Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 2

Editing stats
Editing stats for Thumperward at 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC):

General user info Username: Thumperward User groups: rollbacker First edit: Nov 13, 2005 12:13:31 Unique articles edited: 12,278 Average edits per page: 3.36 Total edits (including deleted): 41,241 Deleted edits: 107 Live edits: 41,134

Namespace totals Article	22660	55.09% Talk	7290	17.72% User	300	0.73% User talk	2604	6.33% Wikipedia	1487	3.62% Wikipedia talk	753	1.83% File	17	0.04% File talk	2	0.00% MediaWiki talk	6	0.01% Template	4439	10.79% Template talk	1501	3.65% Help	10	0.02% Help talk	2	0.00% Category	41	0.10% Category talk	10	0.02% Portal	7	0.02% Portal talk	5	0.01%

Month counts 2005/11	2	2005/12	21	2006/01	35	2006/02	9	2006/03	120	2006/04	119	2006/05	179	2006/06	103	2006/07	432	2006/08	589	2006/09	512	2006/10	739	2006/11	417	2006/12	261	2007/01	826	2007/02	368	2007/03	897	2007/04	1001	2007/05	603	2007/06	837	2007/07	1382	2007/08	1198	2007/09	1461	2007/10	1842	2007/11	569	2007/12	1989	2008/01	1631	2008/02	523	2008/03	1035	2008/04	1025	2008/05	985	2008/06	1126	2008/07	2840	2008/08	2243	2008/09	1944	2008/10	2450	2008/11	2359	2008/12	2530	2009/01	1374	2009/02	2030	2009/03	528

Logs Pages moved: 855 Files uploaded: 9 Top edited articles Article

* 439 - Linux * 195 - Ubuntu * 169 - PHP * 127 - Japanese_sword * 92 - KFC * 82 - Al_Gore * 80 - GNOME * 76 - Planescape:_Torment * 73 - Valerie_Plame * 65 - Wikipedia

Talk

* 415 - Linux * 74 - Al_Gore * 62 - Ubuntu * 58 - Association_football * 55 - Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy * 54 - Guinea_pig * 49 - GNOME * 43 - PHP * 41 - Homeopathy * 41 - Scientology

User

* 62 - Thumperward * 29 - Thumperward/monobook.js   * 16 - Thumperward/monobook.css * 11 - Edokter/sandbox * 11 - P.B._Pilhet/UBX/Evolution * 10 - Tealwisp/Space_Marine_Chapters * 9 - Abd/MKR_(programming_language) * 7 - Malik_Shabazz/Userboxes/Emma_Goldman * 5 - SharkD/Sandbox/VG_Reviews_1 * 4 - TheHoosierState89/Userboxes

User talk

* 933 - Thumperward * 31 - A_Nobody * 18 - Edokter * 11 - Protonk * 11 - Wknight94/Archive_17 * 11 - Pigsonthewing * 10 - Grant.Alpaugh * 10 - Sardanaphalus * 9 - Hulagutten * 9 - MBisanz/Archive_8

Wikipedia

* 124 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 107 - Requests_for_page_protection * 101 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 39 - Village_pump_(policy) * 32 - Requested_moves * 28 - Village_pump_(technical) * 28 - Administrators'_noticeboard * 21 - Requests_for_adminship/Thumperward * 19 - WikiProject_Football * 14 - Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_21

Wikipedia talk

* 168 - WikiProject_Football * 72 - Manual_of_Style * 52 - WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons * 31 - WikiProject_Video_games * 24 - WikiProject_Warhammer_40,000 * 17 - WikiProject_Stub_sorting * 15 - What_Wikipedia_is_not * 15 - Template_messages/Cleanup * 14 - WikiProject_Firearms * 11 - Notability_(fiction)

File

* 3 - Screenshot_tmsnc.png * 2 - Ultrasonic_cleaner_copy.jpg * 1 - ASMDrun.PNG * 1 - ASMDshootdemo.PNG * 1 - Sprmn&Venomcutscene.PNG * 1 - ActiveDirectoryMMC.png * 1 - Vim_splash_screen.png * 1 - AsMDNormal.PNG * 1 - ASMDTitle.PNG * 1 - Rugbycurrent.png

File talk

* 1 - Replace_this_image.svg * 1 - DesertStormMap_v2.svg

MediaWiki talk

* 3 - Common.css * 2 - Monobook.css * 1 - Uploadtext

Template

* 108 - Infobox_user * 70 - Infobox_Football_biography_2 * 42 - Infobox_football_club * 40 - Infobox_Islands * 32 - Infobox_computer_hardware * 31 - Infobox_Spacecraft * 29 - Infobox_football_match * 29 - Infobox_Stadium * 27 - Infobox3cols * 26 - Infobox_football_league

Template talk

* 50 - Infobox_VG * 50 - Infobox * 42 - Infobox_football_club * 36 - Infobox_Football_biography * 33 - Convert * 29 - FreeContentMeta * 28 - Infobox_Company * 28 - Navbox * 27 - Infobox_Film * 23 - External_media

Help

* 5 - Special_characters * 2 - Multilingual_support_(Indic) * 1 - Section * 1 - Archiving_a_talk_page * 1 - Japanese

Help talk

* 1 - Merging_and_moving_pages * 1 - Section

Category

* 3 - Football_(soccer)_stubs * 3 - Sharp_X68000 * 3 - Articles_containing_how-to_sections * 2 - Eldar_(Warhammer_40,000) * 2 - Football_(soccer)_video_games * 2 - Tolkien_articles_that_need_to_differentiate_betwee... * 2 - Cold_War_American_armored_fighting_vehicles * 1 - WikiProject_Greyhawk_templates * 1 - Self-publishing_online_stores * 1 - Dungeons_&_Dragons_templates

Category talk

* 7 - Articles_containing_how-to_sections * 2 - Urban_legends * 1 - Football_(soccer)

Portal

* 2 - Free_software/Task_list * 2 - Free_software/Intro * 2 - Free_software/Related_portals * 1 - Free_software/Topics

Portal talk

* 5 - Free_software

AfD table
I've reformatted the table placed in his oppose:

Note that there are two inaccuracies in the data: Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars was merge and not keep as posted, and Orlando (footballer) was redirect and not keep as posted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me....
Or do anyone noticed all the first time RFA commenters here, I feel something, but from where it comes from? Secret account 16:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you type that with your face?! Skomorokh  16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, be nice. You never know when the way someone types or writes is a function of dysfunction or language barrier, best not to criticise too harshly! Avruch  T 17:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the small error, my grammar is horrible because of a mild case of dylexsia, especially when I'm typing in a hurry. My fault. Secret account 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is, indeed, the first time that I have commented in an RFA. I can't speak for anyone else, but I saw a note at WT:DND, posted by (not Chris/Thumperward), about the RFA and came to voice my opinion, since I've been in discussions with Chris in the past. I don't think that that counts as canvassing, since Chris didn't himself post it or ask BOZ to post it (to my knowledge), but I thought I'd mention it. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about you, sorry if you got confused, it's about some of the oppose section. Many of these editors seemed to have been canvassed to this RFA from a off-wiki website. Secret account 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By definition, it would seem, you cannot be part of SECRET's conspiracy unless you opposed the motion. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... okay. I wasn't sure if it was the Support or the Oppose section, or both. But I agree that there could possibly be something off-wiki. I know its an arbitrary number of edits, but I see at least 3 opposers with <250 contributions, as well as some who have more edits than that but the first 250 are spread out over about a year. (I did only a quick look for those stats; please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't mean to be negative or anything, but I'm not sure how anyone with that number of edits can have a good enough grasp of Wikipedia policy to oppose an RFA. AFD? Yes. But not RFA.
 * Random speculation: Perhaps there's some (GNU?)/Linux site that someone posted on because they saw the RFA. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well. Guess it doesn't really matter now. Maybe next time, Chris. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It does matter, if canvassing is found, the RFA likely has to be restarted, I did a quick google check and found nothing, but many blogs aren't covered on google. Maybe someone with access to the big Linux blogs can find a link to the canvassing. Secret account 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked and looked and looked... and discounting the sections that specifically refer to SPA accounts and Socks, I was unable to find the section in Wikipedia that required that an editor have some minimum amount of edits in order to voice an opinion. Please, if you can locate for me, could you share it? Having only 8,000+ edits, maybe I don't qualify either. Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've done the research, could you list who exactly were first-time RfA folks that commented here? This was only my 3rd or 4th and looking at a few of the opposes I didn't see anyone who seemed out-of-place here.  I also looked over the supports and saw nothing too unusual. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An RfA is a good chance for the more ardent inclusionists to get revenge a say on an admin candidate they've noticed deleting things at AfD. But the same goes for people who prefer content creator admins, new page patrollers, cautious CSDers. Seems like a healthy part of !elections and !democracy. Phil153 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rarely have I read such a crock of shit before. Imagine one of the opposers had written in the same manner as above: ''Is it just me or has anyone noticed the conspiracy of supporters of this motion? I feel something. At least several of the supporters once had exactly 666 edits to their names. Go figure! As well as some who have more edits than that but the first 250 are spread out over about a year and it's far too convenient that 666 > 250, y'know! Not only that but some of those supporters agree about other things too - that can't just be coincidence, surely? Maybe someone with access to the (secret?) big anti-GNU/Linux blogs can find a link to the canvassing? I reckon quite a few of them are left handed!'' Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the result isn't how the supporters like it they'll just have to declare it null and void and do it again after disenfranchising anyone who doesn't agree with them. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rarely have I read such a crock of shit before.
 * I must be connected to a different Internet.
 * It is an unusual RfA with a number of rare RfA contributors who also happen to be very ardent inclusionists. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with it if the closing crat found their arguments valid, and this wasn't a pass even discounting those inclusionists.  Phil153 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not even about the inclusionists, most of them participated in RFA before anyways, it's about editors such as, which I'm wondering how did you discover this RFA, and never participated in one before, , whom has sock written on him, , who was mostly inactive in top of that,  which has 20 edits, , less than 200 edits, inactive first RFA,  first RFA, inactive, been in the project for a while, , , first ever RFA edits, , first RFA in yea and , first RFA in 4 years!, this is obviously a canvassed/sock infected RFA. Those are the ones that I first checked, there are likely more. Secret account 15:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's disgraceful! SECRET did not inform me this RFA was going on, why was that?  What nefarious purpose was there to keep this poll SECRET from me?  I had to discover it by other means and it seems I ought not to have done so!  It's a scandal!  Lucky I've now managed to participate in an RFA before SECRET succeeds in introducing the rule that says you can only participate in an RFA if you've done so before, and you're on SECRET's side.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that (pretty active on Internet/DNS/IP articles) has interacted with Thumperward (e.g.  here) so IMO it was perfectly reasonable for him to join the RfA. Maybe a few of the other editors you list might be in the same position. For that matter, I don't often vote in RfAs either: Phil153 is quite right to say this was an unusual one. - Pointillist (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC) & updated 12:32, 18 March 2009.


 * I dunno, some of those don't look suspicious, and I'm not seeing a common thread (i.e. linux junkies). Could just be talk page stalkers and assorted villains who've had a run in with his bold editing style.  It's not inconceivable that some would come out the woodwork now.  Google and Wikipedia searches aren't turning up any hint of canvassing.  Worth looking at though. Phil153 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was done via email through Wikipedia, there isn't going to be any obvious record of it, is there?Khanaris (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since my username was invoked in a conspiracy theory, note that screwup usually beats conspiracy.
 * I have always edited only a few articles, but I read my watchlist nearly every day. CC turned up in one of those few articles. Since we had a history as I explained, I checked his talk and found he had just begun his RFA_2. Bad luck? Not really. CC is –what in show biz is called– overexposed. Given his perceived heavy deletionism, he has edited way too many articles, and so gathered lots of opponents. This is not a way to succeed at RFA, because statistically some significant percentage of them will show up.
 * I told him last year that I had become disillusioned with un*x articles due to OS rivalry. CC recently said they had caused him a lot of grief, and I have a sympathetic general sense of what happened to him.
 * WP is very political, and the Jimbо thing was just bad politics. I agree with CC's, et al's, point in theory, yet Jimbо has wisely been trying to cool off the internecine struggle that caused me to leave that topic. CC seemed to be standing on his rights rather than being helpful. I had earlier provided him a clue that the OS rivalry needs to be chilled, because the real threat of unfriendly un*x divisivness is the opportunity for software patenting sponsored by the big OS players.
 * When an editor is on my ten worst encounters list, I usually find a long trail of broken glass at ANI and elsewhere. Surprisingly I didn't find that, noticed CC did seem to be improving, so I decided to helpfully outline what he could do to prevent future problems of the kind we had. Milo 08:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)