Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 10 December 2007

Thumperward

Voice your opinion (talk page) (13/4/0); Scheduled to end 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thumperward (talk · contribs) - Thumperward has been editing Misplaced Pages for over two years, and has made nearly 15,000 edits, including 10,000 to mainspace. His main interests include improving articles related to information technology, and developing many templates such as Template:Deletiontools. He is experienced in admin related areas, with contributions to around 50 XfD discussions, 42 requests for page protection, 41 reports to WP:AIV, and 34 posts to WP:AN/I. He has a very good knowledge of deletion guidelines, and I feel he could be especially useful at Templates for deletion. Thumperward is an experienced and knowledgable user, who I am sure would use the admin tools wisely. Epbr123 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. (I probably should note that my edits to {{deletiontools}} weren't my finest hour, though in the end I think everyone got the outcome they wanted and there was no long-term acrimony.) Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Difficult page moves, copyedits to protected templates, vandalism patrol: the same stuff I've been doing already, but without having to wait for help from an existing admin. I hope to make myself available as a general dogsbody for others who need quick turnaround on simple admin work as well, because I know how frustrating it is to have to wait sometimes.

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

A: I've helped get a few articles to GA or FA status (guinea pig stands out because it was a page I randomly came across and decided to improve for the sake of a friend who loves piggies) and I think my work in cleaning up templates and infoboxes to make Misplaced Pages look and feel more consistent is good, but Misplaced Pages is a community as well as an encyclopedia and the thing I'm most proud of is the times when I've been able to help people as opposed to articles. In particular, I helped User:Hazelsct out when he was editing articles on himself, getting the page histories sorted out and responding quickly to his questions, and I helped User:Kekslover out when she was being attacked by a rather bizarre vandal. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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: Quite a few in the past; I'm hot-headed by nature in real life, so Misplaced Pages was a learning process, but these days more than ever before I'm capable of avoiding conflict. The last one was the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. What I can say is that in this particular case I think that (aside from one particular pointless spat) I've been a moderating force in that article's discussion, and I hope that the article is more stable because of it. I try to reach out and find alternative solutions to problems when it seems discussions have hit a brick wall, and I try to ensure that when policy agrees with my version of events that I try to work within the spirit of said policy instead of wikilawyering. And regardless of the outcome of conflicts, I try to thank editors for their participation and keep from holding grudges on unrelated discussions.

General comments

• See Thumperward's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Thumperward: Thumperward (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• Please consider changing your signature to reflect your username, or vice versa. Thanks. Redrocketboy 14:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  This has been on the cards for a long time. If I'm handed the mop, that would seem to be a good time to make the switch. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed with Redrocketboy here. Thanks for taking this into consideration. :) GlassCobra 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Enthusiastic support. --Eleemosynary (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - When I've seen their edits, I've been impressed. — Rudget _speak.work 11:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979 12:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - Yes, he does have a block - but it's for a violation of a not-so-obvious rule, which took place 8 months ago. Od Mishehu 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Has requisite experience. The block was eight months ago. I generally consider indiscretions > 6 months old to be the distant past. Hopefully, nom now understands such dispute/conflict resolution tools as getting a cup of tea, seeking a third opinion, etc. Dlohcierekim 15:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Excellent contributor. Master of Puppets 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. Won't abuse the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Looks like a good user, and a block in March is hardly "recent". Thumperward has had plenty of time to improve since then. Acalamari 18:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Impressive contribs, and a block (that was misplaced even according to other established admins) to uphold BLP tenets is hardly concerning. Good luck! GlassCobra 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Enough water has passed under the bridge. Good candidate. Daniel 02:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
12. I see the block as distant history especially since there have been no further such incidents. I am slightly concerned about you being a self described hot-head. But if you keep it under control you'll be fine. I'll keep a watch. You recent interactions with editors seem to be positive. Use caution with comments about being on "someone's side." That is very unwise. However, in looking back over your recent edits and interactions I see no reason to oppose. -JodyB _talk 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    Just to point out that "our side" was explicitly set off with quotation marks to point out that it was a figure of speech; it referred to being on different sides of an issue (there's nothing wrong with Wikipedians having opinions) rather than favouritism. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

13. Support. I have seen Chris' edits on homeopathy and I think he is making some good points. I am a scientist but on that page I do find myself agreeing with the homeopaths some of the time too. Chris says he is pro science below but if he is willing to try and make such an article more neutral then this a good trait for an admin. Clearly, sometimes, this will rock the boat a bit but in the end such editors are the ones that win the compromises that give us a more stable article. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but we prefer our admins not to be hot-headed. I am concerned, in particular, about your relatively recent WP:3RR block. Sandstein (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   That 3RR was overturned due to the surrounding circumstances (there was an expansive edit war at the time, mostly fueled by the reporting editor, who currently has a sanction not to edit Middle East-related articles), and > 50% of my total edits occurred after that incident. Furthermore, I see that as a turning point for my attitude towards combative editing. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Chris, I have always found you to be civil and thoughtful, and you indeed were one of the more level-headed editors on the Beauchamp article, but I feel you have some underlying bias issues. This comment in reply to Eleemosynary just last month suggests to me that you have an alliance with this editor, and a "side" that you feel you represent. Perhaps it even hints of a strategic agenda. I appreciate the moderating behavioral example you have provided for Eleemosynary, but at this time, I do not feel comfortable supporting your RfA. I do not trust that you will not abuse the tools in some way. - Crockspot (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   (more background here, too.) All I can say to this is that I've kept my "allegiances" in the open, such allegiances are not only commonplace on Misplaced Pages but also an acceptable form of collaboration, and when they can be demonstrated not to negatively affect the way one edits I don't believe they should be a factor in adminship. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Strong Oppose. I've observed him at one of the more contentious articles around here, Homeopathy. His edits are confusing such as this one, wherein he removed references that supported the lead, added weasel wording, and generally weakened the lead. This article arrived at a relatively strong consensus (despite the occasional edit- and POV-warrior fighting for the removal of all criticism) to become a GA status article. Yet, he makes this comment as if he is an expert. And what I've learned after 10,000 edits here, when someone claims they're something (he claims he's a scientist), it's precisely the point where I doubt him, and AGF goes sailing out of the window. His edits on Homeopathy belies his self-description. For these reasons, this person should never be an admin. OrangeMarlin 13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   I said I'm "pro-science", which isn't the same thing as being a scientist, but all I can say to this is that I'm completely baffled as to Orangemarlin's insistence that I'm trying to insert pro-homeopathy POV into the article when I'm following the rationale I gave on talk here, am following up on here, and tried to resolve with him here. I'm currently attempting to resolve this issue here with another editor, and I'd hope that other editors would look on this series of events as an example of how conflicts should be resolved rather than seeing it as a negative. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Please don't feel it necessary to respond to every single oppose. OrangeMarlin 15:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Extremely strong oppose--Filll (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   ¿Por que, por favor? Dlohcierekim 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   I really am offended by having to justify my vote. However, I have a couple of reasons to oppose. I think that his level of editing experience is only moderate given the length of time he has been on WP (only 7500 edits per year?). I also have been quite discouraged by some of his attitudes in edits, particularly associated with Homeopathy. A GA is a 90K train wreck? This was the result of months and months of compromise and discussion between real homeopaths and real MDs and scientists; dozens of editors in all and thousands and thousands of edits. Then we finally agreed that it was GA status, and it was promoted. It was difficult and a lot was done in a sandbox rough draft. Finally we were all reasonably happy, except for a few trolls who appeared later and wanted a complete rewrite to make it all prohomeoapthy since they do not understand WP:NPOV. A couple were blocked and are probably back as socks, although this has not yet been proven. Thumperward marches into this situation, and without understanding what is going on, starts making imperious charges, claims, declarations and changes as though he was some sort of expert in the subject and science and the article. Amazing.... Therefore, I am not sure he has displayed the correct temperament to be an admin, at least in my opinion. This episode left a very bad taste in my mouth. Also, I am not sure the place to test his theory of "no references in LEADS" is on an article like homeopathy. If he wants to change policy, let him argue at a policy page. This also strikes me as someone who does not understand WP very well and also has fairly suspect judgement. There are obvious reasons for having cited references in LEADs, particularly for contentious articles. If he does not understand the nature of controversial articles, is he ready for adminship? Also, I find that I am put off by people who argue every vote against them. I think it is unseemly and it does not sit well with me. If they have to do this, are they really suited for the position? Please do not argue with me. It looks awful. That is my opinion. --Filll (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for explaining. RfA is a discussion, after all. Some of us do actually read and re-read RfA's and change our opinions as warranted. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose. BTW: it's "¿Por qué?" •Jim62sch• 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral