Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thomas.W

Talk page manner
Administrators are seen by many, especially newcomers, as the management, and even role models of how Wikipedians should behave.

At his talk archives, as we all do, editors say "please" a lot. It keeps things friendly. Thomas' edits do not keep things friendly:
 * Archive 3: Thomas said "please" 3 times out of 70 responses
 * Archive 4: 1 out of 50 responses
 * Archive 5: 0 out of 80

Please do not mistake counting for nitpicking. I am trying to illustrate the manner of his edits.

Further, incivility doesn't just chase away editors, it encourages socks and trolls. Instead of many occurences of the word "please", I see plenty of raised voice nots. Here are posts that I find may bite and chase away editors or antagonize problematic editors, and both of those things hurt the project. I've given dates to search because they are on the same page and the response to post can be easily seen. This manner is consistent throughout his talk page archives, so I just list some from Archive 3:

Archive 3:
 * 10:13, 19 September 2013
 * 20:07, 23 September 2013
 * 09:07, 29 September 2013
 * 21:45, 12 October 2013 (potential pot calling the kettle black)
 * 16:32, 9 November 2013
 * 18:00, 2 November 2013
 * 16:09, 12 November 2013
 * 22:33, 21 November 2013

Wikipedia is a society, and one where civility is very important. When regular people in society show meanness, heavy-handedness, bullying, etc. it is hard to take. But, when figures in authority and those who have power over you do it, it is just terrible. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thomas. I encourage you to respond to this. It is the only reason I oppose. You do good work. Is there something you can say to help me change my mind? And please do not be upset by my comments. It is about your posts. For all I know, you may be the nicest person on Earth, and this is just the way you communicate at Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is found after some research that this type of behavior appears due to extensive and prolonged anti-vandalism activity.  Jim Car ter  10:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting a possible explanation, but not an excuse, right? Anyway, with some, maybe. But this manner is consistent from day one, so not true in his case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a very nice person both off-wiki and when dealing with editors who are here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately being nice doesn't work with the kind of people who I deal with 99% of my time here: POV-pushers, vandals and spammers. To them "please" is a sign of softness, and an encouragement to continue what they're doing, so the only way to stop them is to be firm, and frank. Wikipedia needs both the "please" kind of editors, and the "stop/not" kind of editors, like me, and you can't judge one category by the standards of the other, as the majority of the no !voters have done, paying more attention to a few frank responses to proven spammers and vandals, than to what I have done to protect the encyclopaedia. What matters is that the "stop/not" kind of editors can tell if someone they're dealing with is a constructive editor or a destructive editor, and I feel I can do that. Thomas.W talk 10:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Too much "stop/not" behavior makes people harsh even towards editor who are just confused newbies.  Jim Car ter  11:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thomas, I'd suggest you review the five pillars: civility is right up there alongside NPOV — that's why people are concerned. Speaking only for myself, your theory of Wikipedia editor classes does not alleviate those concerns. benmoore 11:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , I've supported and expect to stay there, but Anna does raise a valid point and her vote is just as valid as mine. Let me offer you this to think about:  When you have the admin tools, there usually isn't a reason to be gruff.  I can simply say "Look, I really don't want to see you get blocked, but if you keep reverting back and forth without discussing, that is what will happen.  You need to just stop editing for a day and use the talk page, work it out.".  Instead of "If you keep edit warring, you WILL be BLOCKED!".  There are two reasons why the first is better, even if you aren't an admin.  One, if you are 100% right on the merits, then you can speak with authority knowing that an admin will back you up and block them, so you don't need to be blunt.  Second, the purpose of the post isn't to exert authority, it is to produce a change in their behavior.  The first is more likely to do that.  For starters, it isn't a canned reply, it treats them like a human, it is less threatening thus making them less defensive.  To get the admin bit, you have to show that you can do these things before you get it.  Another reason is that by reacting harshly, you actually make it more likely they will continue.


 * And being nice does work. I can be sharp or blunt at times, there are times when that is the right thing, but most of the time, I'm quite pleasant up until and ever after I block you. Why? Because it isn't personal, I don't know them, I'm just protecting the encyclopedia.  I can't make judgements on their character, only their actions. I have over 1700 blocks behind me, and have received very little grief over them, very little vandalism to my user pages, because I try to stay calm and polite.  I have actually received "thank you, you were right and you were nice about it" notes from them afterwards.  I don't always succeed, but I try.  When I see a serial vandal, I just block and say nothing.  Or if it is a first edit for an IP, I will just quietly revert and keep their contrib page open to make sure it isn't a pattern.  I don't need to prove to them that "vandalizing is wrong!", that is kind of dumb.  Obviously they know that, and that is why they are doing it.  In some cares with reg'ed accts, I have left short notes saying "Look, I'm glad you got an account and hope you find a place here and enjoy editing, but if you keep doing these silly vandalism edits, you will just get blocked.  Go check out WP:Teahouse......" with the goal of not only preventing vandalism, but turning someone around.  One of our most recent admin started as a vandal like that years ago, so yeah, it happens.  If they are a vandal, my goal isn't to be "right", it is to quietly clean up the place, mop up, and behave in a way that makes future vandalism less likely, not more likely.  If you feed them, they will certainly come back.  Dennis - 2&cent; 15:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a very calm person, etc., but as I wrote in my answer to Q3 particularly persistent and obnoxious vandals do make me feel frustrated, because unlike you I can't block, and be done with it, all I can do is revert, warn and report, to a noticeboard that very often is backlogged. An example of a vandal attack that did make me feel frustrated is the attack on Rochelle Humes (page history), a BLP, on 15 November, where Evlekis, IIRC, repeatedly posted grossly insulting racist material using multiple socks (and on more than one article, not only Rochelle Humes). It was a type of vandalism that is instantly blockable, but all I could do was revert and report. All of the socks were blocked indefinitely later, after being reverted multiple times, and not only by me, but they could have been blocked much earlier, with much less clean-up required (all the edits were rev'deled), if I had had the tools. And, as you well know, but most other editors don't know since they never see it, that type of attack happens somewhere here on en-WP virtually every day, all year round. Thomas.W talk 15:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I trust you, keep in mind, I'm still supporting and have no desire to change that vote. I'm just giving you the perspective of someone who supports you but understands the other side.  If you think THAT was frustrating, wait until you get the bit.  You will experience frustration on a level you've never seen.  Having the tools doesn't mean you can always use them. Wait until someone gets in a personal argument with you and starts calling you names, and then technically it might look like you are "involved" so you can't act, and seemingly every other person with an admin bit is out back taking a smoke break leaving you twisting in the wind...then two of their friends jump in, and you are just standing there getting busted in the chops, being called an "abuse adminz!" at ANI, etc.  It WILL happen, and you will run out of cheeks to turn, so you just have to take it for a while.  Sucks to be an admin sometimes, particularly when you work vandalism/socks/edit warring areas. The point is, having the tools brings more frustration than not having them.  And temptation to use them.  So even if I disagree with Anna's overall assessment, I find no fault in her logic, just merit in her concerns.  There is no right or wrong, just opinions.  What I'm hoping is my comments will just give you a comparison, some perspective outside the "oppose" box.  Take a look at the most recently accepted Arb admin case, and it is easy to see where the pulse is. Dennis - 2&cent; 16:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gee, Dennis, thanks for the flashbacks. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As my previous comment was reverted, I'll just say this: I have no idea why any editor files an RFA ever. Particularly when ANY part of your interactions w/vandals & trolls can be used to impugn an editor's history and derail said hypothetical RFA. LHMask me a question 19:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Vote count
Two votes on each side appear to have been entered subsequent to the withdrawal Noyster  (talk),  19:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mine was added just before, though I don't think it matters. I added to it afterwards, not realizing that Tom had already walked away, otherwise I would have left it alone. I wasn't going to say anything about it unless someone brought it up, so this seems as good a place as any to apologize for the subsequent comment. Ivanvector (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was one of those, too. I also hadn't seen that Thomas had withdrawn (wish I had seen ot, because it now just seems like an unnecessary pile on, especially in the light of his retirement now). In any case, technically speaking, an RFA is not over until it has been closed. There have been no edits after the closure. --Randykitty (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)