Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

ThaddeusB

Final: (117/2/7); closed as successful by Taxman at 16:51, 29 Jul 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) – Here, we have ThaddeusB. ThaddeusB has made over 10,000 edits (including deleted ones) in many, many parts of the wiki. I've known Thaddeus for a while, and I first saw him in the BRFA process when he was submitting a request for WebCiteBOT. When I saw him, I was impressed at his level of communication. He showed that he is capable of having rational, civil conversations with other users. Since then, I've seen Thaddeus around everywhere on the wiki, and I've been thoroughly impressed. I've checked through all of his contributions, and I don't find any problems.

ThaddeusB has been to most parts of the wiki and back. He maintains three bots, DeadLinkBOT, WebCiteBOT, and WikiStatsBOT. All three are active, and none have ever been blocked. Not only is he a great bot operator, but he has also gone around all the prodded articles that are about to be deleted, and he has made sure that they are actually able to be deleted. If they aren't, he removed the tag, and often times improves the article. To be honest, Thaddeus is the only person that I've noticed doing that. Additionally, most of the articles that he dePRODded that got sent to AfD have been kept, showing that he has good judgement skills.

Besides his work on rescuing articles, he has made great strides to improve already existing articles. He has made over 200 edits to the AWB typos page, and has made over 1500 gnome edits with AWB. He has made over 50% of his edits to the mainspace, and has done great strides in improving the Sarah Palin and Political positions of Sarah Palin articles.

I hope that the community agrees with me that Thaddeus is ready for the mop. (X! · talk)  · @285  ·  05:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Juliancolton: X! covered the basics, but I'd like to add a bit as well. I first encountered ThaddeusB while working on swine-flu related articles, and I was immediately impressed by his work. I then noticed his work at PROD, and was further impressed. ThaddeusB has became increasingly prominent within the community during recent months; he participates in, as far as I can tell, nearly all major processes. Especially worthy of note are his "votes" at XfD, which are incredibly accurate and well-informed. In closing AfDs, I've noticed several cases where his posts have influenced the entire discussion.

ThaddeusB is not a serial FA or GA writer; instead, he often focuses on bringing pages in jeopardy of deletion pages up to standard, something which in my opinion demonstrates a solid understanding of the project's goals. Indeed, the articles he does improve are of quite high quality.

Additionally, from what I've seen, the candidate adheres to all policies whenever possible, but he has common sense, as well. To sum it all up, I feel ThaddeusB is truly the model of a modern Wikipedian. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to have the support of two people who I look up to and will humbly accept the nomination. As an RfA "voter" I like to see thoughtful answers, and will answer my own RfA questions accordingly. I apologize in advance if my answers are overly detailed, long, and/or boring. I will gladly welcome both "quiz" questions and ones that seek insight to the way I think. I only ask that questioners make it clear whether they are looking for my understanding of current policy or my opinion about what policy should be. I welcome opposes, but ask that people refrain from opposing (or supporting) based on my personal opinions, as I am not running to "set policy." I will refrain from responding to any !votes except to correct an inaccuracy, or unless specifically asked to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: In short, I am accepting this nomination so that I can do what I already do a little more efficiently.

My primary activity on Wikipedia over the last few months has been patrolling expiring proposed deletions. Often times the articles I am examining are technically expired. If I had the ability to delete them myself it would save someone else the effort of doing so. Also while PROD patrolling, I sometimes find articles that are copyright violations or otherwise eligible for speedy deletion. If my RfA is successful, I will "upgrade" these articles to speedy deletion.

On rare occasions, I find that the ability to move a page without creating a redirect would be useful, as would the ability to move a page over a redirect. Of course, it isn't a big deal to {{db-r3}}/{{db-move}} such pages, but it wouldn't hurt to save someone the trouble of coming behind me to speedy delete the pages.

I am also willing to help out with admin backlogs from time to time, and may someday switch my focus to other administrative areas outside of PROD. Thus, I welcome "quizzing" on any admin-related topic.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I would have to say my best contribution to Wikipedia so far was writing WebCiteBOT. This bot contributes a valuable service by reducing the amount of references lost to link rot, and required quite a bit of time - and some direct communication with Gunther Eysenbach - to get right. Even after the bot was approved I continued to carefully review its contributions and make tweaks to the code to prevent the occasional very oddly formatted reference from getting messed up by the bot.

Throughout my time on Wikipedia I have usually tried to help out where help is most needed rather than do what is easiest. For example, when I did anti-vandalism work I would load up Huggle and let it sit for a while. As time progressed, other people would take care of the most obvious vandalism and the list would fill up with changes that were mostly good, but still contained some uncaught vandalism. I would search these changes for common, but low-profile, targets such as high schools and lists of people known for X. I was able to catch some pretty bad vandalism that had gone unnoticed for hours this way.

It is my desire to help out where help is most needed that has made PROD patrolling a good fit for me. Currently, very few people look at PRODs which means that usually a PROD isn't contested unless someone who was looking at the article any way or the article's creator spots the template and decides to remove it. A typical day sees 50-80 expiring PRODS, of which about 10% are actually notable topics. An additional 5-10% aren't independently notable, but are worthy of being turned into redirect to a notable topic and sometimes merged. I would like to think that my "saving" (and often times improving) these articles is a net benefit to the encyclopedia.

I am not primarily an article writer, but have written a decent amount of original material as part of the dePROD activities. I understand that some may oppose based on me not having any GA/FA credits and I respect that. I would just like to say that we all have different strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, focusing on our individual strengths rather than all trying to do the same thing is what makes Wikipedia work so well.

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: I was a very active contributor to two very high profile, and potentially emotional, articles when they first made headlines. Sarah Palin was one of the very first articles I became involved with. Although my interest was not political, people would see I was one of the most active contributors and accuse me of bias on a regular basis. (What they failed to realize was that the vast majority of edits were to fix grammar/spelling/formatting or improve article flow, and not to add or remove content.) For the most part, I tried to let such complaints bounce off me, but I am only human and eventually they got to me. When one particular editor was getting very nasty, I went directly to his talk page and asked him nicely to please stop talking about me and to focus on the article. This helped and I had no further serious issues.

Many months later, I became very active in the early stage of the 2009 swine flu outbreak articles. Again there was some emotional conflict on the talk pages and this time I tried to help mediate the situation. Abecedare saw fit to award me with a barnstar for "the even-keeled sensibility you bring to the hourly 'emergencies' that arise at the article/template talk pages", so I guess I did a fairly good job.

In general, I have found the best way to reduce conflict is through direct communication at individual editor's talk pages. Whenever I have offended someone (and was aware of it), I have always apologized at their talk page and tried to explain that my comments were not intended to be taken personally. In the event direct communication fails to calm a situation, I would probably walk away and let a previously uninvolved party work things out.

Optional questions from KillerChihuahua

4. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?

A: According to a literal reading of the rules, there are two situations where a fully protected page can be editing: 1) a proposed change has clear consensus or 2) a proposed change is clearly non-controversial. However, we shouldn't be blind slaves to the rules, and in practice an admin can make non-controversial changes (such as spelling corrections or fixing a broken reference) without having to propose them first. Additionally, I believe it would be appropriate for an admin to remove clear vandalism and copyright violations without seeking consensus.

5. An article is on Afd, nominated as a violation of BLP1E. The subject is a one-off from another, notable, article subject. The views are more or less evenly divided between "Keep" and "Merge or delete". When pressed for rationale, the Keeps respond that the subject is not attempting to remain private, and has been on Letterman, although they concede he has only done the One thing (Two if you count being on Letterman talking about the One thing, and many of the Keep views DO count Letterman.) How will you close this Afd?

A: I would have to review the exact arguments made to be certain, but this certainly sounds like a merge close. We should try to PRESERVE content whenever possible, but that can be better accomplished (policy wise) with a merge in cases like these. Additionally, leaving a redirect potentially helps readers find information.

I do not think one media appearance (or even several) as a direct result of being part of some event violates the "essentially ... low-profile individual" part of BLP1E, as such appearances are quite common. That is, they are part of the news coverage surrounding the event. BLP1E would not longer apply if the individual continued to gives interviews, make appearances, etc. long after the event itself had left the headlines.

Optional questions from Ottava Rima

6. When is it acceptable to use a fair use picture of a living person?

A: The guidelines on this issue essentially amount to "very rarely" and I agree with that for a couple reasons. We should strive to use only free content whenever possible. With images, that is not always possible since the understanding of a topic may be substantially improved by the addition of a copyrighted image under fair use law. However, when a subject is still living the addition of a copyrighted image is not appropriate since such an image can almost always be replaced by a free one.

Even if allowed by law, a non-free image shouldn't be used when replaceable because the lack of image is an implicit call to add one. If we used a non-free image, we would be substantially less likely to motivate a photographer to go out and take one of the subject.

In my opinion, rare exceptions can be made for people that are still living but unlikely to yield a usable free image. An example of this might be a person who is permanently hospitalized/home-bound, or someone whose notability is directly related to his or her former "good looks."

7. Say two people have been combative at an article for a long time. They both start edit warring. One only makes 3 reverts while the other makes 4. Would you use blocks in this situation or how would you handle it?

A: For my answer, I will assume that both parties are simply hitting revert and not making any real attempt at comprise through changed wording or otherwise. I will also assume that the dispute is not over a gross violation of BLP or other problem that could make the reverts justified (I would still intervene regardless, but might act differently in those cases)...

I would not immediately block either party unless there were extenuating circumstance, such as personal attacks after a warning not to do so. The person at 3 reverts is no less in the the wrong than the one with 4, as both are edit warring - 3RR is only a guideline to help judge edit warring, and is not the definition of it. Instead of going straight to blocks, I would attempt to resolve this situation through direct contact with both offending parties, explaining to them that their actions were not acceptable and it doesn't matter who is "right." I would tell them that they both needed to work things out on the article's talk page rather than reverting back and forth. If I felt I could help resolve the situation through mediation, I would offer to do so on the talk page.

If the reverts continued by both parties, I would either block both or protect the page depending on the exact circumstances. Given the long standing disagreement, I would be more likely to use temporary page protection in order to allow both parties a few days to calm down. (I situation similar to this exact circumstance arose just a few days ago on Karađorđevo agreement‎ & page protection is what I sought.) I certainly would not block just the editor who had reverted more times.

If one editor started trying to work toward compromise through editing while the other continued to hit revert, I would block only the offending party, but would make it clear to both parties that the block shouldn't be seen as any kind of endorsement of the article's current contents.

7B. Say that either of the parties has a long block log and the other doesn't. Would you treat the one differently? Say that either of the parties has been around for a long time and the other does not. Would you treat the one differently? Say that either of the parties has many GAs or FAs and the other has little content contributions. Would you treat the one differently?

A: I wouldn't treat it any differently. An editor with past warnings or more experience should know better, but regardless both parties are still equally in the wrong. In the event a block was eventually needed, I would take past history into consideration when deciding the length of the block.

8. Where would you rank the following in terms of problematic attributes: constant cussing in responses, questioning someone's intelligence in disputes, accusing someone of lying or rule breaking, and focusing on the behavior of others instead of the content of the page?

A: All four are potentially problematic, and it would of course depend on the exact language used as to the seriousness of an offense, but in general I would rank focusing on behavior as the worst, followed by questioning someone's intelligence, then accusing someone of lying/rule breaking, and lastly cussing.

I rank focusing on behavior as the worst, because it is never productive as almost always lead to a escalation of the dispute. In my opinion, it is the most likely to lead to the loss of a productive editor. What is best for an article ultimately has no relation to the motives/behavior of the user's editing it, and focusing on the person rather the action is likely to lead to frustration and/or hurt feelings.

Questioning someone's intelligence is a close second because it also is never productive and often leads to a dispute escalating. Insulting someone is more likely to lead to hurt feelings in general, but is a bit less likely to lead to the loss of an editor, as most people will brush off insults made during an arguments after they've had a chance to calm down. An accusation of lying/rule breaking can be a serious offense, but can also sometimes be productive if done in the right manner. For example, something like "you appear to be edit warring and need to stop. Please see WP:edit warring or ask for help if you don't understand" could be seen as a productive accusation of rule breaking. Of course something like "You're a lying jerk" is on the exact same level as "You're a stupid prick" and should be dealt with accordingly.

Finally, the use of cuss words is a problem because it is unprofessional and can offend people, but is not nearly on the same level as actually attacking someone. People who regularly use cuss words to express themselves are unlikely to be taken seriously, but may still have valid ideas.

Add on to 8B. And do you consider it problematic to focus on behavior when having a discussion with an IP? Can IPs be productive editors, or is that category limited to registered users? You went after me harshly at WP:BAG when I was concerned about what I perceive as failures in the system that led to 5000 anybot articles being deleted. You spent a lot of time describing on my behavior, calling my comments absurd, and making stretching analogies about my comments to nail home your points, .[1][2][3][4][5] I think you're correct in stating that what is best for the article and for wikipeida "has no relation to the motives/behavior of the users' editing it, and focusing on the person rather than the action is likely to lead to frustration and/or hurt feelings," plus, in my opinion, be a waste of time.

Is your response to question 8B something new found since mid-June? Or does it not apply to IP editors?

I know I'm not allowed to vote here (for good reasons). Maybe I'm not allowed to ask questions, either. I'd like to know, though, the relationship between your answer here and your actions. It was a lot of work to get the anybot situation fixed. I think BAG could have made some changes to prevent future such events. Your repeated, unnecessary comments discussing my behavior at BAG contributed nothing to the discussion in any way. So, is this new found enlightment about the importance of not commenting on a user's behavior? If so, what brought you to it? How should you have handled the situation better, if you say that not commenting on behavior applies to IP behavior also? If it doesn't, why not? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I was in the wrong on this situation. I am only human and I make mistakes from time to time. This was one of those times. My words were unnecessarily harsh, as I have acknowledged more than once. I lost my cool a bit and chose my words poorly. When I realized that you'd taken offense, I tried to apologize twice and completely disengaged from the thread in order to avoid any further harm. I wish I had handled myself better than I did, but wishing won't change the past. Again, I apologize for any offense I caused - such was never my intention.

That said, my actions were unrelated to you choosing to stay unregistered. My response was prompted by what I viewed as "unreasonable demands" on your part, and not on your unregistered status. I certainly do not view IP contributions as inferior to registered contributions. Indeed, IPs do at least as much to contribute new content as registered users do. Sadly, I would have reacted just as badly if you had been a registered user making the same suggestions.

It isn't a new enlightenment per say, but over time I have come to monitor what I say more carefully. I have gained a greater understanding of the potential harm done by poor word choices (and other undesirable actions) and have a greater appreciation for the potential of words to scare away contributors. This incident certainly strengthened my view that I need to choice my words carefully and have worked on improving my own behavior as a result of it.

Certainly, I could have handled myself better by choosing my words more carefully. Words like "absurd" and "ridiculous" were unnecessary and I could have made my points without them. I never intended anything to be read as a judgment on you - I was trying to comment on your proposals, but my wording made it sound personal.

Good answer. In my opinion. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from RegentsPark

9. Under what circumstances should something attributable to reliable sources not be included in an article?

A: This is a fairly broad topic, and probably varies a bit from article to article, but I will answer the best I can. If you were looking for something specific that I missed, feel free to ask a follow up question.

There are a number of reasons why something attributed to reliable sources should be excluded. The most obvious being that it is off-topic and/or not important to the article's subject. Wikipedia isn't meant to contain every known fact, nor is it a news service. For example, reliable sources regularly cover the daily lives of famous people in great detail. However, our articles should include only information that is relevant to the person's career/life. To cover every event in the life of a celebrity would give undue weight to matter that have no lasting importance. Another example of undue weight would be including discussion of a fringe theory in the main article of a scientific subject.

Another reason to exclude information might be that it is unreliable, even if the source generally is. For example, major newspapers often report rumors of public interest. However, a rumor is still a rumor even if published by a RS and generally doesn't belong on Wikipedia. An alternative example might be a fact from a textbook that corrected itself in a later edition.

In short to be included, information must be both reliable, not just from a reliable source, and relevant, not just true.

I'm pretty sure you meant UNDUE and not UNDO there, and took the liberty of correcting. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Radiantenergy

10. As an administrator how will you handle edit warring by editors in a very Controversial article?

A: There are certainly many subjects for which there is little or no "real world" consensus about, and thus are very difficult to cover properly on Wikipedia. The best way to deal with such topics from both a policy standpoint, and from a practical standpoint of limiting edit wars, is to encourage both views to be neutrally covered in the Wikipedia article. Of course, no matter how hard some try to make a controversial article neutral, there will always be biased editors who honestly think the article isn't fair to their POV. Thus there is always the potential for edit wars to break out.

I would handle each edit war on a case-by-case basis, but in general I would act as follows... If one user is unilaterally making certain changes and being reverted by a group of other editors, I would warn that person, inform them how Wikipedia works, encourage them to use the article's talk page to work out differences, and temporarily block them if problems continued after warning. If an article is being reverted back in forth by multiple editors on both sides, I would temporarily protect the page and encourage both sides to take a step back and try and cool down. I would remind them that Wikipedia has no deadline and encourage them to use the talk page to try to work out their differences. Finally, if the dispute is primarily between just two users, I would warn both about edit warring and encourage them to use the talk page. I would also either offer to mediate or encourage them to seek a third opinion. In all situations, I would encourage the use of dispute resolution if the involved editors were unable to work out their differences on their own.

Question from Tony1

11. Any other accounts (aside from those for running bots)?

A: Nope. I have made a trivial number of edits under my IP when I've forgotten to log in, but other than that all edits that I was responsible for have been done either under my own name, or one of my bot accounts.

12. Do you think the policy on alternate accounts (WP:SOCKPUPPET) should be tightened up?

A: Sockpuppetry is a serious problem, but I don't currently see any way to tighten current policies without violating fundamental principles of the project. For example, check users could find sock puppets more easily by investigating every account, but that would violate honest people's privacy. If we were to outlaw alternate accounts or make linking such accounts, it could have a detrimental effect on content contribution, as some users would choose not to make their alternate account contributions at all if they could be identified with the main account. Penalties could theoretically be strengthened, but I think the current policy of leaving sock master block lengths up to administrator discretion works pretty well. I don't currently see a need for "mandatory minimums", as each case should be judged on the nature of the offense. An editor who exhibits bad judgment and creates a sock to help strengthen his argument is not on the same level of as an editor who creates a sock to vote stack or make questionable edits without detection.

Optional question from Keepscases

13. If you were making a movie about your Wikipedia experience, which actor would you envision playing the role of Pzrmd? Why?

A:

General comments

• Links for ThaddeusB: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for ThaddeusB can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ThaddeusB before commenting.

Discussion

• Q #13 is inappropriate in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  So it is. +sj+ 22:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  Excellent question. I would love to know. Pzrmd (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  As a supporter, can I give ThaddeusB a hint to the correct answer ? That's how I picture Pzrmd, anyway. Abecedare (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is a bit unconventional, but I'm going to do it anyway. :)

I would to thank everyone who participated in my RfA, especially those who took the time to ask question and who reminded me I could still use improvement in some areas. Of course I also am especially appreciative of my co-nominators and the other editors who encouraged me to run before this officially started.

I am truly honored and humbled by the outpouring of support here. When I accept this nomination, I expected it to pass but I expected a much closer margin - perhaps somewhere in the 70-20 range. I never expected to get over 100 supports and only a handful of opposes. I had no idea I was so well respected around here and will try my best to live up to the expectations that such a wide margin of support implies.

My full "thank spam" message will be posted on my talk page after the official conclusion of this for those who are interested in reading it. Thanks again and I look forward to working with you all again in the future. ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support, I have butted heads with thaddeus several times. He is consistently honest in his responses and knows how to resolve a conflict amicably. I think his work improving articles and knowledge and applications of Wiki policies alone make him aa fine candidate for syops. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Clueful user, talented botwriter, can only recall positive interactions in the past. –xeno^talk 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong Support excellent candidate, who does very good work (esp. with prods). I have had positive interactions with, and often see this user around (in numerous areas). The nom statements say it :). Good luck - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong support – ThaddeusB's work on prodded articles is very impressive. I have had a few conversations with ThaddeusB and always found him to be very courteous and civil, even when he was gently applying a well deserved trout. Plastikspork (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Has clue and great bot writer. Pmlineditor 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong support. Always been helpful in my interactions with him, is thorough in his assessment of situations and knowledgeable of all wikipolicies I care for. Looks like a duh! nomination to me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong Support I have come across ThaddeusB on a variety of deletion related topics, PRODs and AfDs, and I have been impressed by his ability to research and present arguments for notability. He is a civil and helpful editor and I have no doubt that he will wield the admin tools wisely. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
8. I see nothing upsetting in the user's history. I've seen him around here and there and have been largely impressed with what I've seen. I can support. Shereth 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Support I can support this bot op. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
10. He isn't an admin already? Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

    Changing my !vote to actually, adding on (since the above is indeed true) Strongest support possible. When I came to !vote, I already knew you were qualified, but your insightful responses to the questions really take the cake. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

11. Absolutely.  GARDEN  says no to drama 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support I came across the user at the 2009 swine flu related articles, which in April-May had attracted a slew of editors of all stripes and sparked of several panicked debates about article name, sources, NPOV, emphasis, original research, etc. ThaddeusB (along with a few other editors) helped organize the article/template contents and the related discussions, kept calm throughout and avoided biting the many new editors at those pages. Knowledge of policy and good demeanor are useful qualities for an admin to possess. Abecedare (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support as co-nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support – Experienced bot operator and editor, no real controversy, what else needs be said? — madman bum and angel 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support — Aitias // discussion 18:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I've seen him around, and I'm confident he won't abuse the tools. Timmeh 18:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. Fo' sho'. Tan | 39 18:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support – most impressed with knowledge and abilities, especially even-handed attitude towards articles which would otherwise be deleted. – B.hotep •talk• 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support His work here has been quite great as far as I can see and his bots are doing valuable work for this project. He will probably be an asset with the tools. Only mistake within the last month I could find was this one (re-tagging an already declined article) and I have no reason to believe that this is his ordinary way of handling such articles. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Excellent nomination. I trust ThaddeusB will not abuse the tools. Shappy ^talk 19:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support ThaddeusB gets an A+ -- good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Absolutely. No problems here. Good luck. Javert ^{(T · C)} 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Great attitude toward editors and policies. Tools will help him and Wikipedia. Priyanath ^talk 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Thaddeus has always been an admin, he just doesn't have the tools yet. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Support without equivocation. A terrific editor. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support I thought he already was one... :) LittleMountain5 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Looks like a helpful person to have as an admin (looking at renaming and uploading logs) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Support I've seen you around and you seem trustworthy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - thought he was already. Responsible editor with good judgment. My only hope (per q1) is that you are willing to help out with admin backlog anytime you can.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support - fully meets my standards, in particular - sufficient edits and Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Support - It is wise to solve issues by simplifying problems, he exhibits such qualities. Great job on the swine flu coverage. --TitanOne (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Support: what an extraordinary editor? South Bay (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Support: Per all of the reasons above, I support. He will make a great administrator and will help Wikipedia even more with the tools he will gain. Good luck! Airplaneman (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Support It seems clear to me that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support BrianY (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Support I was particularly pleased with his role in the webcite issue.--chaser (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Yup. Everything looks to be in good order here. Good for you sir, well done, keeping the project going. Enjoy your mop. --Jay(Talk) 09:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
40.  Support Deo Volente. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Support No reason to think theyd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Quite the impressive resume! Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
44. Support He's not already? We should fix that. -- Deville (Talk) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Looks good. Good luck! America69 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
46. Support: ThaddeusB has saved many articles and is a civil user. Joe Chill (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
47. I see no issues with this candidate. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Support as a frequent expired PROD deleter, I've found his work in that space valuable and worthwhile. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
49. Support I thought you'd already had an RfA... good luck! Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Keegan (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
51. Support, looks good. Keeper | 76 23:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. Appears to be a great editor who's ready to take on the role of admin! Congratulations, it looks like a landslide!. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Have to support when I find an RFA of somebody I didn't know wasn't an admin already. --LP ^talk 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Clever editor, who made good responses to questions. Good luck with the tools! :) Aaroncrick (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Good answers to questions, strong support from editors I respect, a fairly diligent workhorse, and got OttavaRima to switch out of the oppose column! Perfection! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
56. Support a good candidate --Stephen 04:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Very good candidate. -download ׀ sign! 05:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong Support - I think this candidate is more than ready for the admin tasks, He shows a good understanding of policies & is a useful contributer to this project. Harlem675 08:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Strong Support This bot operator will be also an asset to admin related tasks. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 07:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
60. Support, but don't forget to work by consensus rather than your own opinion in appropriate areas. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
61. Strong Support In my limited interaction with this user, I have been very impressed with his thoughtful and collaborative approach to sensitive editing issues and potentially sticky conflicts. I assumed that he was an admin already. He'll be a strong addition to the admin ranks.Fladrif (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Both as bot operator and user track is good.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
63. Support I think ThaddeusB is a great admin candidate.--Edward130603 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
64. Support. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Excellent user. Triplestop x3 15:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
66. Support per thoughtful answers to questions and amazing contribution history (including that of the three bots). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
67. Support - as nomnomnom. (X! · talk)  · @893  ·  20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Everything that I have seen in the past, plus the amalgam presented here shows a net positive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Really looks like an exemplary candidate, with a large number of very intelligent contributions and some very clued-up question answers. Should make a great admin. ~ mazca ^talk 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
70. Since I'm an active admin at WP:PROD, I've encountered Thaddeus many times with contesting deletions. Reading through and trying to rescue decent articles is time-consuming, and I really commend TB for that. I came here thinking of a few concerns I had, though; specifically, a couple of the articles I've seen him dePROD, and the "will source ASAP" promises. However, I read some discussion on his talkpage concerning this issue: his response, along with everything else I've seen of Thaddeus, is thoughtful, calm and clueful. Overall, Thaddeus is an excellent editor with intelligent answers which leads me to strongly support since I believe he'll be a net positive. Best of luck, JamieS93 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
71. Support. Tony (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
72. Strong Support my interaction with Thaddeus have been uniformly positive, his answers to the questions are excellent, and none of the expressed concerns goes to his likelihood of abusing the tools. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
73. Support based on answer to Question 10. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
74. Support as an asset to Wikipedia and someone who will be an overwhelming net positive with the mop. Makes most of us look "not worthy". We've been on the same AfDs, and I respect Thaddeus's approach to things. tedder (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Excellent answers to the questions and no major concerns with your resume. ThemFromSpace 06:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
76. Support If I knew you were up for AfD I would of been supporting you sooner. A good candidate for the mop. Cheerio! Whispering 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

    He might be up for AfD, but you're voting in his RfA. ;) iMatthew ^talk at 12:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

77. Support Seems like a good trustworthy candidate. Can't see him abusing the tools. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
78. Support - has clue, will use. Ironholds (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

    That doesn't make any sense, will use what? Biofase ^flame| stalk  14:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

    I think Ironholds means he'll use his clue. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

    Ok then. Biofase ^flame| stalk  03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

79. Support - the name space thing is No Big Deal. See you at the Prods. Ben MacDui 12:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
80. Support as I can't see any major problems. iMatthew ^talk at 12:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
81. Support Didn't need such a long explanation though. ;) Biofase ^flame| stalk  14:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
82. Support. A sensible editor, does valuable work on PRODs that can be helped by giving him the mop, and he already knows his way around the admin noticeboard and vandalism reporting. Not every admin needs to be a master of article writing, indeed being an admin isn't about article writing. Fences&Windows 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
83. Support. You seem like an excellent editor. Good luck.--Mr. Sanchez (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
84. Strong support I am way too quick to make bad judgments. I made a huge mistake; one of the best candidates possible. See my talk page. I am sorry about that ThaddeusB =). Pzrmd (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
85. Support Edward321 (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
86. Support Wizardman 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
87. Support on the basis of WP:UCS...Modernist (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
88. Support. My dealings with him have shown him to be dedicated, mature and intelligent. Abyssal (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Sensible editor and will be a sensible administrator.DGG (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
90. Support I usually like to see solid content creation be given priority at some stage of a candidate's time here but WP is now well into its 2.0 phase and the demands of maintenance and mopping-up grow ever larger. ThaddeusB's excellent work has more than enough ticky boxes covered to compensate for lacking the article writing talent. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
91. Support No question that this is a move towards progress. Yanksox (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
92. Support Answers to questions look good, and a look through contribs doesn't show anything to me alarming. Primarily I support on the interaction with others during this RfA. I see reason, understanding, level-headed thinking, calm demeanor, and a willingness to listen to other points of view. All good qualities that every admin. should have. I know it's "pile-on" at this point, but I support. — Ched :  ?  20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
93. Support, even though this one's pretty much meaningless. One two three... 21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
94. Sure, why not. DS (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
95. Support Per nom. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
96. Strong Support He's been very active and done consistently good work in a variety of areas, both as a contributer and helping to clean up wikipedia. If I had to pick one wikipedian to be an administrator based on what I've already seen from them, ThaddeusB would probably be my first pick. Superflyguy (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
97. Support: Radiantenergy (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
98. Support, looks like they will make a good admin! --Taelus (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
99. Support. Does excellent work with PRODs. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
100. I'm Mailer Diablo and I WP:100 approve this message! - 14:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
101. It's over 100! Does excellent work, and would make a great admin. UntilItSleeps ^{Public PC} 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
102. Support Of course. :) hmwithτ 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
103. Support. Looks just fine. — Σxplicit 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
104. Support. Seen this user around, and I'm pretty sure they can be trusted with the tools. The opposes and neutrals do little to sway me. Jafeluv (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
105. Definite support. +sj+ 22:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
106. Support - looks good to me; particularly impressed by demeanor in this RfA and AfD entries that I reviewed. Clearly understands how and why Wikipedia works and what it's about.  Frank  |  talk  23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
107. Support. No concerns. -- Banjeboi 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
108. Support for an editor who is interested in plumbing work and who I feel can be trusted with the tools he'll be given. - Dravecky (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
109. Support, no problems. --Merovingian (T, C) 07:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
110. Support. I believe he could be well trusted with the tools and authority. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
111. Support. Fully qualified candidate; no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
112. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
113. Support. I would be remiss if after reading these comments, and looking over your contribs I withheld my support. Good luck, and good (vandal) fighting! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
114. Support Very clear and helpful editor willing to assist others when the time arises. has my supportOttawa4ever (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
115. Support Helpful, thoughtful, well versed in policy. Yes! Basket of Puppies 03:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
116. Support. No reason not to. Very good helpful editor who I trust to use the tools wisely. AtheWeatherman 09:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
117. Support Good answers, well behaved in arguments, writes good bots... --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Sorry to be a lone voice in opposition of this RFA but I am not impressed with your flagging for rescue [6] of an article clearly created with a WP:COI and more relevantly your only effort being to tag it as such. I just removed an image that was sat in the reference section when you tagged it [7] for a start, and the dodgy "youtube" link was clearly not a reference. Now I'm a crappy article writer, and probably a very crappy admin, but at least a modicum of actual work rather than a tag would have been a bit more impressive. Still, no doubt this RFA will pass so good luck. Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I few this as a perfectly legitimate oppose becaue it points out what I believe to be my greatest weakness. That is, sometimes I "over promise" (not that I view a rescue tag is a promise to do anything) and am unable to help out everywhere I want to. Honestly, I really did want to improve that article as it was in very bad shape, but hadn't gotten a chance to do so yet. I sincerely thank those who edited it as a result of this RfA.

I have moved the conversation to the talk page, as it doesn't belong here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral now. Pedro :  Chat  22:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I really don't think this candidate is fit for adminship on what amounts to be simply work in prods alone. I don't see enough experience in other processes that would meet the minimum standard for adminship, nor have I seen anything that convinces me he understands the ethical side enough to trust. It is a little troubling that someone with such narrow experience gets so much blank support. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)#:By the way, I found this comment very troubling - "when I did anti-vandalism work I would load up Huggle and let it sit for a while". That is not editing nor contributing. That is what a bot would do. I find such an imbalance in action inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Second comment: The rest of the paragraph explains why he let it sit: So he could revert the less obvious vandalism that others had missed. I think that the ability to go in and look for the less obvious things is a quality more admins should have. LittleMountain5 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we have bots that do what he did. He has a lot of edits which mostly fluff up his count that would be hard to measure as "experience". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Answers show a lot of sense, so I will strike my oppose. I am effectively neutral - yes, I think broad experience is important. However, sense is also important, so this is 50/50 here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm one of those horrible people no one likes who prefers a fair amount of content work under one's belt before I can support. Sorry, but it's what we're here for and I'm a firm believer in it. For what it's worth, this will pass anyway, and if by some miracle it doesn't, I'd be happy to support in future if you do some more content work. Good luck, not that you need it. Lastly, if anyone feels the need to badger against this vote, please do it on my talk page. No use cluttering up this otherwise perfect candidate's RfA. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose Pzrmd (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   Discussion regarding the above (now indented, but not struck oppose) [now struck] moved to the talk page. –xeno^talk 12:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - not really thrilled by Q7. By the time you hit 4 reverts in a 24-hour period, the time for "let's talk this out" is over and the community consensus, as expressed in the 3RR policy, is that a block is an appropriate method to prevent further disruption. The "backstory" of the question, I believe, was this: U₁ makes an edit to the article. U₂ reverts that edit. U₁ re-imposes the change and U₂ reverts this again. At this point, both users have made their preferred edit twice, although only U₂ would be said to have two reverts. Add two more revert pairs and U₁ has made 4 edits, 3 reverts; U₂ has made 4 edits, 4 reverts. The question: should U₁, who has not crossed that bright line, but has still made equally as many edits, be blocked along with co-edit-warrior U₂? My answer is "usually", but good people can disagree. The answer you gave — that you wouldn't block anyone and would instead try to discuss it — potentially leads to increased disruption. Knowing "I will be blocked if I make a fourth revert" slows down revert wars. Knowing "all I have to do when it is pointed out that I have made a fourth revert is say I'm sorry" increases them. --B (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

   Just to clarify, my assumption was that neither user had been previously warned about edit warring. Not everyone knows the rules and I do believe a user should be warned before being blocked (except in extreme circumstances). Only if they continue to disrupt via further reverts after being warned is a block in order, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

   3RR is not an entitlement that 3 reverts are allowed. It is only a guide to show when an edit war is in progress. If it is disruptive then both users have gone too far even though one only made 3 reverts. If someone continues after a warning a block is appropriate to stop any further disruption but blocks given when a warning would have been sufficient only breeds more anger which is why "cooling-off" blocks are discouraged. Biofase ^flame| stalk  21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. It's fine if it goes either way. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

   Typically folks who !vote neutral will have something substantive to say, i.e., some reason why they are drawn to abstain rather than support or oppose. –xeno^talk 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Seems qualified but minimal concentration on article building gives me pause.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I like the fact that this editor rescues other people's work. So, really, this is a support from me. I'm placing it in neutral because I'm a new editor with few edits. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

   There's no reason you can't support just because you're new. :) LittleMountain5 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

   see comments on talk page :) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Sufficently impressed by the candidates response to my oppose (left for visibility above and also see debate on this RFA's talk) to move to neutral. Pedro :  Chat  22:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Minimal content creation. Otherwise generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Like mentioned above, good contributions, 6 Barnstars, but on average does about 2 edits per page but has covered over 6,000 articles, which is more than I can say for myself. Does appear to have made incredible progress for a one year editor. Only about a twentieth of edits deleted. (I have been told they have been deleted because most of them come from tags to deleted articles). Article edits take over 50% of edit count proving to me to be a strong editor, but hasn't really covered all namespaces • S • C • A • R • C • E • 15:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I do not want to raise this to the level of an oppose, but I am concerned about this, because it seems to me to show a lack of understanding of bio notability criteria.--Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC) P.S.: I at least partially withdraw my concern per this. Good luck with your admin work, since I'm sure this will pass! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

   I do not see PRODs being where help is most needed. Major point that a single user proposing to delete indicates that either nothing is wrong or it wouldn't really hurt anyone if it stayed. Some people spend far too much time on here looking for stuff to delete mainly to further their own interest. I also think an admin should regard it important that information on people should be absolute fact (not just "reliable") or not included at all. Wikipedia says verifiability not fact BUT the law says verifiable fact. Am leaning towards oppose. Biofase ^flame| stalk  19:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

   Moved to talk page. Considering yes. Biofase ^flame| stalk  22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral due to compelling arguments from both sides. One two three... 21:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

   You supported just a few minutes ago. Perhaps you posted this comment in the wrong RfA? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

   Woah, I did...not sure how I screwed that one up! One two three... 22:56, 26 July 2009 (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.