offend, if that's how my comment was taken. All I'm saying is that pretty much every article can be improved. You mentioned that you don't have enough attention for much content editing, but you spend hours upon hours in reverting vandals. Don't get me wrong, that is important, but I'd say content building or collaboration supersedes that. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 00:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view, protecting the reputation of this website is more important than creating content. If all of the content creators were to suddenly disappear, we would still survive with the information we have. But if all of the vandal-fighters disappeared, the wiki would be overrun with vandalism and BLP violations in a matter of days. There are other people creating content that are far better at doing so than I could hope to be. I'll let them create the content, and I'll fight vandals. It's what I enjoy doing. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the vague platitude, but I have to say it: Wikipedia is a team effort. If wikipedia had only article-creators, or only people fine-tuning existing articles for FA, or only vandal-fighters, or only MOS pedants, then Wikipedia would be awful. Wikipedia is good because it has all these people in the team, and wikipedia can only progress in this way. If somebody does exceptionally well in one particular role at the expense of other roles, to me that is a reason to support, not to oppose. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the Neutral section. f o x  23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know why it wound up there, fixed it though. My vote is in oppose now. Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em; color:black;">Talk  23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) No articles. f o x  23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, he does have articles. As far as I know, he created Bridgerland Applied Technology College, Cache School District, and 2010 United States tomato shortage. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral - This user appears to be excellent and patient when fighting vandals. I'm not sure about their other on-wiki interactions yet. Awaiting the answer to question number 6. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to oppose PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I could care less about the lack of articles, but I do have concerns about maturiry. Will mull it over. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with fox. Lack of content contributions doesn't normally bother me, but when of 165,000 edits, they're this limited... Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) See oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still on the fence here. I don't know if I trust you with block and delete just yet. You've improved greatly, but a gut feeling inside me still has qualms. ( X! ·  talk )  · @157  · 02:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to oppose ( X!  ·  talk )  · @802  · 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I greatly support the user when it comes to his ingenious vandal-fighting skills, but his maturity is still kind of an issue. Also, has The Thing ever made RFPP requests since he became highly active? I haven't specifically been searching for those in his contribs. Schfifty  3  03:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I do value vandal fighters, and I have no problem with the majority of edits being automated, anti-vandal work. It's important stuff. But I cannot support a user having the block, delete and protect buttons who places such little value on content work, both in actions and words. I don't rule out an oppose, but cannot oppose in good faith without being more familiar with a candidate's contributions than I currently am. —WFC— 05:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to support 10:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC) #I !voted neutral at the last RfA, and have regretted it ever since.  After hours of late-night Huggle patrolling, I always welcome seeing a revert from The Thing: it means I can go to sleep knowing a vandal fighter much more skilled than I am is looking after Special:RecentChanges.  Furthermore, while I generally would not support a candidate with effectively no content work, the sheer volume and quality of The Thing's edits in his chosen field would be enough for me to ignore this criterion. What gives me pause, unfortunately, are two remarks at this RfA.  Firstly, the diff provided by Vodello does worry me: when faced with a situation such as this, I expect administrators to act in such a way that does not escillate conflict, even if it means not responding to unfair criticism at your expense.  With that remark, The Thing has done quite the opposite.  Secondly, the view (expressed here) that vandalism patrollers are more important than content creators, and particularly the apparent impression that they do more to fix the BLP problem than content creators, worries me.  150,000 vandalism reverts (while valuable) won't reduce the size of Category:Unreferenced BLPs one bit.  I am open (and willing) to being convinced that these remarks are either not indicative of broader problems with judgment, or that my concerns do not sufficently relate to suitability for adminship, but in lieu of that I'll be staying in this section.  -- Lear's Fool 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that was poorly worded ... if the content creators disappeared, there wouldn't be any need for vandalism patrollers since we could just lock the database, or even shut down the site and be done with it. I think he could have communicated the same ideas in a less partisan manner.  I am not worried about TTTSNB carrying on an agenda against content creators, though, as I think we'd have seen evidence of it long before now if he were.  I do urge him to be a bit more cautious when defending himself against criticism, but I've (co-)nominated him despite those issues.   —  Soap  —  14:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Yep, he's been around for a while, and all the administrative areas he intends to take are irrelevant to content creation. So that's why I would have supported in the first place. However, all the tools he plans to take reverse the actions of other editors, especially rollback and delete, which I know he's done for a long time. I wish him good luck if he does get the tools, otherwise, I wish he could contribute to bring our encyclopaedia one step forward.  Minima  c  ( talk ) 09:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Maturity concerns, but not going to be a dick and pile on. Aiken (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - It takes all kinds of people to maintain this project. Editors who are willing to perform maintenance functions are no less important than content creators.  However, the maturity concerns noted in some of the oppose discussions prevent me from supporting at this time.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#FEF7E3;color=#225DC8">Snotty Wong   confess 17:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral to many conflicts of interest here. Best of luck. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)  (moved to oppose)
 * 1) Neutral I'm going to have to agree with Snotty here and a few others in that you are a wonderful person but there are some nagging issues that prevent me from supporting at this time. Please create content and I will support you next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral - the persistence in requesting adminship and strong responses to some opposes are cause for concern. The high level of automated vandal-fighting does not concern me, but possible lack of maturity does. I'm sorry. PrincessofLlyr  royal court 02:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  move to support
 * 1) Neutral I can't really see what way I should go. Buggie111 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. You've been here three times, you've been told no three times and you're still knocking this door. Why? I don't understand. East of Borschov 08:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I don't agree that "1 hour 23 minutes" isn't speedy enough. Also, I'm disappointed by the lack of content creation.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral After contemplating this for a day and a half...I still can't decide. On the one hand, your contributions are valuable and important, and the vandalism fighting, speedy tagging, etc. that you do seems to be accomplished at a generally satisfactory level. I do not think that it is necessary to have extensive content contributions in order to justify administrative privileges. On the other hand, I'm actually rather disappointed in your response to Q11: this was an opportunity to demonstrate a thoughtful approach to a gray area, and many, many admin actions occur within those gray areas. You had a chance to discuss the possible relevance of WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:NOTPAPER, to demonstrate that multiple sources meeting WP:RS are available (I added some from Chicago Sun-Times, Wall Street Journal & The Republican, for example), and prehaps a chance to offer possible merge or expansion ideas (some of which are under discussion at the article's AfD). Furthermore, I actually find Ironhold's oppose (#20) to be compelling, if a bit forceful. Administrative actions and content improvements require thoughtful consideration of divergent opinions and the internalization of community input. I think it likely that you have the capacity for this, but have yet to demonstrate it clearly. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Great user, but lack of content experience concerns me. Tyrol5   [Talk]  19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be on the strict side of the law I'm just asking you to confirm that you're changing your vote, as you still have an un-cancelled support !vote above.  —  Soap  —  20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been indented and crossed out. Thanks, Tyrol5   [Talk]  01:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I haven't participated in one of his RfAs since the one before last, but I have given this a think about. While I have been historically sympathetic to those seeking adminship without a massive content creation history, if I was in the candidate's shoes I would have tried to diversify a bit more before coming back to RfA. I do however respect the work The Thing That Should Not Be does for the project and think it is of equal importance to content creation. I have read what the opposers and supporters have to say, I always do, and overall I would say that the arguments made by represent my potential concerns the best, particularly on stress issues. Overall, I will review the issue a bit more against my RfA criteria before either staying neutral or moving to support/oppose. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Switching to support. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Great counter-vandalism work. You clearly are dedicated to Wikipedia, and I think that you'd make good use of the sysop tools. However, I'm not so sure about your judgment. You have failed four RfAs before this one, and that shows me that you don't have a very good sense of the community. I'm also not convinced that you truely know what the role of an administrator is. Sorry, Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it's 3 RfA's... the first one is a redirect caused by a misunderstanding of how I was supposed to do things back then. And, what makes you think that I don't know what an administrator is? May I ask what you think what I think an administrator is? The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  00:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. The ideal administrator should be someone who is willing to spend a considerable amount of time doing behind the scenes stuff on Wikipedia, getting little to no recognition for their work, and who are trusted to use good judgment when making calls such as blocking vandals. Being an administrator is not a promotion, in a sense it is a demotion, and some of your actions, including having now four RfAs, show me that you might consider it to be more of a promotion or status position. You are obviously experienced on Wikipedia, as your two years and 165,000 edits indicate, but even still I am hesitant to support you. I'll think about it more, though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with, and respect the concept that admins, for all intents and purposes, work for the community to maintain the encyclopedia. Admins don't make policies unilaterally, the community, which does include the admins themselves, make said policies. It is the job of an admin to carry out the responsibilities set out by the community... The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  01:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the "job" of an admin, primarily, to preform certain tasks that the majority of the community cannot do. While admins should "carry out the responsibilities set out by the community", the emphasis should be put more on the fact that the admins are just another part of the community. Putting too much of a difference between users and administrators is not a good thing, as it contributes to the much believed and practised theory that adminship is some kind of trophy for good work done, or that it is some kind of position of power over other users. While you might not have it to either of those extremes, I'm not entirely sure that you see it exactly as it should be. Beyond that, I'm neutral on this RfA. My own personal doubts are not a significant enough reason to oppose, so best of luck to you. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn - I came here expecting to support, but the more serious maturity issues brought up by the opposers concern me too much. IMHO, however, opposing over a lack of content contribs is just wrong – maturity is one thing, but the ridiculous amounts of anti-vandal work prove that he is dedicated to the project and is qualified to be an admin. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to support to cancel out some of the more egregious opposes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) neutral - not a fan of automated editing that is not a bot that can be reviewed and reversed easily. Also, user doesn't seem to need administrative tools for increased participation in the project.  Also, the lack of response to folks concerns on the past 5 rfa's.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my post here, where I state that Huggle is hardly "automated". And, I have only had 3 previous RfA's, not 5. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  20:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huggle is only semi-automated, and its edits can indeed be both reviewed and reversed easily. I can only assume you have never used it, in which case I say what apparently I have to say here on an almost daily basis: it is preferable for opinions to be preceded by knowledge. → ROUX   ₪  23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral (moved from oppose moved from neutral). Still don't like the underlying tone of this edit which caused me to switch from neutral in the first place and my point above in the oppose section (which I've chosen to merely indent and not strike out) still stands. That said, I don't think leaving my !vote in a pile-on oppose section does any good. I'd like to, as many others have done, encourage you to work more in article space – hit me up if you want any guidance or anything on where to start. It doesn't even have to be an area you know about—I created American Samoa constitutional referendum, 2010 from scratch without knowing any background to it. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) What is wrong with you people? Wasn't going to comment, but I'm very irked by the complete misunderstanding of the meaning and truth of this. People took it as some sort of arrogant declaration, but it is a simple truth. If all the big "hugglers" left, Wikipedia would have major, possibly lasting problems within hours. Still, I'm sorry to say I can't support, mainly per the various concerns raised by IShadowed.--Res2216firestar 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You know we survived for seven years without Huggle, right? – iridescent  18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @iridescent:I think he/she means without vandal fighters in general. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and back then Wikipedia wasn't the monster it is today.  Nolelover  It's football season!  18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And even back then, 2005 was a bad year for vandalism as I understand it, made only worse when User:RickK retired. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  18:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And back then vandal-fighters were appreciated for their time defending the content, rather than passed off as little more than robots.--Res2216firestar 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gurch allowed public access to Huggle in June 2008; Wikipedia at that time had 2.4 million articles and 4,350 active users. We now have 3.4 million articles, and 3,868 active users; although the page count has risen, if anything Wikipedia was far more active back then. – iridescent  18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except we have just as much vandalism as back then, if not more. 4channers, bored school-children, etc... a lot of them will remain while the constructive editors continue to fall off. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  18:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The politics here has gotten many times worse since 2008, that's where I would attribute the drop in active users. Does it have anything to do with Huggle, countervandalism, or any of that? I don't think so. If anything, many users have a niche when they wouldn't be helping the project otherwise.--Res2216firestar 18:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Iridescent: Where did you get those numbers? Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 04:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd be interested too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cas, you at least should know; from the WMF's own statistics page. As of the end of August, we have 36,779 occasional (5–100 edits per month) editors, and 3,868 active (100+ edits per month) editors. – iridescent  19:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article work is easy to find, but I'm also wondering about the active users. Btw I used to be an active vandalism fighter and I still do so occationally, and the amount of vandalism is little compared to 2007. Secret account 18:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also RickK never retired in 2005, he just had two accounts, the other account "retired" in 2007 even though he made it obvious, he was so respected that no one really cared, only when the second account retired is when people started started calling for desysopping. Both accounts was "hacked" by a respected user, and accounts were desysopped quickly. A major lost for the vandalism fighters was the lost of User:Curps. Secret account 18:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But these things haven't changed: Wikipedia is a high-profile website where most articles are open to editing by anyone, the rate of vandalism is still quite high, and if all that vandalism was allowed to get through without being watched by the RC patrol (to use the old term), it would take a lot of review and effort to recover to where we were before. Whatever technological measures short of a complete lockdown are implemented in the future, there will still be the need for humans to review diffs and decide whether they are vandalism or not.--Res2216firestar 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) neutral concerns over speedying potentially good articles, also no content work despite more than one reminder, leading me to worry about communication. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I don't feel sufficiently vehemently either way about this to join one of the warring factions, so: (i) I am unconcerned about the lack of content creation when you have such evident and useful skills elsewhere. And, even as someone much more on the content creation side, I think what you've said about the importance of vandal fighting is perfectly fair enough. (ii) I am nonetheless slightly sympathetic to the argument that after four prior RfAs returned a consensus that you should do more, you should probably either have done some or expressed up-front why you didn't intend to. (iii) The evidence provided of "immaturity" looks pretty storm-in-a-teacup to me; not strong enough grounds for me to oppose. (iv) My feelings about your response to the speedy deletion question are more or less the same as those Boing! said Zebedee reports. So... on balance, I've ended up down here. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning towards Support. I'd have liked to support. I don't think creating lots of high quality content is essential for an administrator (though I think that those who do create such content are far more important to Wikipedia than the administrators). I feel that being able to listen to the community is essential, and that's why I can't yet support. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Moving from oppose, as I simply can't justify opposing this editor.  Nolelover  It's football season!  01:16, 26 October 2010 (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.