Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Statement by closing bureaucrat

I've read through this RFA and it is certainly very close. There are even crat !votes in the support and oppose sections. There are valid points in both support and oppose sections. The most convincing oppose points are the edit protection issues - but they are mostly defensible or merely bold and as for the busted disambiguation link issue I find that to not be a pattern but more of an aberration. I also found the candidate's responses and conduct during the RFA to be quite good and he seems to have learned a lot recently, including during the RFA. In looking at cases where temperament and politeness were mentioned and diffs provided I find most, but not all, of those diffs unconvincing as they seem to me be be merely short and to the point. In summation, while I find there are concerns here, they are not enough for me to not grant adminship. I find the weight of the community consensus to be supportive. On a related note I want to comment on RFA standards in general lately. While I totally agree the standards need to be high, candidates do not need to be perfect and lately I'm seeing all too many users seemingly looking for perfection and opposing if they find even one slip up in a candidate, which they are entitled to do if they choose, but I think all too often that recently the wrench has been clamped too tightly too often. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward 3[edit]

Final (110/36/9); Closed by Rlevse at 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Thumperward (talk · contribs) – So, third RfA. In my previous two RfAs I received a nomination out of the blue from an editor I'd previously had little contact with; this time I'm choosing to self-nominate as I think it's time I got to working on the various admin backlogs I see at the moment, and because I think I've significantly improved as a candidate since then.

I've been around for a bit over four years now and have accumulated 70,000 or so edits. About half of those are to articlespace, half the rest split between article talk and templatespace, and the rest split between user talk, template talk and projectspace. I've been an active participant in templatespace for about three years now and during that time have worked pretty heavily on most of the project's core templates, including a ton of work on infoboxes and article message boxes. This is work which requires patience, lots of discussion, and a heck of a lot of editprotected requests; I've raised more of those than I've had hot dinners and I feel that the more admins we've got who are able to service those requests the lower the entry barrier to working on templates will be. Other than that, I tend to work on whatever takes my fancy at a given time; since my last RfA I've become more active both in new page creation and in GA work, although I'm not especially active in either.

As far as projectspace work goes, my main focus is on keeping the project ticking along. I raise a lot of {{db-house}} requests for trivial housekeeping (template merges, moving pages over redirects and such) and do a lot of simple dispute resolution (raising RPP requests when I see an edit war brewing, ushering people onto talk or other DR) and help desk / technical village pump work, but I've also been involved in year-long RfCs (both on article disputes and user conduct) and in other deeper dispute resolution. I'm pretty active in TfD and have been involved in the other parts of XfD to a greater or lesser extent over the years: I'm much less active at AfD than I used to be, primarily because I believe that AfD runs much more smoothly than it used to. Previously I was of the opinion that it was necessary to stay active there to prevent others from gaming the system, but to my pleasure this seems to be less of a problem these days. I usually only use ANI as a reporting mechanism for immediate problems which need admin eyes, and I believe that this is what it's best for; the less it seems like a club house, the less people will treat it as a first point of contact for disputes or problems which can be handled elsewhere.

Basically, I know what I'm doing, and right now I do so much stuff which borders on admin-level work (editprotected, sorting out page protection, housekeeping deletions) that I'm creating work for the admin corps rather than reducing the workload. I think my editing history speaks for itself in that regard.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Housekeeping and backlog reduction; the same things that I'm presently contributing to from the other side. I'm very well-versed in templatespace and feel that I'm more than capable of handling involved editprotected requests there; I've got a lot of experience in RM, and I'd be keen to get involved with history merges and other hairy technical work which would help the encyclopedia tick along.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've been pretty heavily involved in templatespace for some time now, and as such my work there has touched a very large percentage of our most prominent articles. I've written, rewritten, or otherwise been involved in cleanup of most of the high-profile meta-templates which users see every day in the form of infoboxes or cleanup tags. That said, I'm no less proud of the work I've done to improve articles to GA / FA status, or on the new articles I've created.
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: Following my first RfA, I completely re-assessed my attitude towards dispute resolution, and I think my attitude towards dispute resolution now is exemplary. I don't edit war; if a discussion reaches a stalemate, I'll move onto the next level of dispute resolution; and I think I've mastered dropping it if there really doesn't seem to be an amicable solution to a dispute. I think that typically I'm a calming influence on discussions, and I try to ensure that disputes focus on the subject matter and how it interacts with policy and community norms rather than taking things personally. I can think of many editors whose positions I may strongly disagree with but with whom I am able to work with amicably and productively.
Additional optional question from Jusdafax
4. I see from looking at the opposes in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 2 that you had a past run in with Jimbo. Could you please discuss what happened, and why you don't bring it up in question 3? Thanks, Jusdafax 14:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: What happened basically was that we had a series of RfCs on the subject of Linux, mostly relating to the issues around the GNU/Linux naming controversy. At some point, Jimbo was petitioned by "his side" (Jimbo's views on the issue are pretty well-known) to step in and voice his opinion. Jimbo's comments centred around some mass-editing I did in August 2008, at a time when I felt that there was consensus. After that, the discussion ended up grinding to a halt. I should probably have brought it up, yes, but it wasn't really a dispute between me and Jimbo: it was a dispute involving other editors, and when Jimbo commented it quickly became a dead end because of the Word of God aspect. Regardless, I've significantly dialled back my involvement in that topic, and indeed in the last discussion I had (over on talk:GNU: there's a long RfC) I acted as a mediator between the two opposing sides. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from DGG ( talk )
5a. Could you explain further your comment "it is hardly worth pointing out that editors in good standing would be best nominating articles for deletion anonymously should they not wish to be permanently harrassed in the current WP climate. " at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination) ?
5b I notice that in many recent AfDs you gave a comment which was essentially supporting deletion without a formal !vote one way or the other. If you were an admin closing such a discussion how would you assign weight to such comments? DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5c: every participation in AfD in the last two months seems on a quick scan to been either a delete !vote or a comment supporting a delete position. Have you recently ever encountered a challenged article that you thought should be kept, and said so? DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: I consider "formal !vote" to be an oxymoron, and have always taken the position that comments should be evaluated solely on the actual rationale provided. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux For You for a recent AfD in which I made a reasoned argument to keep. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have expressed concerns that I didn;t answer these fully, especially 5a. So here's attempt 2:
Aa: This wasn't intended as a general comment, but was addressed at the participants of the discussion it was posted in and I don't believe that it was misunderstood in that context. While an established editor who logged out to participate in AfD might be seen as trying to avoid scrutiny, it was rather the converse that I was addressing: that there are still editors who see making delete comments on AfDs as being a bad thing. This means that in the long run, editors can have their reputations affected negatively for doing something which is perfectly acceptable. To reiterate: it wasn't meant as an argument for sockpuppetry.
Ab: I would assign it exactly the same weight as any other comment, based on the rationale provided. The bold text is simply a convention, and IMO it's one which contradicts the spirit of WP:NOTVOTE. I personally don't use it for that reason, and have always been happy to explain why if someone has asked me.
Ac: As I said in my nomination, I'm far less active in AfD than once I was; I misinterpreted the question as "have you ever not made a delete comment", and so just found the first AfD I could where I didn't. Others include: Masonic Temple, David A. Cherry, Chester F.C. (2010). While my comment on the Linux for You AfD has been characterised as "merge, not keep", I actually only suggested merge because the parent publication's article was equally tiny, and having one unified article for the time being may have helped toi increase the quality. My actually comment on the AfD was to refute the suggestion that the subject was not notable, and the closing admin was free to interpret that as he pleased (and chose to do so by keeping the article). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up on pt A. In your extended response you said "This wasn't intended as a general comment, but was addressed at the participants of the discussion it was posted in..." but you now explain this saying "that there are still editors who see making delete comments on AfDs as being a bad thing." using AfDs in the plural, so I think you do mean it as a general comment. Since overall most articles at AfD get deleted, most editors who work there must be making mainly delete comments. Most admins who close AfDs must be thinking similarly--including me, when I close an AfD it is almost always as delete. Why do you think voting delete at an AfD is perceived negatively in general, if you do so perceive it? DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This is not just rhetorical; I would like an answer. DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Robofish
6. While there's no policy against it, would you agree that your signature is a little confusing? I thought this RFA was a nomination by a different user rather than a self-nom at first. Is there any good reason why your signature differs from your username?
A: Yep. :) The rationale is that I feel weird using my real name as a computer login, and equally weird about "signing" something with a pseudonym. But when you're an established editor, a use name change can be a bit disconcerting. I've been considering just moving to using my real name as my user name since RfA 1, but never made the jump. That said, while it's not commonplace it's not unheard of, and in my experience people tend to get used to the association quickly (both here and elsewhere on t'internet). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Hobit
7. Classic question which really should be the standard #4 question: Have you used other accounts, including IP addresses, to edit Wikipedia?
A: And a classic answer: no, never. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Question from User:Weaponbb7

8 You indicated in Opinion "cult" is no more loaded than "liberal" here. Do you still think that "Cult" is not a loaded term? Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: Given that the diff there is from four years ago, I can't really say what my thought process was at the time. Safe to say that I'd agree that "cult" was a loaded term if asked today. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from CT Cooper
9. I noted a comment by you here. There have also been concerns raised over your involvement in the inclusinist/deletionist dispute in the oppose section. I think this needs more looking into to, so I am asking some additional questions of which it would be in your interest to answer. Define the meaning of "bad-faith" in context to the comment you made in the diff I have given?
A: An excellent example is the kind of arguments given by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles in this AfD. Le Grand Roi's purpose there was not to preserve the material that existed on the article because he believed that it befit the purposes of an encyclopedia: rather, his purpose was to find some way of preventing a "delete" result regardless of the outcome, including restarting the article on an entirely different topic based on a passing mention in a book, for the purpose of "winning" the AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Followup question' How exactly is it bad faith for a user to try to find some reason for keeping an article? Is there a difference between efforts to save an article not really worth saving, and that do not succeed, and bad faith? Has nobody ever given a reason for deletion that was found insufficient? Would that have been bad faith? How can you show you do not judge people differently depending on what side of a deletion debate they're on? DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Briefly overview, as an administrator, how would you differentiate between bad-faith attempts to disrupt the project at processes such as AfD and legitimate alternative interpretations of policy and guidelines e.g. WP:N?
A: The two are, from experience, pretty easy to tell apart, and it neither requires the mop nor benefits from it. Sources which are discussed in an AfD can be scrutinised by multiple editors and it is typically not difficult to tell a reliable source from an unreliable one. Arguments can be compared to the wording of the guidelines and discussed at length, and RfCs can be held on points where there are differing opinions (this goes on constantly at WT:N and all of its sub-pages). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your swift response. CT Cooper · talk 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Without making any accusations, because I didn't have all the facts, I wasn't impressed by several of the opposes in the second RfA. I don't see anything yet that makes me reconsider my support, but I'll keep looking. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kept looking. Clear skies. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added later, just to clarify: I think the current opposes are well supported and well put. I'm still supporting because for me, the good stuff overwhelms the infrequent short temper. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've seen his work both on-wiki and off. His quality contributions to talk pages alone leave me cheerful in supporting. --Izno (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - per forthright answer to my Q4, and a long record of good deeds (it ain't easy to hit 70,000 edits!) to improve the encyclopedia. Best wishes here, and always. Jusdafax 14:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per all of the above. I'm not seeing any issues. Good luck! Doc Quintana (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - a productive contributor. I must say that the self-nom statement was pretty good. Interactions with other users seems mostly positive, from what I can tell. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I know from experience that this candidate will be efficient at dealing with problems of a technical nature. We need more admins like that. In addition, I can vouch for the accuracy of the first three answers. WFC (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support I've seen Thumperward around before and have no doubt that he will be a trustworthy and valuable administrator. A8x (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No red flags. Access Denied(t|c|g|d|s) 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support trusted and experienced editor. I was impressed by his calm in this recent absurd dispute. Will be of great help in template space. Pichpich (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I don't see any reasons not to. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I believe this editor's contribution to the utility and dependability of the encyclopedia would be significantly enhanced with the extra tools. Tiderolls 15:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I really like the way you phrase that, Tide, as your reasoning cuts to the heart of the matter. Jusdafax 16:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support – I trust Thumperward with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - certainly trustworthy enough to give tools too, and should make good use of them. Claritas § 16:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - should really have passed last time, let's hope we don't have a repeat of some of the absurd opposes from that RfA. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Trusted user who has my support. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support This user has demonstrated exemplary involvement in admin-related areas of the encyclopedia. I was not impressed with the opposition of his previous RfA, nor do I see any reason to believe that he is not ready to be a sysop. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I've seen a lot of this editor, but just now realized I've only seen the tip of the iceberg - the template work is a solid rationale for having the tools.--SPhilbrickT 16:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Enormous history of contributions. After hearing concerns from previous nominations, well, I just spent an hour looking for trouble, and in short, I couldn't find it. I certainly found places where we differ, but I found nothing to criticize, and much to praise in those arguments in terms of civility and policy based in, well, policy and rationality rather than "gut feel." Additionally, I have a respect for the opinions the editor expressed in Q5 with respect to !voting. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Leet skilz :) and lots of experience. I dub him GNU/Thumperward. Seriously, though, the candidate is eminently qualified by my scan of his contribs and seeing his work around the wiki. →StaniStani  17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - seems trustworthy, good history of contributions, can't see any concerns. Probably should have passed last time around. Robofish (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. support .. and an exemplary self nom. well done (and good contribs) -Tommy! [message] 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I supported last time and see no reason to change my opinion now. Deor (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Lots in favour and almost nothing not as much against. I'll be very surprised if this doesn't pass with flying colours. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A few valid objections have started to come up in the oppose comments, but not enough to stop me supporting. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support largely per nom.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 20:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. As one of the few admins who patrol Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, Chris's signature is a regular sight. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it attached to an {{editprotected}} request, usually requesting some fiddly change, but always well explained for idiots like me! We have a shortage of editors who have both the expertise to work with complex template code and the admin bit, which is required to edit many of the templates. He has the former, giving him the latter only makes my life easier, so I've no reason not to support! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've kept an eye on this RfA as it has progressed and I just wanted to re-affirm my position. I've read through the opposes and checked the diffs for myself and I don't feel that they are at all invalid. That said, I believe them to be the exception rather than the rule. I believe that Chris would be a net positive as an admin and I believe he has sufficient common sense not to break anything and to watch his temper. At the end of the day, though, there's a lot of good he could do with the tools and who- admin or not- hasn't got a bit hot under the collar on occasion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support —Soap— 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Absolutely — This is past-due and Chris will be of even greater value with the mop. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Net positive. Connormahtalk 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support; what I've seen is quite good. Looking at the oppose (one as of this writing), all of us get short-tempered once in a while; we're just human; it's a request for adminship, not sainthood. Also support per HJ Mitchell's excellent bit above. Antandrus (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, competent and dedicated editor. In the long term I've seen a large amount of good stuff from him, with only the occasional screwup that i'll allow anyone! Definitely a net positive with admin tools. ~ mazca talk 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support The others have said it all. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I see good contributions, lots of them, good interaction even in difficult circumstances, excellent technical skills, dedication. I can only Support.  Begoontalk 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since others are doing this, I will too. Reaffirm my support, adding that, with 70,000 edits you're probably between 5-10 times more likely to have said something someone can find to disagree with than the average RFA candidate. As others have said, adminship will only lead to increased scrutiny, and it would be pretty hard for even someone this technically adept to destroy the wiki just because we gave him a few extra buttons. I'll also confess that a big part of me reaffirming is because I think that speaking one's mind is a positive trait for an admin, not a negative, and I'd hate to see this fail on that basis.  Begoontalk 16:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support The editor has shown knowledge, patience, and both the ability and willingness to "listen" to other's opinions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Yes, a great future admin. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support- Absolutely. Highly intelligent, sensible and responsible editor. Would be a great admin. Reyk YO! 23:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Sound judgement, highly competent, and not prone to needless drama. ThemFromSpace 23:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak support – From what I've seen of Chris around Wikipedia, notably at TFD, he has a firm grasp of Wikipedia's policies and good contributions in general. I'm a bit queasy about temperament (see Tryptofish's oppose), having seen evidence of it myself on many occasions, but it is nothing over the top (as The Blade of the Northern Lights said, " "the difference between firm and uncivil" can wildly vary depending on who you talk to"). I am sure Chris will watch his edits carefully enough, especially after this RFA, so it gives me no reason to oppose. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I've seen this editor around, and I've generally had a good impression of him. That he is a wikignome is another plus. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support because I think it's important for those few with good technical skills and who edit templates to be able to do it without interference. Also, he's plenty experienced enough to know what he's doing, and hasn't shown any particularly egregious issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Keegan (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support — Master&Expert (Talk) 02:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, as we say on Commons. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support-He seems to know what he is doing, he can do the technical stuff, and he has a high edit count. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 06:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Yes, Chris can write terse, which can read as rude, but he is a net asset, and I support per Antandrus. I am confident that with the confidence boost that this process will afford, Chris will grow into the calm and polite temperament that an administrator needs. Per DGG, Chris has not impressed with candidness, and I would hesitate to trust him with power, but adminship does not confer unilateral powers so much as it demands greater accountability in actions than is expected from ordinary editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was very concerned about the subsequent oppose#17. I am now encouraged, seeing Chris' reasonable responses. I read his Editprotected requests as defensible. I see no great crime in submitting a bold Editprotected request. WP:Consensus is tested by boldness, and is a proper practice in wiki editing. This reply encourages my expectation that Chris will use admin privileges with appropriate judiciousness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support - User's contributions are positive. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 06:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support focused on the right things.Bali ultimate (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Epbr123 (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. No red flags, some rouge flags, one black flag - all good. Per Begoon, Thumperward's technical expertise will be boosted by the mop; per SmokeyJoe the mop brings greater accountability. I don't normally set great store by edit counts but... well, Thumperward's edit count is too high for X!'s edit counter! TFOWR 10:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - all of the concerns that have been raised in the 'oppose' and 'neutral' section are not enough to disqualify the candidate, who is able and eager to help. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Per above and this user seems to be trustworthy. Mrlittleirish 13:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I believe the oppose !votes are pointing out exceptional cases. I'm happy to be proved wrong though. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, a little rough sometimes in tone, but by no means intentionally impolite. Plus, from my own experiences with the candidate, it seems clear enough they have the project at heart and want to better it. As above, despite the rare issue pointed out by the opposes, I am happy that the candidate would be a strong net positive to the project in the role of administrator. Best of luck! --Taelus (Talk) 16:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I am quite familiar with this editor already, having seen him around WikiProject Football from time to time. Meets my personal admin criteria, which cannot be said of many candidates. BigDom 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support He has got enough clue to know what should and shouldn't be done when you're an admin. – sgeureka t•c 17:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Long time editor with obviously the good of wikipedia in mind. About time. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Like HJMitchell, I've been watching this page and reading the concerns in the oppose section and, while I agree that Chris can be caustic at times, I think that there is a forest and trees issue here. The forest is that Chris edits all across the project, is almost always a neutral editor, and takes positions based on what he thinks is the right way supported by policy. All good qualities for an admin. The trees are that he has been uncivil on occasion, but it is hard to imagine how any human being could make 19,871 edits on talk pages without being less than polite on a few occasions. Obviously, and perhaps rightly, the editors on the other side of those occasions see this as a glaring fault but, I urge those editors, as well as the closing crat (since this may be a close call), to look beyond those occasions, to step back and look at the forest that is, so to speak, Thumperward the editor. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Josette (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is important to have admins that have the knowledge, sense and experience that someone like Chris brings to the table. A definite net positive. - Josette (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support - I DO remember you from years ago and your insights into the Linux discussions from then, even if I didn't agree (I doubt you'll remember me ;p). That said, I agree you have been shown to be oddly terse to users (you certainly didn't seem terse when discussing articles back then, what happened?); seems like you are working on it though. RN 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstaining. RN 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Solid edits and deep and abiding interest in the project - I fully expect Thumperward's contributions to continue to be firmly in the net positive category. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support The opposes raise valid concerns but not enough to unduly worry me. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I too, am not so worried about the opposes. A "net benefit" as already expressed above. Rodhullandemu 23:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support He has been a great help at TFD, and I have always found him to be rather clueful and logical in his responses. I haven't seen anything which would make me think this wouldn't be a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. 1) We need more admins, and my checkup on this editor reveals no serious problems. I get a sense that this fellow will make a reasonably good admin. 2) Solid grasp of proper terminology related to ingestion of toast. Herostratus (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63.  Support My support for you. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. There gave been some concerns raised that the candidate might occasionally react a bit too emotionally, and they are valid. But we're all human, we all have emotions, and I'd be amazed if emotion didn't come out occasionally in the course of more than 70,000 edits over five and a half years. And it should also be noted that the candidate has made progress on that front. Overall, I think the project would be served very well by handing over a mop to Thumperward. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support -----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support My earlier reservations have been satisfied. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 17:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support A solid candidate who seems dedicated to the project Ronk01 talk, 17:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Excellent candidate. As for incivility now and then, even Mother Theresa got up on the wrong side of the hard floor she slept on ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Works for me... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. T. Canens (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support This user will be an asset to Wikipedia as an admin IJA (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, an editor with a personality will make a good admin. Abductive (reasoning) 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, as I thought you were an admin held in high esteem already. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I reckon this editor should have the mop. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I am certain you will make a great admin! Basket of Puppies 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Sounds familiar. Seems fine. --candle•wicke 20:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Most of the concerns raised in the oppose and neutral sections relate to a tendency of the candidate to say just what he has on his mind. Where I come from that's a good thing. He is experienced, hard-working and fully qualified for the mop.--Hokeman (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Looks to me as if he knows what he is doing. Will most certainly be an asset with the extra buttons. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Same as last time. MBisanz talk 05:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. I've always found Thumperward to be a most helpful and kind editor, always willing to go the extra mile to sort out a problem. He would make a very good admin, in my view. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, bumped up from my "neutral" on RFA2. The current record is less aggressive than was the case previously, and the positive content contributions and input to discussions are also fine. I don't endorse all the views Thumperward has on deletion and notability, but I don't see him going rogue with the admin tools either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Opposes are unconvincing. Will make a great mop and bucket. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Need more sysops. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Trust. As already said, opponents aren't convincing. East of Borschov 15:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Weak Support Toiled about it for a while, but I think i can support, my only hesitation is the civility issue, but i think that Chris has an understanding of what it will mean to hold the reigns and the responsibility that comes with their use. plus one. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support strong candidate anyway, code-skills a huge bonus.  pablo 19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. While he may be curt, he'd also be a net asset as a sysop. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support: I've been a fan for years, and have offered to nominate him on at least one occasion I can remember. He would do a great job as an admin. I personally think he does great work. I'm not convinced by the opposes, as my experience with him has been overwhelmingly positive. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Orphan Wiki 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Skinwalker (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. No reason to believe this editor will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Weak support per Airplaneman. I'm not especially convinced by the reasons to oppose. I have hesitated due to the temperament issues presented, but I think he will learn that, as an admin, people will look to him to make decisions which at times may be unpopular. –MuZemike 22:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Out of semi-retirement for this one. Long standing member of the community, dealt with Thumperward before and my interactions with him has been positive. Yes temper is a bit of a problem but who doesn't have temper problems when it comes to AFDs and DRVs and other drama laden stuff, which is his speciality. His knowledge is valued in the community. He won't abuse the tools. Strongest Possible Support Secret account 00:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - based on my interactions with this contributor, I can trust him with the tools.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - The opposes made me stop and think about this one. After looking more into things I think the positive outweighs the negative. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 06:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support I stand by what I said in the nom statement for his last RFA. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support I've searched and I found no reason not to support. I'm also not convinced by the comments in the oppose section. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support SnottyWong soliloquize 22:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and congrats on making the Wikipedia:100 club! Jusdafax 02:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Complete support I supported at least 1 of the last two RfAs and I feel Chris has only improved over time. We need admins who think seriously about the consequences of their decisions and understand the intricacies of some of the elements of the wiki (for template work or bot work). Chris has shown a strong desire to work in these areas and an aptitude as well. Beyond that he is consistently a calming force in deeply emotional discussions about the nature and boundaries of wikipedia (the kind of subjects which need and seldom receive calm and logical discussion). Chris brings maturity to discussions like those, and shows a capacity to make fair and equitable decisions--a critical component for the bit. He is dedicated, smart, introspective and fair. More comments once I look at the opposes. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some reasonable opposes, though nothing I feel should sink a candidacy, especially that of such a dedicated veteran. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Cautious Support, as last time. I agree the exchange with Tryptofish isn't great, and more care is required when one is an admin dealing with non-admins (well, admins too I guess), but given the lack of catastrophes and proven dedication (70k edits suggests this), I think a trial with the mop is warranted. I concede our opinions on notability vary widely, but funnily enough it is hard to have one's admin hat and veer too much from concensus without causing a ruckus. We have checks and balances and as with all admins, I encourage editors who are concerned about an admin's conduct to contact arbcom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're so inclined, could you please explain what you mean by "a trial with the mop"? Do we have a trial program for admins? Townlake (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't. We should. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We do - if someone's actions are problematic, one can refer to the arbitration committee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that can be quite a laborious process. So we get a lot of scrutiny beforehand. I agree it would be nice to have a trial process that ended with a more lightweight "sorry but it didn't work" sort of removal if warranted. Like Wikiversity and mentored custodians. But the chance of that is ... zip. So we get what we have here. I have a great deal of respect for Tryptofish and their oppose did weigh on my mind before I decided to support but I'm confident that Chris will take that on board if he's passed. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - (sorry for the late post) per Protonk and alsoRadManCF mention "wikignome" is a plus in my book also. Mlpearc powwow 15:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously should of looked this over a little better. Have already Opposed, those views are still ture, sorry for the double post :( Mlpearc powwow 16:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Chris is a very active member of WP:FOOTBALL, a project with remarkably few active admins despite a remarkably high need for them (massive numbers of little-watched unsourced BLPs, high proportion of highly vandalised articles, widespread use of full-protected templates etc.) Of the editors I've encountered at that project, he has shown an unusually deep understanding of what our policies say, and their implications for articles. I have found him a very reasonable editor even when we have disagreed; he seems perfectly amenable to reasonable suggestions, so I see no reason he will not take on board those regarding his interaction style. I must note at this point that at least in previous heated group discussions I have seen, he has been a calming and constructive influence. Knepflerle (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Nobody's perfect...see no reason to believe tools would be abused...--MONGO 23:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - Enough trust to support. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Cautiously; if he sucks with the tools then we can get them removed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Chris is a well experienced contributor to the project, and after reviewing this case, which involved me asking optional questions for the first time ever in an RfA, I have decided to support. From my RfA criteria the issue which is of most concern to this candidacy stem around key criteria 5. I can see why some users may see Chris as blunt at times, but I don't consider the evidence presented damning. I'm not too concerned about the mistakes in the main space as many trusted users make mistakes like that occasionally, and they are fixable. I do hope if that this RfA passes that Chris will think carefully on the consequences before making decisions, show civility in discussions, and possibly try to "agree to disagree" with some users he is in an ongoing dispute with. CT Cooper · talk 11:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. I think Chris will take the input from the opposes on board, and will do fine. ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. beat the closing crat support. Spartaz Humbug! 14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I appreciate that this user does a lot of helpful gnomish work. However, I am deeply concerned that he does not have the calm and polite temperament that an administrator needs. I base this on some interactions that I had with him at the page on Crucifixion this past winter, during the rather stressful time that a large number of IPs from an external site were disrupting the page. I made these two edits to the "see also" section, which I think were rather innocuous: [1] and [2]. I was then unpleasantly surprised to get this from the user at my talk: [3]. I invited comment at the article talk [4], to which other users responded, but Thumperward did not, and the following exchanges occurred at my user talk [5], [6], [7], [8], and at his [9], [10], [11], [12]. I get the impression here of someone who has difficulty assessing "the difference between firm and incivil", who was impatient about discussing things with an editor who disagreed with him, and who displayed a completely gratuitous emphasis on making disparaging comments about me in lieu of simply commenting on the content issues. (Secondarily, I also think he showed a questionable understanding of how a "see also" section can be configured, and also very recently made an edit at another page (subsequently reverted by someone else) that rather strangely enlarged an image that probably should not have been enlarged so much: [13].) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things; first, the diffs I saw (the Piss Christ one aside, which is from a few weeks ago) were from December, which was several months ago. Secondly, and far more importantly, "the difference between firm and uncivil" can wildly vary depending on who you talk to. I personally don't mind if someone says "your work on this article is a fucking pile of shit" to me as long as they can point to a reason why (hasn't happened to me yet; I know it will eventually); others would strongly object to this language. What I see on your talk page is mostly a toned down variation of what I said in my example, and he did give reasons. I'm not familiar enough with it to say anything about ownership of the article; however, although his language may seem strong, he did at least give a rationale for everything else. Maybe I missed something, though- if I did, point me to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Trypto. Since you and I worked together so closely earlier this year, I took an extra-careful look at the diffs you provided, and while the candidate does seem a bit on the snippy side in them (I too dislike being told I have 'ownership' issues), I'm not prepared to change my !vote due to your diffs. And... you seemed much more tolerant of one editor's ongoing misconduct (about whom less said the better) back at the start of this year. You and I have agreed many times but this just isn't one of them. Hope you are doing well! Repectfully, and with fond best wishes to you, Jusdafax 18:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, and the best to you too Jusdafax! To reply to you both, I don't buy the argument that some incivility and bad judgment is OK in an administrator so long as it happened a few months ago. Indeed, the project that Jusdafax and I worked on (administrator recall) was a reflection of what can happen when someone who is drama-prone becomes an administrator, and that personality style is what I'm seeing here. It's not OK for an administrator to use language that "may seem strong". That's what can drive new users away, and make experienced users unhappy. I accept what The Blade of Northern Lights describes as giving a rationale. That's not the problem. The problem is the personal sniping that came along with those rationales, which was completely unrelated to the question of how many "see also"s to have, and was completely gratuitous. Where Jusdafax refers to my being tolerant of another editor (yes, I know who you mean!), I tolerated stuff from that person that I would not ever want to see come from an administrator. And anyway, that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. I rarely oppose RfAs. When I do, it's because I truly worry that the person is likely to do things that will make the community regret having given them the bit. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough on all counts, but let's agree to disagree in this particular case. Will stand by. 'Till next we meet! Jusdafax 19:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. If nothing else, perhaps my comments will be helpful to the candidate to think about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I facepalmed my way through every diff there. Regardless of the previous history of the article, you took the right approach to resolution there. I can only apologise and suggest that it's a rare exception to how I treat dispute resolution these days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Chris, I appreciate that very much, thank you. I think I should point out that you and I did not cross paths either before or after that time. Sincerely, I wish you the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I suspect that Chris has improved greatly since I last ran into him, but Tryptofish's comments lead me to believe that isn't entirely the case. I've always found Chris to very difficult to interact with and quite rude, and that's being polite. Also his answers to DGG's questions seem both lacking in detail and a bit scary (the best you can find for a !vote toward keep is an argument to merge?) Like Kww I might be able to support at some point, but not now. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, Kww recently passed. Juliancolton (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Deleted comment as I'd misunderstood what was meant) Yep, I believe I !voted for him the last time around. Hobit (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Updates to Q5 noted and helpful, though I'm unclear why we didn't get an answer to 5a the first time. I looked over a discussion he helped with involving GNU and Linux [14] and felt he did a great job helping there. However in the Infobox artist discussion [15], I saw issues that worried me and MSGJ's comments on his requesting changes of protected templates without consensus worries me. I used to always get a sense that Chris would be so sure of his own opinions he just tried to roll over those who disagreed with him. That's improved, but still seems to be a problem and a real issue for an admin. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose At his 2nd RfAdmin, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 2, he gave even shorter answers to my questions. I would expect that an admin whose decisions are challenged will give fuller explanations. I can only conclude that he feels a certain degree of discomfort upon being asked these questions--or possibly even a certain amount of contempt for the line of questioning. I see a considerable lack of candidness in misleadingly characterizing his one non-delete opinion, and I wonder if the refusal to use the keep and delete !votes everyone else uses is just a contempt for conventions, or a desire to obscure his opinions in anticipation of this RfAdmin. I see no reason to trust someone who repeatedly responds in this fashion. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is unfair to the candidate to ask them a question that can be answered fully and properly in two sentences (or in the case of the second RfA, in one word) and then choose to interpret conciseness as dishonesty. Reyk YO! 08:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seeing an answer to 5a in there? I'm not seeing an actual answer to 5c either (that wasn't an argument to keep, it was to merge which is a different outcome) though I assume that's to mean that's the closest he's come to suggesting any article at AfD should be kept. There may well be a 2 sentence answer that hits all three questions but I don't think that was it. Hobit (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some Wikipedians take seriously the idea that afd is a discussion and not a vote. Your line of questioning reveals a certain degree of discomfort with this idea--or possibly even a certain amount of contempt. The candidate's two comments in the referenced afd in his answer to 5c exemplify the idea, and for this reason it is hard to label them as a categorical "keep" "delete" or "merge". However, those two comments seem to boil down to an argument to keep or possibly merge. Since merge is a form of keep anyway, the candidate's answer adequately answers your question in 5c. I see a considerable lack of candidness in misleadingly characterizing that answer as a misleading characterization. (I see too, by the way, a modicum of a lack of candidness in asking the candidate in 5a to "explain further" a comment that seems perfectly self-explanatory.) And I wonder if your use of the phrase "!vote" is just an embrace of a silly convention, or a desire to obscure your opinion that afd is, in fact, a vote. I see no reason to give great weight to the vote in this rfa of an editor whose judgment has apparently been colored by philosophical differences with the candidate. 128.59.181.19 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    128.59.181.19: it is clear from your edits here that you are not a new user and fairly likely have an account. If that is so, it is really bad form to comment in an RfA while logged out, and can only lead to trouble. If you do have an account, please sign in. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an account that I haven't used in several years. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nay I just got to change 28 links because you converted a disambiguation to a redirect less then 3 days ago. [16] Saying "only a hatnote is needed here" when i then end up looking for the tv show by clicking a link in a cast member's filmography and end up on a page about an operating system [17] because of the redirect shows poor follow-through. Granted, you didn't move the page but you clearly didn't look to see what links to the disambiguation either. I was going to leave a note on your talk page but seeing as you are a current candidate for administrator i thought to vote instead. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there other aspects about the candidate that make you oppose, or is this mistake enough (not badgering - genuinely interested...) ?  Begoontalk 09:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering this came about from a reading session and not planned editing on my part yes i think this was a bad mess. Apparently the show garners almost as many hits in a day as Without A Trace does - one of the links changed was on a project stats page. Someone who puts themselves up for admin should know to check "what links here" before converting a disambiguation to a redirect to an article that is different from what was originally at the page. I spent an hour fixing the misdirected links. Only one article linking to Meego was actually for MeeGo. There were 30some links for the tv show that linked to Meego, which is where the tv show was until it was moved last month in favour of the disambiguation. The tv show averages about 1 hit per hour. That means potentially over 50 people ended up on the wrong article due to his carelessness. The numbers may sound small but for a short lived tv show that was cancelled almost 13 years ago the WP article is fairly popular reading material. One should not have to follow a link in a filmography and then a hatnote link too to get to the article they are looking for. The articles linking to the disambiguation page should have been updated before or immediately after changing the disambiguation into a redirect. He simply moved on to other things. If i had found this while intentionally editing then maybe my feelings about this would be different. As to other aspects, i never looked. This was a hasty, careless error i came across in the course of reading articles. His edit summary didn't help alleviate my concerns. This was going to be a talk page note but i accidentally opened his user page instead, where i saw the notice of this RfA. An admin should know better than to do what he did and leave it for someone else to clean up. That was enough for me say nay here. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 11:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answer, and the perspective. I agree, it sounds very messy and unfortunate - and I did glance at your contribs, and saw the effort you put into fixing links afterwards, which is above and beyond the call. It's not enough to make me reconsider my !vote because I saw very many positives in my review which still, to me, are far and away enough to support. I am very grateful, though, that you took even more of your time to expand on it. Thank you.  Begoontalk 11:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given i am by far a reader i approach editing from the perspective of one who might look to read whatever article i am editing. This may not be a big deal from an editor's perspective but for a reader it was a mess that was begging for some TLC. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have just done what I just did, and restored the disambiguation page[18]. This edit was obviously a mistake, for the reasons you observe, but you didn't have to change all those links when you could have just reverted. (Actually, fixing the links was still useful, as links to disambiguation pages should be corrected, so thanks for that.) I also don't think it reflects particularly badly on Chris' suitability for adminship. Robofish (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think information such as delirious & lost provides is helpful in considering a person's suitability. It builds up a picture. From my own quick research it appears that Chris may have a tendency to make more mistakes than average; and the mistakes he makes can make work for others, or waste people's time. It's perfectly valid to oppose based on somebody making a mistake which has a significant impact and then not responding to requests to discuss the issue. I am still a neutral, though comments such as this are edging me toward an oppose. SilkTork *YES! 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose i could have simply restored the disambiguation page had that page's history been where i first looked. My first thought however was "where the hell is the article", followed by fixing the links once i found the article, and then looking into what went wrong where once all of the article links were functional. He likely has other great work given the majority support but for my lone connexion to this candidate being cleaning up after him during his RfA i can not vote in any other section. Just to clarify, i did not leave a talk page note for the candidate. There was no lack of response to a discussion, unless you count here. I went from cleaning up to his user page (instead of talk), saw the RfA notice, and instead of discussing it i simply voted nay here. 2 birds, 1 stone; this is the discussion. Even if i had left him a talk page note about this i would still have ended up in this section when i looked at WP:RFA and recognised the user name. All this from wondering what the cast of Reunion (TV series) has been up to in the last 4½ years. :( Will Estes has a new show on CBS this fall :D And now i think me go. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per D and L. Was leaning oppose based on Trypto's encounters, but this seals the deal. BLGM5 (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. opposed in the conversation in Question 8 he shows he has quite a temper in 2006, others have expressed the same concerns in more recent disuptes. I think this guys makes good contributions but does not handle conflict well. If improvement is shown i may reconsider at the next RFA Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - I also think the answers to DGG's questions are lacking detail, and Deliriousandlost raises a very interesting aspect of content editing if your going to make edits of that nature an Admin should have foresighted the ramifications of not checking the "what links here" and then not rechecking the results of the changes to make sure their working the way you intended. This is unfortunate and is not something that can't be fixed but it's the lack of answers to DGG's questions the sway my input. Mlpearc powwow 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Tryptofish. I know how much hard work you've done, but I'm more strict when it comes to civility side. Sorry, but I'm too worried about this nomination. Minimac (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I found this comment of yours unimpressive, as it almost looks like you're starting a conversation which is almost unrelated to the article and is a waste of other people's time. Minimac (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Trypto and D&L. Cannot trust promotion would be anywhere close to a net gain. Vodello (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Candidates who don't make a habit of participating in AfD with an eye towards keeping content at least occasionally should not be empowered to close AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - still no reply to some questions. Prompt, courteous responses are part of the job requirements. Question 5A raises a particularly troubling point; CC's comment could definitely be seen as condoning sockpuppetry. If he presents a convincing alternate interpretation, I'll reconsider, altho the delay alone would still be bothersome. Novickas (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are not on-wiki 24/7, nor should we expect them to be, even during their RfA. Pichpich (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I edit rather intermittently myself. But DGG asked the question at 15:38, July 18 [19] and the candidate has made quite a few edits since since then - over 100 per this non-permanent link to contrib history [20]. Sorry, I can only interpret this as avoidance. Novickas (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to be completely fair, the questions are optional. Connormahtalk 04:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In his defence, I suspect the comment in Q#5A was meant as a facetious / ironic attempt to criticize the unfortunate fact that anyone who nominates an article for deletion is likely to have that action keep coming back to haunt them. I still think, though, that the candidate would be well advised to make a clear statement about this. We should always keep in mind that irony in this written medium is often not recognized for what it is, and a silly comment made in jest can easily end up being interpreted literally (with undesired results). Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 06:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the reply to Q5A, but get the impression the delay is related to a long-running, unresolved multi-editor dispute revolving around deletion/inclusion. I asked about Q5A at his talk page. His reply describes his comment at Boba Phat as a throwaway line "directed at a few participants in that AfD, with whom I'm pretty familiar." In effect, it asks those who happen onto an AFD to know a lot of interpersonal background, that shouldn't be necessary. He also says "However, there still remains a climate (it's getting better, but it's not yet solved) where it's difficult to remain in good standing if one makes delete comments or nominations because one is likely to have one's reputation impacted for doing so." [21]. I'm not happy with this answer. Reputation is always at stake - and there are dozens of minefields besides deletion/inclusion - but many editors manage to remain in good standing despite their involvement in difficult areas. I feel that the tone of CC's recent remarks doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to keep an even keel on the deletionist/inclusionist dispute: "resorting to demagoguery and dirty tricks," "I'd rather "rescue" were given a concrete overcoat,", "infamous bloc of inclusionists," "I've no time for the mock outrage," "dominant clique involved with inclusionist disruption,", "I rather think we're on different planets" [22]. At an actor AFD, when another editor suggests merging to a relevant TV series article, he responds "This isn't a game where one tries to preserve article revisions using whatever tricks are available...Stop wasting people's time trying to redefine the deletion process on individual AfDs." [23]. (That one especially bothers me, I think WP policies do actually build on consensus established at individual cases.)
    None of these comments are outside the limits for regular editors - it's a matter of holding admins to the highest possible standards - and worrying that adminship conferred on someone who has not resolved interpersonal problems with other established editors, at least to the point where we see meaningful dialogue, is not a good idea.Novickas (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And now, no reply to DGG's question from the 23rd. That is so not in accordance with the Book of Adminship. I'm not a DGG camp follower. We've had some serious conflicts completely unrelated to AFDs. I wouldn't say that either of us has publicly backed down on those. We just agreed to disagree. Thumper replied to the first question after some followup - but he should also have replied to the second one - those applying for a position of power here need to do that - again, he's edited since then. Sorry, but both delays create the appearance of indifference to established editors' concerns as long as they seem isolated and don't seem to be affecting support vote counts. Novickas (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Per delirious. How can I trust Thumperward to be an admin if he can't even edit content without messing stuff up? BejinhanTalk 06:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone makes mistakes. Are Thumperward's particularly consistent or repetitive? Likely not, though I've not checked. I still mess stuff up occasionally when doing wiki-work, even though I've got over 20k contributions to a non-Wikimedia wiki, and 4k contributions here! --Izno (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Just too concerned about potential civility issues as explained and examined above. Jmlk17 07:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Trypto and D & L. SwarmTalk 09:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose This is reluctant because Chris does valuable work; however some of my encounters with him have been somewhat less than collegial, and quite difficult. [24]...Modernist (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - We can certainly do without more administrators with temperament issues. Some of the diffs strike me as unfriendly and brusque. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I often encounter protected edit requests from this editor as I patrol CAT:EP, and I find that I need to decline a surprising number of his requests. Based on this, at this time I am not able to trust the candidate to appropriately edit high visibility templates according to consensus. I hope that if this RfA passes he will exercise restraint, not use the tools to further any agenda of his own, and ensure that every possible controversial edit is properly discussed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like to note that the candidate has responded to the comment above on my talk page and has compiled a list of the 34 editprotected requests he has made this year at User:Thumperward/EP. Two requests which I feel are particularly illuminating are Template talk:Oldafdfull and Template talk:Expand list#Undiscussed change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - I was undecided until I saw the comment right above. I also noticed the same thing. Garion96 (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Too many issues raised by the other opposers that worry me. Answers to Q5, temperment, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Concerns about temperament, and a tendency to make unnecessarily inflammatory comments, as shown in diffs above. I am hoping he'll become a bit more "mellow" should this pass. decltype (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I really appreciate Chris' work for this project but I share the concerns that this candidate has some problems with civility and temperament and possibly falls into the category of great contributors who are not suited for adminship. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I was originally neutral on this issue as I felt that Chris was dealing adequately with civility issues and being more aware of consensus and the need to encourage and support a collegiate atmosphere in which discussion is paramount; however, I note from the oppose comments and the diffs supplied that there are still a number of concerns, and in general Chris needs to negotiate more, and with a more inviting attitude. It is through open, honest and helpful discussion that we discover what we didn't know before. MSGJ's comments that he has to turn down a number of requests from Chris tipped me over. I'd be more comfortable supporting when there are fewer issues. SilkTork *YES! 08:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose – I see a lot of excellent work from this candidate. I was concerned enough about temperament, though, that I was thinking of going "neutral" here. But it's the oppose from MSGJ that pushes me into this section too. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 11:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per other opposes mainly. Seems to make hasty changes/requests that need to be reverted often, probably not the kind of thing we want to amplify. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Civility issues raised by Tryptofish are a concern and with the comment from MSGJ, I couldn't support at this time. Mo ainm~Talk 01:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I am worried that the editor's combative approach to discussions (in the diffs in previous opposes) is not well suited to adminship. I'm also unconvinced by some of the editor's responses to questions, in particular those related to AfD participation. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. IQinn (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Per all the given oppose reasons above my !vote and now also per all the ones below my !vote. Too many negatives. IQinn (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't really necessary HJ. You also seem to be insinuating that it's acceptable to support someone without a rationale. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With no comment to the necessity of HJ's action, it does seem to be more acceptable in the community's eyes to support without rationale than opposing that way. Kind of an innocent until proven guilty thing. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, it is more acceptable, but unfortunately it's a double standard. That was really my point. However, I don't want to derail discussion away from the candidate. Carry on! Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I take either to mean, "support (or oppose) on the same general basis as the previous comments." I agree it's sub-optimal in either case. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it wasn't strictly necessary, but a support is basically an endorsement of the nomination, whereas an oppose !vote is obviously a disagreement with that. It's courteous, if nothing else, to give some sort of rationale for stating that you believe someone shouldn't be an administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth (and it isn't much), I initially though that you had !voted oppose but just forgot to use a "#" at the start of your post. I guess that's the hazard of making a point without providing a rationale. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose I looked at the issues D&L and MSGJ cited; I share their concerns. The boldness that makes one a good editor doesn't necessarily translate to making one a good admin. Townlake (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose – The diffs linked by Tryptofish and others confirm the concerns which were lingering in the back of my mind. I've seen Thumperward display incivility and a poor attitude on several occasions. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. The points made by Trypto makes me quite uneasy. Not yet. —Dark 12:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. Civility issues per above, and a bit too bold at times. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose I have been weighing this up for a couple of days now, and I feel that the attitude and civility issues sway me towards opposing at this time. I hope to be able to support at a future RfA should there be one (I see some good work by Thumperward3), but I am to concerned to be able to support or be neutral on this one, sorry -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Too many negatives. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Based on DGG's questions and what others have said. Dream Focus 01:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per answers to questions, and several of the points raised above, especially temperament and editprotected requests. Courcelles (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose, per concerns about the candidate's temperament and particularly in view of MSGJ's comments about EP requests. The candidate really comes across as too hard-headed and too sure of the rightness of his own position to handle the mop well. Nsk92 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
(Now opposed)
Concerns have been raised on the previous two RfAs regarding Chris' "hot headed" tendencies. That is, that Chris can react to situations emotionally rather than rationally, can be terse and unhelpful in his comments, can be blinkered and not think deep or wide enough, and can follow his own thinking without adjustment - ignoring circumstances, guidelines or comments from others, believing his own thinking to be right, and willing to edit war to maintain his own view of how things should be. Chris has stated in his nomination that he is no longer like that, and that he now manages dispute resolution for others, and feels himself to be a calming influence. I particularly like the comment that he will walk away from a dispute rather than escalate it. I thought I'd take a look at one's month's interactions, and selected March this year. I only looked at a couple of days and got a fair impression from that. He got into a small dispute on the Dick Turpin article when he made a mistake over presentation of the reference section - and he did walk away. He nominated a template for deletion; the result was keep; he proposed a merge on the template talkpage which overcame the main objection of the delete discussion; he was informed that he should raise the matter with those who opposed; he initially felt that he didn't need to, and when prodded again, did so - "Hoop jumped through.". He prodded an unsourced article, then when challenged that the article should be a redirect, did so with the summary "bah". The discussions on User talk:Thumperward/Archive 44 and User talk:Thumperward/Archive 45 which cover the March period are sometimes a little terse, and people are frequently expressing dissatisfaction with Chris' edits or explanations. However, Chris will then explain, and is sometimes right, and when he is wrong will apologise or let the matter drop. The signs are that Chris is aware that he can move too quickly, too strongly, and be a little terse with people, and that he is making an effort to be more flexible. I support Chris' efforts, though because his editing does seem to generate a disproportionate amount of disquiet, that he can be unhelpful terse or blunt in his comments. and that he has a history of hot headed behaviour, I don't feel 100% confident at this time in supporting. I do wish him luck though. SilkTork *YES! 10:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. My encounters with Chris have not been pleasant but I do believe he has the best of intentions, just needs to curb a bit of the tendency to go for the kill in his relations with others, especially the so-called "established" editors. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    (satisfied; switching to Support) I really need to see an answer to Q#5a (regarding AfD "anonymity") before I can decide how to !vote. Also, I feel very strongly that an admin's signature needs to reflect his/her account name (to prevent confusion), and I'm hesitant to !vote for this candidate given the current lack of connection between his account name and signature. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been in ongoing discussion this week about usurping User:Chris Cunningham (which isn't owned by me, but has never made any edits since registering), which would be my preferred way of resolving this for good. I'd planned to wait until next week to do it, though, as doing it in the middle of an RfA would be a bit disconcerting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer that users, especially admins, not change usernames. I have long been comfortable that thumperward is Chris Cunningham (not at work). Can we assume that you don't edit while at work? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have my support and I'm not going to change it over this, but the simplest solution could be to change your sig to "Thumperward (Chris Cunningham)" or "Chris Cunningham (Thumperward)" or something along those lines. I suppose it could potentially be confusing to new editors as it is, but that would probably solve it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's the solution that Andy Mabbett uses. I'll give it some thought. Regardless, I don't want it to seem like I'm trying to avoid the association. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns over the candidate's signature would be fully resolved if he were to change his sig (now, not later) to "Thumperward (Chris Cunningham)" or "Chris Cunningham (Thumperward)". Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 17:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, why not. Trivial fix which makes the world a little less confusing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. And I also see that you've addressed the "AfD anonymity" thing too. I figured that was what you meant; we just have to be careful about how we say things and how they might be misinterpreted (kind of like how you have to be very careful how you greet a friend named Jack if you're on an airplane!). I'll be changing my !vote to "support". Best wishes with your new tools, and use them wisely for our benefit. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. He does a good job, but sometimes he can be quite rude in discussions. --Leyo 15:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per concerns by trypto and d&l. Not enough to oppose, given the high support and my tendency to AGF, but not comfortable supporting. I wish you the best either way this goes. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I supported last time, though I am a little bit more hesitant to so this time, possibly due to the concerns of the opposes being more to my wavelength. I am going to give this more thought and research and possibly change my position; I am currently leaning towards supporting. CT Cooper · talk 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed this RfA and have decided to support. CT Cooper · talk 10:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral leaning towards "oppose" based mostly on the exchange at Template talk:Infobox artist#Colour code cited by Modernist above. A few extra words can convert "terse" to "gracious" -- they're worth taking the extra minute or two to add to a comment. Some of the comments in this RfA provide case studies as to how what's concise to one person is terse to another and downright laconic/gruff to still another. Finally, from the Infobox artist exchange and several others cited in this RfA, I sense the nominee sometimes sees just one right way to do things. In the absence of a guideline or policy, there are often multiple ways to do things and consensus is critical. I believe Chris is a good editor who does good work. I don't sense he's a on a power trip or that he's an inherently grouchy person. Just the same, if he becomes an admin, it will be important for him to move to a higher level of tact, understanding and kindness. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, when it became evident that there wasn't consensus for removing the colour band I dropped the issue, and at no point did I war over it on the template itself; Modernist's initial revert prior to discussion stayed in place and is still the default. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 06:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Mostly good contributions, but too much drama. Also significant concerns raised by Deleriousandlost. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I've come across Thumperward many times, and while the edits are generally good, I too notice a tad too much drama to make me comfortable enough to enter a 'support' !vote. However, do remember that 'Neutral' is definitely not an 'oppose' either.--Kudpung (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Civility issues raised above, everyone else seems satisfactory. Perhaps slow down a bit or be more cautious with items like delirious' concerns. —fetch·comms 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. Can't get past some of the concerns raised by the opposers, but am not willing to go that far, because I'm concerned it's not enough to invalidate for administration. --PinkBull 02:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral after much thought. This RFA started reminding me of Kww 3 once I realized he was going to get over 100 support votes, but still had a substantial Oppose section. I was thinking about Supporting him this time, but just can't bring myself to do it (maybe it's because I have yet to support a self-nom, heh). I remember in one of his prior RFAs, I was going to vote Oppose because of some dispute I was having with him at the time - can't remember exactly what that was. Anyway, we talked about whatever it was and I told him that if he ran again I wouldn't Oppose. I could be misremembering this entirely, so let me stop rambling. I do believe Thumperward means well, and I do see him fairly often making helpful edits on articles I watch. My own past experiences have shown that he can be pretty brusque when dealing with other people, and I can see quite a few people in the Oppose section and even a few Supports have had similar or worse experiences. I think the ability to show restraint when dealing with others is an important one in an admin - even if it means you'll need the help of other admins to get you through a situation. The reason I brought up Kww earlier is because while his third RFA was awfully contentious for some similar reasons and the crats had no confidence to promote, his 4th RFA six months later passed with landslide support. If this one also fails, maybe you can learn whatever secret he learned in that time and the same fate may await you the next time out! Good luck, in whichever result comes out of this one. BOZ (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thumperward_3&oldid=1145854016"