Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2

The Thing That Should Not Be

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (73/38/13); Scheduled to end 22:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

The Thing That Should Not Be (talk · contribs) – I am nominating The Thing That Should Not Be for adminship. The Thing is a clueful and dilligent editor. He has been editing since August 2007, and he has since amassed over 165,000 edits and a clean block log. The Thing is one of Wikipedia's most well-known vandal-fighters; he has over 3500 edits to WP:AIV, which is the second largest of any editor [1]. He is probably the largest user of Huggle. Vandal-fighting isn't the only thing he does. He also reports username violations to WP:UAA, and he is also found tagging articles for speedy deletion. With these things, The Thing would make a great addition to the admin corps, and I'm sure he'll use the mop well. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination

The Thing That Should Not Be is one of the most patient and stable editors we have, having edited continuously and frequently since August 2008. The majority of these edits are made through Huggle. Having used Huggle myself occasionally, I can tell it is quite tedious, and I admire the patience it takes to come back to it so often, and the willingness to continue to give us his free time when so many of our best editors are running out of patience and leaving the project.

Having looked through TTTSNB’s previous RfA’s, I notice he has been opposed in the past for several reasons. One argument that was raised was that Flagged Revisions and the Abuse Filter extension would reduce the need for anti-vandalism measures and essentially make Huggle obsolete. We have those things now and I think we can all agree that the need for anti-vandalism patrol is as great as ever. He has also been opposed for lack of content contributions, and while that is a good argument against a candidate seeking to focus on difficult content disputes and areas such as AfD, I don’t believe it is a good reason to oppose someone specifically seeking to work in AIV, UAA, and CSD, all of which are areas that need all the help they can get.

Based on his patience and willingness to get things right no matter how much effort it takes, I believe TTTSNB will be an excellent administrator. —Soap— 17:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Very Late Co-Nom

I have seen The Thing That Should Not Be in action, and his huggle work is nothing short of flawless, along with very good CSD and UAA patrolling. Despite being the number-one target of 4chan vandals, he never lets it get to his head- he just calmly reports them to AIV and keeps on going. He always stays civil no matter what the circumstances, and he would make a most excellent sysop. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: I intend, for the most part, to generally focus my work in these three areas:

Speedy deletion: I've been CSD'ing articles for quite some time, tagging over 200 pages since June, 96% of which are deleted. I've found the average amount of time it takes for them to be deleted is 1 hour and 23 minutes, last I checked around 2 months ago. To me, that's far from "Speedy". Usually I specialize in articles where notability is not asserted, vandalism, attack pages, and blatant advertising.

Dealing with inappropriate usernames: I have reported hundreds of usernames to UAA. Pretty much all of my reports have been accurate, with a mistake occurring only only once in a while, which I usually rectify immediately. In there, I specialize in attack usernames and blatantly disruptive usernames.

Anti-vandalism: I am still largely a vandal-fighter, with over 2 years of experience in this area. I have also requested semi-protection of pages receiving heavy vandalism, and have made thousands of reports to AIV, pretty much all of which were correct, as far as I know.

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

A: I have contributed my vandal-fighting efforts to Wikipedia for over 2 years. I have used various tools, like Twinkle and Igloo, but mostly I use Huggle to do this. I have made over 3,500 edits to AIV. Reporting them to AIV and waiting for them to be blocked while they do more damage, when I could just block them if I had the tools, is not exactly efficient. I have also reported nearly 400 usernames to UAA, nearly all of which were blocked. I have also tagged over 200 pages for speedy deletion since June of this year, with plenty more before that as well. Of those 200 pages, 96% of those were deleted.

Of course, those are all just statistics, which don't do much good at telling people anything about my experience. I feel these are my best contributions, because I believe I have gained significant experience in not just those areas, but in discussing disputes with other users, and explaining policies to newer users, or those who have trouble following them. I believe I have gained experience in when to block people, whether to block them after 4 warnings, as in the occasional persistent vandal, or to block immediately, as in 4chan raids or Grawp vandals.

I also used to be an accountcreator a while back, and was on the ACC team. While I have since ceased activity in that area, I had created over 100 accounts upon request while I was with the ACC team. I also have some experience with AFD's, though it's mostly stuff that could be described as "clerking".

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: To say that I haven't had any conflicts would be lying... who hasn't gotten into a conflict at one time or another? More often than not, I'm confronted with an IP asking why I reverted their edit. When this happens, I explain why their edits were reverted, and attempt to explain the relevant policies and guidelines to them.

Additional optional question from Collect

4. What is your general philosophy about AfD closings? Are they too often ruled "keep" when the arguments for keeping are too weak? Too often closed as "delete" when the arguments for deletion are not compelling? Too often closed as "no consensus" when the admin doing the closing should actually make a decision? Are your criteria significantly different for MFD closings?

A: My thoughts on *FD closes are actually neutral, more or less. There are a few strays as you describe, of course... some are kept or deleted with respectively weak arguments, some are speedily closed with hardly any votes, etc... but I feel that nothing is hard-set in the general scheme of closings.

Additional optional question from The Utahraptor

5. Since you intend to use the tools to block vandals, how many warnings do you think are necessary before a block is implemented?

A: That depends on the type of vandal/vandalism. If it's the everyday common vandal, 4 warnings should be used. Severe vandalism on the other hand requires a more stern approach. 4im's, for example, are used for severe vandalism, blatant vandalism, gross violations of the BLP policy, gross personal attacks. Other types include prolific sockers... those are often blocked without warning. 4chan vandals are the same way... they know what they're doing, and they're doing it en-masse. They don't respond to warnings of any kind, and should be blocked on sight.

Additional optional question from Kingpin13

6. Most of the areas you mention involve very little discussion or real collaboration with other editors, let alone and serious consensus building. CSD in particular, which is specifically designed to remove discussion. Have you ever worked at consensus building on-wiki, if so where and how? Also I'd be interested to hear your general thoughts on consensus - what is it? What does it mean to you?

A: I'm not entirely confident that this is exactly what you're looking for, but a couple months back, I was involved in the proposal to make a "vandal-fighter" userright, an effort to give limited blocking abilities to experienced vandal-fighters such as myself. I attempted to help craft the proposal, but eventually it fell through as, even though me and a couple other users tried to keep everything simple and concise, it ended up leaning towards a sort of full-blown mini-admin right, which nobody wanted, even myself, and it fell through. My thoughts on consensus is this: We have a problem, or a proposal. We work out certain things, add something to it, remove another, until the proposal is roughly made up. But even when that is done, not everybody is pleased with how everything turns out, disagreeing with certain parts of the proposal, agreeing with others... we keep working on it, and working on it, and working on it, asking questions, making suggestions, until we come up with a compromise that we can all (or most of us) live with. Sometimes it's possible to do this, sometimes it isn't.

Additional optional questions from Zalgo

7. Do you ever plan to work on article buliding instead of just vandalizing fighting all the time?

A: Someday, perhaps, when I can find the time, and something that I'm interested in that hasn't already been written about, I probably will do that. Until then though, I plan on continuing what I've been doing.

8. Do you ever plan to use the help of a bot?

A: No, I'm not planning on running any bots. I'm not experienced in programming, other than my recent fixing of Huggle, and very basic C++ programming.

9. Let's be in this situation as many admins have been in before... You come across a very profilic vandal, a longtime reconized one, he keeps vandalizing, changing IP's, sending checkusers haywire on false tracks... What would you do? Also, how would you handle editors with pedophiliac tendencies?

A. I would do whatever is necessary to limit and mitigate the disruption caused by the person, such as blocking all of the IP's they use on sight as soon as it is established that he's using multiple IP's in a clear pattern of disruption. As for editors with pedophiliac tendencies, I'm not entirely sure on that matter. I would probably relay my concerns to Arbcom.

Additional question from Wayne Olajuwon

10. Do you plan to continue to use Huggle as an administrator?

A: Yes, I do plan to use Huggle as an administator, though if I pass, I will keep the admin functions turned off until I get the hang of things.

Additional optional question from Scientizzle

11. I, personally, won't worry too much about your sparse content creation as long as I can be sure you've got your head around what makes good content. With that in mind, here's an opportunity to show your thought processes. One of your article creations, 2010 United States tomato shortage, was proposed for deletion today. The nominator didn't provide a rationale (or notify the article creator)...First: Devil's Advocate. What rationale(s), if any, would you consider a valid argument for deletion if you were the one nominating the article for deletion (via prod or AfD)? Flip side: if you wanted to argue against the deletion, to keep the article, what claims would you make and how would you back them up?

A: You've given me quite a conundrum in this question. I must admit, I've considered that one of my weakest articles, and am not surprised to see it go. If it didn't have as much coverage as it does, which I believe isn't much anyways, I would consider asking it be deleted as not meeting the criteria for notability for events. The flip-side? I may just argue just the opposite, that the effects of the event were far-reaching, and received coverage from reliable sources like CNN.

Questions from Strange Passerby

12. How do you view WP:IAR? Is it one of Wikipedia's more useful or more divisive policies? In what situations as an admin would you feel justified in applying it?

A: IAR is a double-edged sword. In one way, people use it correctly in the way it was intended... to justify certain actions that allow them to improve the encyclopedia. In much the same way it can be detrimental to the encyclopedia. People invoking it may have good intentions, but sometimes the ends do not justify the means. And, I'm not entirely sure what specific situations I would be justified in applying it... There is one thing though... Say there's an unprotected page, under a dispute of some kind, editors and IP's alike involved in it. Protecting that page would be out of the question for me if I were involved, for example. But if that very same article suddenly got hit with something like a large 4chan raid, and no other administrators were around, I would temporarily semi-protect it to prevent disruption, and the unprotect it once the attack thread expired. (If there were other admins active, I would ask them to protect it first.) That's the only situation I can think of.

13. In the style of an RFA oppose, please sum up why you think you shouldn't get the admin tools. Please follow that up with a good rebuttal showing how you'd respond to your self-oppose.

A:

Additional optional question from Rockfang

14. What different account names have you used to edit here?

A: Here they are, but not all of them have made edits.

My main account was originally named User:Vandalism destroyer, before I requested a usurpation of User:Until It Sleeps, after which, about a year or so later, I requested a rename to my current username.

My alternate accounts:

User:The sock that should not be, my alternate account which I primarily use to edit via public computers.

User:Vandalism destroyer, a test account under what was my old username before I requested a username change.

User:TTTSNB, a doppelganger, also used in my signature.

User:UntilItSleeps PublicPC, a doppelganger made after I renamed my alternate account.

User:V D on a public PC, a doppelganger made after I renamed my alternate account.

User:Kitten cannon lover, my first account, abandoned.

Additional optional question from Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

15.(I'm really sorry for asking this as an apparently pile-on question. Please don't answer it if you don't wish to. It will not affect my vote.) Is it humanly possible for an editor to undertake 23 reverts in a minute while fighting vandalism? Is it possible to continue having multiple 20 plus reverts per minute, like you have had, while fighting vandalism? In the sense, if a vandal-fighter like you takes less than 3 seconds to revert a page, warn the suspected vandal, and in between, report the apparent vandal to AVI, and all in less than three seconds, are you able to devote enough time to ensure that the revision being loaded is appropriate?

A: I... don't recall ever making such a large amount of edits in a single minute, except possibly when I've mass-rolled back a vandal... if you're referring to the RPM rate reported in Huggle, or on the Template:Vandalism information page, that's the combined whole of all of the reverts that everybody is making at the time, not just one person.

I marked only your contributions; I can provide one example here if you wish>> 23 reverts in one minute starting here for instance. If you wish, there're more instances. But I have to necessarily mention out here that you already have my support vote. And I have requested you to slow down in this area because I do believe you are doing one fantastic job in vandal fighting, at the same time need to have a resolve to view each revert with emphasis. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And I do resolve to review each edit before I revert. After doing this for 2 years, I'm better able to quickly spot things like "So and so is a fag", or entire pages being replaced with "He sucks", things like that. I do make a mistake every now and then, but I revert myself, and remove the warning quickly. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 04:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questiona from DGG

16A.I'm concerned about your plans for speedy. First, do you think content work is needed to decide is an article is , for example, qualified for G11 promotional, where one of the conditions is that it can not be fixed by normal editing? .

16B. Then, why do you think 1.5 hours too slow for speedy deletion? I think that's remarkably good performance, considering that clear vandalism and abuse get deleted almost immediately? There was indeed frequent background two years ago, but not today--unless there's an unsually heavy load of images. I do not see you have experience with images -- or copyright.

16C. Do you plan to delete only articles others have tagged, or do you routinely plan to delete those you yourself identify without giving another admin the opportunity to check? DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A: A: I believe that if one doesn't have much content work, then they should restrict themselves to the most blatant of advertisements, as I have. (e.g. Here at company x, we strive to give you the best service possible. Call us today!) If something is even remotely borderline, I would leave it for somebody else to patrol. If I do get more content experience in the future, B: I have seen certain pages, attack pages and vandalism, that have stayed up for hours at a time. I believe any CSD tagging should grab the attention of an admin immediately. Yes I do realize that this isn't the case, mostly because we are all volunteers here. We all edit on our own time. I simply wish to help expedite the process for certain kinds of pages, like the aforementioned attack pages which stay up for hours at a time. C: One of the reasons I am running for administrator is the ability to be able to do things myself without having to solicit the help of another administrator. Thus, I do plan to do the latter on a regular basis, unless the page isn't clear-cut. If that is the case, then I will probably tag it/request a second opinion.

17. I'm also concerned about your use of automarted tools. Does placing notices via automated tools provide sufficient information to users? Do you plan to add personalized summaries? DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A: Warnings placed via automated tools are essentially the same as regular warnings... with them, the tools allow you to place your own comments with the warnings.

18. What is the next step for the article Lee Abramson -- Page log which you nom'd for A7 when it contained only: "The first person to sell pork rinds on the Internet porkrind.com '''Music''' <br /> -Piano Rock <ref>http://www.acenoface.com</ref> <br /> -Mystic Poet Rumi set to Downtempo <ref>http://www.rumimusic.com</ref> <br /> -Greatest Hits 1985-2010 <ref>http://www.leeabramson.com</ref> <br /> DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A:

Additional optional question from Lear's Fool

19. (Sorry to pile on, a yes or no will suffice) Do you intend to be open to recall?

A: I will just say that if the community feels that I have abused the tools, I will do whatever is requested of me, regardless of what I may feel at the time.

Additional optional question from Secret

20. What are your interests in real life, and the answer can not be Wikipedia. Would you start editing articles with your interest if you pass or fail this RFA?

A: My real life interests involve helping to maintain and repair computer systems, personal computers, things of that nature. I am a certified A+ computer technician in real life, and am currently taking classes that gravitate towards administrating computer systems, as well as computer networks... (On a side note, figuring out IP ranges is not an easy task if you are unfamiliar with how they work, like I was a couple years back, and I sympathize with admins who are reluctant to apply rangeblocks.) Right now, I have yet to find an article that I could improve, or one that I could write, that currently matches my interests, that hasn't already been written up better than I could write myself, but that may change as I take up more interests in the field.

Additional optional question from Zalgo

21.Why was your relationship with iMatthew so hostile and when he applied for RfA, why were you so negative towards him?

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps
• Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 2
• Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 3
• Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be
• Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2

• Links for The Thing That Should Not Be: The Thing That Should Not Be (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for The Thing That Should Not Be can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• I would like to point out that even if I use a tool to revert vandalism, I don't think it should detract on my judgment. Huggle is not some bot which runs on one's account. In fact I would hardly call it automated at all. All it is, is another interface by which I can revert vandalism and warn the user. When using Huggle, I still have to look at the diff. I still have to decide whether or not to revert and warn the user. I still have to decide whether or not to report the user to AIV. I have to approve every edit that I make in Huggle. I have to look at the level of warning the user has, if they've been reported to AIV or not, etc. It is not a tool which you go about blindly reverting vandalism. It requires the same judgment as reverting and warning the user manually. I do make an occasional mistake, but I revert myself immediately and remove the warning. All it does is make things easier, and quicker, which gets more work done, and gets vandalism off of the pages faster than if I were to do things manually. The faster vandalism gets taken off of the pages, the better, so I use the fastest method that I know of. The exact same things apply to using Twinkle. Please consider this when you consider my request to become an administrator. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It should also be pointed out that a majority of the opposers are not opposing for you using Huggle, but your persistent refusal to follow community consensus. This is a problem that contributed to my oppose. (X! · talk)  · @091  ·  01:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Edit stats posted on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To the people opposing due to these so-called temperament problems: Everything that has been described here has occurred off of Wikipedia. Is there any evidence of these problems onwiki? Any evidence onwiki that I would abuse the tools in a conflict? The set of tools isn't akin to a baseball bat that you use to take out someone who disagrees with you. The tools are use strictly to maintain and protect the encyclopedia... I intend to use them for absolutely nothing outside of that scope. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just a very minor issue: Above there was a link described as showing TTTSNB making 23 reverts in one minute. It is actually 23 edits, of which 12 are reverts and the other 11 are the corresponding talk page messages. —Soap— 14:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is the most analytical RfA I have ever seen. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have to throw this out here, Lots of people here "expect/demand" The Thing to contribute to main content. Everyone here should not expect someone to do something they wouldn't be good at. It is a absolute mockery to see that vandalism fighters and people who do maintenance are treated like crap and disrespected with RFA's for there constant vigilance and dedication. Honestly, he has been here consistently for a long time now. To the people who oppose on the basis of lack of content I plead for you to at least neutral or support him. He has proven to many people he can be trusted and hated by others for minor, silly reasons. The community has nothing to lose in the approval of this RFA. If anything I just wish to request that The Thing be Open to Recall and be given the tools. He CAN be trusted with at chance in my book. If he really is the failure that so many people who oppose see then he can be booted out of here. Anyways, Just fucking let him have the damn chance, he has at least proven he could handle it. Sidonuke 08:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support as nom. ~NerdyScienceDude 22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
3. (edit conflict)Super support Airplaneman ✈ 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - Excellent vandal-fighter, content creation is not that important for vandal-fighters. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Strong support: Fought a lot of vandalism with Huggle. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Weak support. Your content editing isn't up to the standards it should be, but based on your answers to the questions in this RfA, I'm going to support. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 22:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
7. Support as nominator. —Soap— 23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Support per Eagles, mainly. Not every admin has to be a top-notch content contributor (and incidentally I doubt I'm the only admin who has written much more audited content since being given the mop than I had before I got it). I can see the point of view that says that admins need to have content experience before getting involved with the tools in sorting out content-based disruption, but I don't get the impression that TTTSNB is going to wade into that territory like a bull in a china shop anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 23:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Support, The Thing's help is sorely needed. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Support: User is a very active vandal fighter. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
11. CAT:CSD and AIV get more and more backlogged lately. Promoting this candidate will obviously help the project in that respect. The opposes don't explain how their reasons for opposing relate to the candidate's competence as an admin, except for a vague reference to dealing with edit-warring.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Support. Earlier in my Wiki-career, my opinion was to support good vandal fighters at RfA simply on the grounds that they can make good contributions as administrators, even without content experience. Now—and I say this for the benefit of those who will oppose for lack of content work—I actually have come to think that there is, indeed, the need for candidates to demonstrate that they can deal with arguments in a thoughtful, civil, and articulate way, not simply to be grumpy mouse-clickers. But that doesn't mean that a candidate who hasn't plumbed the depths of the FA process will be unable to be a good administrator. It depends on the candidate, whether or not they communicate intelligently when the IPs complain about being reverted and templated. I need to see that the candidate can be depended upon to reply politely, patiently, and based on policy. So I looked through the candidate's talk page and talk archives. And I support enthusiastically. And opposers who conclude from the lack of content work that this person lacks the temperament to be an administrator haven't done their homework. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Even if he doesn't create content, his contributions here are very helpful. If he created a ton of content and had no experience in administrative issues, I would be more inclined to oppose, because we want our best content contributors to keep creating content, not deal with vandalism and the behind-the-scenes tasks. Netalarm^talk 23:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
15. Support- does a lot of work in admin-related areas and does a good job. Giving him the tools would be a net positive. Reyk _YO! 23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
16. Strong support: Regardless of how you put it, TTTSNB would make great use of the admin tools, specially by blocking users. I would've liked to be the one that nominated him, though. ;) — Waterfox  23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
17. Go, baby, go! He is THE anti-vandal... Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Strong support - Quite a few vandlism fighters passed in the past few, I see no reason why The Thing should not join them. Derild4921☼ 23:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
19. Fo' sho. I thought you weren't going to attempt RfA again. Best of luck, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
21. It seems like the immaturity comments come from IRC, that's not a reason to oppose someone, supporting to cancel out these votes. Secret ^account 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

    I shall copy and paste something that I have brought up in the oppose section "When one applies for a job, the employer certainly asks for information about past professional experience- which is directly related to the job that is being applied for, as it involves past experience in said field of work. Employers generally also require personal history- which is separate from the specific position, as it involves one's personality and general maturity as demonstrated outside said field of work. Apply this here." Therefore, incidents on IRC that were related to onwiki involvement are certainly relevant. Also, I see that you don't have a reason for supporting, other than canceling out oppose votes. Do you have a reason for supporting? We have a neutral section for a reason. Besides, if you're under the impression that some of the oppose votes have no backing, I think it's quite irrational (also a bit hypocritical) to post a support vote without backing.  IShadowed  ✰  00:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    I'm supporting mainly because to cancel out IRC votes, that's a reason to support. We all act immature at times at IRC, I was a regular there for years, it's a break from the real life wiki stress, as long as the immaturity is not on wiki, that's fine with me. Secret ^account 01:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    I understand that you're supporting to cancel out the well-explained oppose votes, however, do you actually have a relevant reason for supporting? Also, yes, we all act immature on IRC sometimes. However, it's really not wise to act immature on IRC and then run for something that requires maturity onwiki. For example, if something is said in a courtroom, and the judge tells the jury to disregard it, you know they're not just going to forget about it. The same with the job interview example; suppose said applicant had a misdemeanor offense. That's something that happened outside of the workplace. It's not an incredibly serious offense, but there are tons of applicants applying for the same job that do not have a criminal record.  IShadowed  ✰  01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Ok good vandal fighter, there. I seen plenty of adminstrators and even crats and former ArbCom members act immature in IRC, so what go ahead and desysop them. It doesn't make a difference. Hell I seen adminstrators who all they do is act immature in IRC passed because of the IRC vote. Secret ^account 01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    IShadowed, you talk about me being immature off-wiki. Opposing me for something that occurs off-wiki, that has nothing to do with the admin tools. But let me ask you, how mature is something like this?. Hmm... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    However, Secret, you seem to forget that I am discussing overall temperament. We all slip up and act immature sometimes, I can respect that, however, it is the constant temperament issues that I've seen the user in question demonstrate frequently that concerns me. And to Thing, yes, that was indeed immature of me. However, do you see me running for RfA? No. And there is your difference. Also, Thing, your temperament offwiki is certainly relevant to the admin tools, as I initially explained in my oppose vote.  IShadowed  ✰  01:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    The comment above from the candidate only furthers my concerns. IShadowed is not applying for adminship. "But let me ask you, how mature is something like this?. Hmm... " It was completely condescending, and if anything, just verified all !voters concerns regarding maturity. Vodello (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    To use Gary Larson's modified version of the famous quote, though, "He who live in grass house shouldn't throw spears". I see no issue with pointing that out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, and let's also say that anyone without a degree in political science shouldn't be allowed to vote in elections.  IShadowed  ✰  09:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    You say that like it would be a bad idea... ;) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Vodello I told The Thing in IRC last night that it was a bad mistake, rebutting another editor about maturity by showing an immature example. I acted way more immature than him before on wiki, (mainly health related impulses) in fact my reputation is tarnished because of immaturity so I can't oppose anyone based on immaturity. I have major concerns about article writing, but I can't be flip-flopping around in a RFA. Secret ^account 17:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    It would be a bad idea, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Not like it wouldn't eliminate many ignorant votes, but it would destroy the democracy (in this case, consensus) that holds the collaborative effort together. My vote is well supported by examples and concerns over the user, and therefore I do not appreciate your implication of hypocrisy. Also, Secret, I don't see why you "can't" oppose based on immaturity if you're also (self-declared) immature also. Takes one to know one?  IShadowed  ✰  19:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Not to budge in, but it seems the most immature person here is actually IShadowed. You seem to have something to say about everyone's votes...we know you don't want him to be an administrator, nuff said. Thankyou Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry? Since when has speaking freely and honestly been immature? RfA is an open process; The Thing can handle the commentary, every other user can handle the commentary. Did I miss some amendment to the policy which prevented people criticising each others votes? "the most immature person here is [commentator], who has something to say about everyone"; and the winner of 2010's passive-aggressive bitching competition iiiis... you! Congratulations, though; in posting about how immature IShadowed was, you managed to outdo her. Great stuff. Ironholds (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Oh come on, some of us do have a sense of humor, you know. Relax, and can we end this ridiculousness now? (Hint: it's a rhetorical question) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Guys... I do want discussion to happen on here. What I don't want is for this to turn into a bloodbath. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, Tofuwitch11, god forbid there should be discussion on the discussion portion of the RfA! And Thing, to me, this is not a bloodbath, and if others wish to make it so, then that's really not my problem. I'm here to discuss (note that Secret called himself immature, I was not the one to bring that up.).  IShadowed  ✰  20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    You also called yourself immature, several times, stating that that was the reason you don't have an RFA...Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Not exactly. I said that that specific edit was immature. As far as my lack of RfA; unlike the candidate, I understand and therefore do not want to have to handle the responsibility that comes with adminship. However, as I have previously said, I see no need for you to re-state any of that, there is no need for redundancy... especially when it is really irrelevant to the RfA in question. My lack of RfA and my edits onwiki have nothing to do with this RfA, nor with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Basic critical thinking for you, here, Tofutwitch11. "I am immature" does not mean "I am the most immature person in all of RfA". Just sayin'. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Ironholds hit the nail on my feelings about this candidate, both in the oppose section and here. If he could handle the criticism here, that's mature. Look at the RFA which I tried regaining my tools back, I couldn't handle the criticism at all and went balistic. Secret ^account 00:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

    Candidate, you say that you do not want a bloodbath, but it's two of your own edits on this RFA that caused your Support to Oppose ratio to plummet. You were at 32-5 before the condescending remark, with IShadowed's vote only being a WEAK oppose. What was only a few concerns of what was at the time only potential temperament issues became a complete RFA-killer. Had you not shown your hand before getting the tools, it was looking like this RFA was going to easily pass. You let loose several firebombs in your own RFA, torching any chance of success. There's always a sixth RFA, I guess. please don't. Vodello (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

    A sixth RFA is fine as long as he listens to the comments of the oppose votes, and do stuff that isn't anti-vandalism or CSD tagging. I offered to tutor him on the finer aspects of wiki if he fails this nomination. Secret ^account 02:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

    The opposition has already noted that he ignored the same concerns raised over and over again by the community in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th RFA. I really don't think the old saying goes, "Fool me five times, shame on you. Fool me six times.. I.. I won't get fooled again." As he has not listened the previous three times, there is little reason to believe he will listen this time. Vodello (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

    Of course I would strongly oppose this candidate if he hasn't changed since this RFA, I only supported to cancel out the IRC immaturity votes, and because I don't want to flip-flop supports and opposes over this candidate (I agree more with most of the opposes than the supports, so this is a moral support), I think this discussion is getting too long here and should be moved to the talk page. Secret ^account 02:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

22. I am opening an art museum and need a curator and some guards. Applicants should have painted at least three museum quality masterpieces so that they have a thorough understanding of what went into the items they will be working with. That or they could know how to do the job they are actually applying for. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
23. Support, user knows his anti-vandalism stuff, and as apparent from the answer to Q11, his deletion stuff too. Who says candidates must have a GA, FA, etc.? All good faith contributions, be they vandal fighting, gnoming, locating sources, or writing FAs, are valid and valuable—they help make the encyclopedia better. To "prioritize" one type of contribution over another is contrary to the spirit of a project with many volunteers, all of whom may contribute more strongly in some areas than others. I see no reason to believe the candidate will act abusively or poorly with the tools. (And per Beeblebrox, who I just EC'd with and who says it exceedingly well.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
24. SupportGood user, great antivandalism, but honestly I DGAF about content creation. Mop and bucket != pen and paper, as Thing stated on Bsadowski1's RfA. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    The question is not about content work, though; this is his third RfA. In the other two, he was told to go away and come back when he had content work. This is about a user refusing to listen to community consensus and expecting to be trusted. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

25. Seems like a great candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
27. Support. Excellent vandal fighter. Has experience in the places they want to work at which is always a plus. In general, a net positive. Also, the opposes are really unconvincing. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
28. Offered to nom nultiple times, but never did :P NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
29. Support (edit conflict) Have seen editor around on RC and I trust their judgement. Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Great user. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Good vandal fighter, seems well rounded enough to become an admin. Btw: I agree with TTTSNB on his stance about Huggle/Twinkle being not so automated as people make them out to be. Jarkeld (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
32. Support You Go TTSNB! - Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Supported last time, and nothing has changed as far as I can tell. faithless (^speak) 01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
34. Weak support Writing articles isn't as hard as one would imagine. The hard part is getting oneself to actually jump in and start. I think the concerns over judgment are valid, but I'm really hoping that, as this is yet another RfA for you, you will not disappoint. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
35. Support Can be trusted with the vandal fighting tools. Stickee (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
36. Strong support. I am thrilled you decided to run- show em what adminship is all about! Tommy! 03:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
37. Strong Support Awesome editor. Beats me to me almost every revert though. Inka888^ContribsTalk 03:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
38. Strongest possible support Excellent anti-vandal work, good CSD and UAA patrolling, and doesn't let the /b/-tards get to him. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
39. Has contributed more content than I have or ever will. I guess I'm a bad admin :( --Closedmouth (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
40. Support A distinguished vandal fighter, the candidate's answer to Q2 speaks to a compelling need for the tools.--Hokeman (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Purely for his vandal fighting and purely because I feel trite guilty asking a pile-on question. This is irrespective of the fact that I would implore The Thing to slow down in vandal fighting. I do not believe it is humanly possible to handle such levels of vandal fighting without losing relevance of the quality of content and without erring. One reason why some issues of immaturity might have cropped up could be due to the impulsive orientation of The Thing. But that's purely my opinion. For now, support. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. Leaning towards strong support, given the rationales of the opposes. I've never seen anything but good things from this candidate. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
43. Support, vandal-fighting is a valid route to adminship.-gadfium 05:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
44. hell yes. :)Talktome^(Intelati) 05:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
45. Support - excellent vandal fighter, past interactions with user have all been positive and user seems to be very kind and good faith assuming. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:04pm • 07:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
46. On balance. I was just never able to convince myself that a breadth of content contributions should be considered a prerequisite for adminship. I admit that the opposition regarding a potential lack of maturity has me somewhat concerned, especially considering how they are allegedly based off of incidents that occured off-wiki - leaving me no way of knowing what has been said, and therefore no way to disregard the claims being made (which I find to be almost unduly harsh, in all honesty). However, in the absence of evidence which indicates that this user will not be an overall benefit to the site as an administrator, I am supporting. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Good track and truly committed user and the user has extensive experience in WP:UAA,WP:AIV and WP:CSD where the user plans to work and the project stands only to gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
48. Weak support. This would probably have been stronger but I'm not impressed by some of the comments in response to the opposes. However, these are clearly the exception rather than the rule. Outside of RfA, TTTNSB's contributions are almost always excellent, even if they aren't the most varied in nature. Lack of content creation doesn't worry me unduly (poor content creation is far worse IMHO), and there's just enough there to convince me that I don't need to concerned. I can't support as fully as I want to becaus some of the opposes are rather convincing, but I'm still going to support. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
49. Strong Support Need I explain?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Well, yes. Voting is bad. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Very well in order:

    • To the people with editcountitus, The Thing has over 100,000 of them.
    • To those who look for project space edits, TTT has over 3,000 edits alone to AIV.
    • To those who look for hard work on the project, upon looking at his recent edits (and more) TTT is the most prolific editor around save for Tide Rolls or J. Delanoy and he appears to show no signs of letting up.
    • To those who are worried about his lack of content contributions, see WP:NEIA.
    • Now, need I say more?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

50. Support Had noted (and appreciated) TTTSNB's contributions before I knew of this RfA. --DGaw (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
51. Support - knows his way around ANI, should make a good admin providing he takes it easy to start with. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
52. Strong Support Always the wingman for me while I fight vandalism. Special Cases ^{Spit out your confessions,vandal} 17:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
53. Support Come on, it's going to happen at some point, might as well make it now. Seems qualified enough for me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
54. Strong Support Due to exceptional track record. For an open access project anti vandalism is just as essential as content creation. Some candidates who lack article building experience might be at risk of misusing the tools in areas like article protection, but I dont this applies here due to candidates good clue level and that fact he seems to understand content (Im thinking of Ottava who in a previous RfA said even he was found the candidates advice on writing of great help, so its not that The Thing lacks skill just motivation.) Writing and researching articles will develop valuable skills much more than vandal fighting, but it his choice and because The Thing and others puts in so much time defending others work, those who like to spend 90% of their wiki time writing articles are free to do so. Please take WSCs advice on board about hasty CSD tagging and thanks for your much appreaciated work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
55. Support as an outstanding vandal fighter. I would trust The Thing with the mop. There are a lot of different jobs to be done on wikipedia, but there are lots of people who might do them; we need people who are great at each job, not people who are great at all jobs. (As an aside; there are thousands of neglected articles that came from Google Translate or from ESL authors which need some cleanup, and thousands more on other wikipedias that could be brought over to en. Shall we restrict the mop only to those who have shown fluency in a couple of other languages?) bobrayner (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
56. Strongest possible support Fantastic vandal fighter, the project would benefit hugely from having The Thing as an admin, I trust the user given the amount of time he has already given to the project. Acather96 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
57. Support the lack of content creation isn't a problem to me as Beeblebrox has eloquently justified. Beeblebrox looks to be a good admin but has only just learnt how to use named references in articles, clearly demonstrating that being an admin doesn't require an in depth knowledge of article creation. Personally I couldn't spend forever reverting on huggle, so if TTTSNB is happy to do this, then I see no reason not to support him. Giving him a mop will cut down on other admin's work if they can block vandals immediately. Smartse (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
58. Support. Just give him the bit already, he's earned it. Let's not forsake our valuable vandal fighters. -- œ^™ 21:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Adminship isn't an award. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    That comment makes me think that you think it is. Adminship is not a big deal and The Thing is more than capable. Tommy! 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    That makes zero sense. "Adminship isn't an award" in actuality means, "I think adminship is an award"? This is at least your third attempt in this RFA to deliberately instigate conflict and all-around drama with editors. Each passing comment like the one above only hurts the candidate you're supporting. Vodello (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

59. Support. Thing has worked hard here for a long time, and while more content creation would be a definite plus, I think even without it he has demonstrated sufficient experience and maturity to handle the admin tasks he seeks to do. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
60. Support. I value vandalism fighting highly and see that this editor would use the admin tools to continue working in that area. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
61. Strong Support Tireless and highly effective anti-vandal. I believe that the qualms raised about a scarcity of content contributions are outweighed by the diligence displayed in vandalism control. A specialisation of jobs is, after all, an important thing in a civilised society... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
62. Strong Support The Thing is a great vandal fighter, always looking for ways to help. Active user in CVN among other things. --Wolfnix • Talk • 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
63. Super Strong Support One of the best vandal fighters on wikipedia and can be trusted with the mop, if he becomes an admin vandals would be blocked super fast! Peter.C • talk 00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
64. Strong Support The Thing sits on Wikipedia and lives off of it. Granting sysop tools to someone who is ever so vigilant on this wiki would help "eliminate" the a majority of problems seen in the anti vandalism area. The English Wikipedia is one of the top visited sites on the internet and from that The Thing would greatly help maintain a better quality of content, safe from the constant destruction of vandals. As a side note, opposing due to lack of content seems wrong, There are other people approved aside from that fact and admins who has stopped adding content to maintain. Anyways, give The Thing some sysop tools already. An additional note, Most the people opposing him right now have a personal dislike to him. I think some of the opposes should be ignored because of that fact. Sidonuke 01:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Thought he had the mop already!!! --Addihockey10 01:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
66. Support I have seen no evidence that he cannot be trusted. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
67. Support seems to be an esteemed anti vandal patroller, having the tools would make a real difference in that area. We can't all be der first violiner in der orchestra you know, some of us has to push der vind through der trombone.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
68. Support wiooiw (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
69. Support that should not be. We need more good admins patrolling WP:AIV. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 02:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
70. Strong Support The Thing is a very good contributer who I quite familiar with. Usually I see his username in huggle, something along the lines of "Error already reverted by User:The Thing That Should Not Be". He is a excellent vandal fighter. With over 165,000 edits and three years of experience I see no issues of incivility I support. I don't see the big deal about lack of featured articles. The administrator tools are not a big deal. If there is no signs of likely abuse, the user is experienced, and they have a need for the tools I don't have a problem with supporting a candidate. The administrators would be quite helpful to The Thing That Should Not Be. He does quite a bit of vandal fighting. The tools would help him do this work. I remember Tide Rolls RFA passed. Tide Rolls is also a very good antivandal fighter and passed partially because of it. Why is this RFA any different? --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
71. Strong Support - I'm quite familiar with The Thing's vandal fighting and am unaware of any immaturity concerns. This is exactly the kind of editor the mop is for. Net advantage to the project doesn't even to begin to describe the potential benefit of the Thing's adminship. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
72. Support. I do not believe that one needs to have a certain number of FAs, GAs, and DYKs to be a good administrator. Moreover, the more such persons who become admins, the less content contribution we will get from them. There is nothing inherently wrong with an admin who wants to only work in a narrowly defined area as does TTTSNB. I believe that he knows in what areas lie his strengths and weaknesses. I take him at his word when he says that he would defer to other admins in areas beyond his ken until he develops more understanding in those areas. Also, he would not be the only admin who works primarily in vandal fighting (e.g., Tide rolls, a vandal fighter whose elevation to admin was a step in the right directon). Finally, I concur with Shadowjams point that TTTSNB would produce more help than harm. — SpikeToronto 07:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
73. Support Adminship is no big deal. You seems like a reasonable, level headed fellow and so I give you my support. Basket of Puppies 08:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose I really hate to do this, as you seem to be an excelant vandal fighter. However, I cannot support an editor with this few content edits. I cannot trust you without some content work, as it helps with issues like edit wars etc. I don't subscribe to the 10 FA standard, but I need a little more than this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   While I respect Soap's judgement, I in the side that you need to have at least some article work before trying an RFA, unless there are special circumstances. The question to number 4 in his last RFA makes me Oppose. Sorry Secret ^account 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Could you explain why an answer to a question in a past RfA that took place 9 months ago makes you oppose? ~NerdyScienceDude 23:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Because it sums up his feelings about article work, and I don't see any article work since the RFA, so I'll assume he still has that feeling. The comment that all the article work that needs to be done is already finished doesn't help the situation. I may change to support later, to cancel out those immaturity votes without evidence. Secret ^account 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2. 99% Strong Oppose combined with a 1% very weak support. Candidate was only exclusively partcipating in vandal fighting, not constructive article building. I see that he started to nominate articles to delete... I mean, he doesn't have any GA, FA... The only I feel that this is not the time yet as i feel he's quite immature at some times. Altough he earns this right to be a admin due to the past oversight drama... Blame it on User:Drini for this shit. I'm just expressing my opinion on this. I'm sorry man, but i'm going to decline my support. Good luck next time! Zalgo (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   I opposed but can you explain further, especially with the immaturity? Secret ^account 22:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   The recent discussion on my talk page may prove useful to you. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Yea that's a bunch of immaturity, but by other editors not you. Secret ^account 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

3. Weak Strong Oppose This time around (Yes, I supported him last RfA), I feel I have to express my serious concerns over maturity, as well as concerns with contributions. I've found that although Thing's intentions are undoubtedly in good faith, but I would not necessarily trust him with admin tools. I feel a conflict with an editor/IP vandal could result in abuse of admin tools, as I've found that this user can be exceptionally quick tempered, irrational, and generally immature while in a conflict ([edit]as demonstrated throughout this very RfA). Due to this, I think abstaining from admin tools would be appropriate at the present time, especially seeing as he's doing a fine job as it is without admin tools. Also, I do have to express my concern over lack on content contributions. Seeing as this is a collaborative encyclopedic effort, I'd like to see a bit more of content work. I understand that Thing enjoys Huggling (let's leave that in the context of wiki), however- as stated- I'd like to see a few more attempts at content work. I understand that admin tools would definitely be beneficial to this user, however I presently find that I cannot bring myself to support.  IShadowed  ✰  23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   I understand that he enjoys "huggling" a bit too much in my own opinion. Zalgo (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   IShadowed, could you provide an example on Wikipedia (diff) of such behavior? Netalarm^talk 23:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Netalarm, when one applies for a job, the employer certainly asks for information about past professional experience- which is directly related to the job that is being applied for, as it involves past experience in said field of work. Employers generally also require personal history- which is separate from the specific position, as it involves one's personality and general maturity as demonstrated outside said field of work. Apply this here. As I've said, the work that Thing has done onwiki is quite satisfactory as it is, but there is also what he is not doing.  IShadowed  ✰  23:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Wow, I can't believe what I'm reading. wow. I have a comment to say, but that'll be misconstrued as a "personal attack," so I'll say nothing. Tommy! 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   ...speaking of immaturity...  IShadowed  ✰  03:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   My point exactly. Tommy! 03:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   If you feel that you must resort to personal attacks, Tommy, I would advise that you stay off the more controversial parts of the site, such as the RfAs.  IShadowed  ✰  03:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Fortunately, I'm beyond your games of instigation. Re-read what I wrote above, and while you're at it, don't take yourself too seriously. Tommy! 04:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Once again, I'd advise you to stay away from discussions where you cannot handle yourself.  IShadowed  ✰  04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Ok, let's just drop this argument. Everybody is entitled to their opinion here. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Fine by me.  IShadowed  ✰  04:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose While I believe vandalism fighting is important, I cannot support for adminship anyone who does not have sufficient experience with other functions. Your answers to questions 1, 2, and 7 show me that your skill is too narrow. While being an account creator for a time was a good sign, recent activity has all been deletions (vandal fighting is included in this) of one type or another. You're a good editor though, which is why it pains me to cast the vote this way. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   If it's anything worth mentioning, I am active in reporting username violations to UAA as well. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   The way I see it, there is a linear spectrum of contributions. At the creation side lie new page creation, account creation, content addition, article reviews, and other things that actively add to the quality of the articles. At the opposite end (deconstructive but not unconstructive) lie vandalism fighting, XfD, and sadly, much of AN/I. I like to see people with experience and willingness to work in both sides. I prefer balance, but I am more inclined to support editors that are heavier on the creative side than the deconstructive side. As I said, you're a good editor, but I need to see something outside of the deconsturive side, otherwise I'm just not comfortable. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose Strong Oppose Maturity and temperament concerns per IShadowed. We have quite enough current admins with these traits already, and it more often than not leads to the exact scenario IShadowed described involving abuse of tools in conflicts. I won't take the chance in supporting the addition of another potential problem admin to the drama pile. Vodello (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Your oppose makes me wonder if you're taking in all of the picture. The concerns are off wiki, and off wiki alone. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   For the moment, yes. Is there a chance that, given the tools, it will not be taken on-wiki ever and there will never be a problem? Yes. Am I willing to take that chance after seeing time and time again this turn into a total cluster? No. Furthermore, I was unaware that this is in fact your fourth RFA, and not your second. Also, total lack of content building, which has been brought up many times on the previous RFAs, was ignored. One red flag by itself may not lead me to auto-oppose, but each additional red flag (four) increases my concerns exponentially. I can not support. Vodello (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Vote updated to Strong Oppose per unacceptable comment from candidate to IShadowed that validates the opposition's concerns of maturity. Can never support. Vodello (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Just not following why that's not mature. That's a bit of frustration, leading to him raising a fairly valid poitn. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   He really isn't introducing a valid point. He is immature and running for RfA. I am immature and not running for RfA. I know that running for RfA after exhibiting immature behavior is an unwise choice, and therefore am not running.  IShadowed  ✰  03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   "I know you are but what am I" from the candidate was not a valid point at all. If he is so easily 'frustrated', he is not ready to handle the responsibility of the tools. Vodello (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   It's frustration. I get frustrated. You get frustrated. He voiced his point fairly civilly, pointing out everyone has faults. Not the best thing to do, but I wouldn't strong oppose anyone for that. Still, definitely your choice. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   As Vodello said, "If he is so easily 'frustrated', he is not ready to handle the responsibility of the tools.", and I can only echo this here. He needs to be capable of handling frustration as an admin, not lash out against it.  IShadowed  ✰  05:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Everyone has faults, but he is the one requesting the bit, not you or I. Yet, yet, yet again, I am not opposing just because of displays of immaturity from the candidate. In addition to the four red flags, a fifth has come in. He believes vandal fighters are more important than content creators That's easy to say for someone that does not create even Start-Class content and has automated edits in the 6 digits, but to say people with the ability to click an undo button or use an automated tool is worth more than content builders feels like a complete disconnect from just what Wikipedia is. It's far, far easier to destroy content on this encyclopedia than it is to create. An undo click is not worth more than a good article, and all the brownie point barnstars in the world will not convince me otherwise. I have at least five major problems with the candidate's attitude and credentials, all of which have been cited as reasons to oppose or be neutral by others. Cherrypicking one of those five points while ignoring the other four outright and insisting that the candidate was condescending just because he was so easily frustrated will not invalidate my opinion. I do not want a user (can't classify as an editor, really) like this as an administrator, period. Vodello (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Read what I said to Cunard; I think you're misreading his comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   I think I am not. Once again, someone is cherrypicking just one of the many major concerns. I suppose every problem we have with the candidate is just a big misunderstanding. Considering his stance on not creating content and deliberately ignoring pleas from three previous RFAs to improve in this area, I'm not going to buy this for a second. Do you insist that his condescending comment was also nothing more than a "misread?" I opposed with concerns that he may have maturity problems because of past precedent with current problem admins and him seeming to fit that same mold, so he responds to the claim by acting exactly like one of those problem admins, verifying the concern completely. The continued weak attempts to try and explain away the candidate's large deficiencies is getting tiresome. I'm done with this RFA and done with these games. Vodello (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Honestly, I don't have any issue with the so-called "condescending comment"; sometimes people need a reality check. Besides, I'm not cherrypicking, just pointing out that you're badly distorting a quote. I could debunk your other straw men, but if you're done here then I won't bother. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   You really haven't "debunked" anything, seeing as there are now more opposes that have been solidified by said comment from Thing to myself.  IShadowed  ✰  20:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   If you fail to see the straw man in the argument above, I'm not sure how else to explain it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose for the same reasons I did last time. The candidate's returning here for a fourth time with the same problems (no content work) that got him rejected three prior times is a major "I didn't hear that". When you've been told three times what the community wanted to see and willfully decide to ignore it, in the hopes of getting through, there's no way I can support. If this is how you respond to concerns as an admin hopeful, I shudder to think how you would act if you already had the tools. Courcelles 01:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Well-phrased.  IShadowed  ✰  01:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   While I think he should be an admin, I'm still not too sure if I should support or oppose because, regardless of my own opinion, he should have noticed that the community does *not* want someone who does only anti-vandalism work. — Waterfox  20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose - pretty much in the same vein as Ishadowed. MtD (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose (shifted from neutral). Yes, lack of content contributions doesn't normally faze me. But the insinuation that Wikipedia would be no worse off without content creators – and that, per Lear's Fool's neutral below, somehow vandalism fighters are better suited to deal with BLP violations than content creators – have convinced me that perhaps the tools are not for you. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose per this comment. We do not need admins who do not work on content believing they are more important than content creators. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Reread it, then; that's not quite what he was saying. He said that the task itself, not the people behind said task, is more important; we can brag about the amount of content we have, but if people don't keep it in good shape it won't mean anything. I do a variation of The Thing That Should Not Be's work in the form of New Page Patrolling, and I only recently got around to writing (well, constructing something out of an unusually well-referenced stub) my first article. I guarantee you the article in question is viewed once every few days if that, and is not important to many people besides myself (although the subject is plainly notable), whereas the sorts of things I come across on NPP need to be dealt with very quickly, lest we have another Slow Blind Driveway sneak through and compromise our integrity. It's not that content writing isn't important, it's that it needs maintenance, and only a limited number of people seem willing to do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   I've revised my oppose rationale. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Revised rationale to: Administrators should have some content contributions or at least demonstrate that they can work well when "frustrated". The behavior in this RfA (diff) leads me to conclude that he may behave likewise as an admin. I agree with the rationales of Vodello and Iridescent who put it better than I. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Fair enough; I don't entirely disagree with you, I just think that his other work outweighs it. I see where you're coming from, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

10. Regretful oppose Per Courcelles. Try contributing some content and I'd be happy to support. AniMate 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    I think perhaps you are too hung up about what is involved in "writing". There are thousands and thousands of unsourced articles out there. Instead of just fighting vandals, if you took some time to build some of them up with sources you'd be able to sway opposers next time should you run again. Sourcing articles is one of the biggest parts of content creation, especially with so many articles already written. Hit your local library, there are plenty of online resources for students, or check out google news archives or books. Just don't keep coming here trying to become an admin without some attempt at article building. AniMate 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

11. Oppose Although I've supported The Thing at RfA previously, a number of things have changed my mind since then... I believe there are some maturity concerns here, and don’t think The Thing has the right maturity or mentality for adminship. These aren’t only based on off-wiki actions. For example, The Thing seems to concentrate way too much on his edit count, and numbers, rather than the actual quality of the work he is doing, just see User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be/Archive_7#Damn.21 (also I don’t like that, as displayed here, The Thing is always a bit too keen to show off their work) or Q2. I think administrators should be more concerned about how well they do their work, than how much they can get done. As to maturity, his response to his last RfA (saying he was not going to run again which he confirmed in June) was slightly disappointing, especially considering he is now running (on the subject of his previous RfAs, I find it poor form to repeatedly submit RfAs when nothing has changed, especially when his last RfA partly failed because nothing had changed even then. One of the concerns back then was also maturity, I particularly agree with PeterSymond’s oppose from that RfA). Also I wasn’t impressed by his response to the accidental oversighting of his edits – he knew it was being sorted out, and it would have been better for him to simply sign out, and wait until they were back, ignoring Wikipedia in the meantime. Instead he seemed to contribute to the small amount of drama which surrounded that incident (this, among other things such as this edit mentioned in the previous RfA, seem to suggest he doesn't handle stress particularly well). Also the response to IShadowed’s concern was immature, ironic considering that the concern was about his maturity.
    These kinds of behavioural issues aside, I will just firstly say I (obviously) think The Thing does extremely important and generally good anti-vandalism work. But really, this is all he does. As I mentioned in Q6, none of the work he does regularly actually involves collaboration or consensus building, and this working together is extremely important for administrators in particular. Also I see no evidence of him demonstrating an ability to judge consensus, also important for an administrator. Of course, there are those users who will say "but he only wants the tools for his anti-vandalism work". True as this may be, I think there is more difference between blocking a user, and reporting them to AIV, or deleting a page and tagging it (the admin side of thing normally involve more explanations and justifications). Besides which, if he’s not going to use the tools for these things which actually need more administrators at the moment (AIV and CSD are well manned) then I don’t see that he needs them. He does good enough work at the moment, I say leave it at that.
    But really the problem for me, is I don’t trust this user to make the right decisions as an administrator, I trust that he wants to do the best for the project, but I don’t always agree with his method of doing this. It’s a real shame he hasn’t contributed any real content to the project, because doing so would allow him to much better understand the way this works, and empathise better with other users (which as mentioned earlier I see a lack of). Also the semi-automated edits are a bit of a problem, not because he is using a program, but simply because he’s allowing it to make him go a bit too fast (yes, speed is important in AV, but you need to find a balance). Making stupid mistakes and sacrificing quality for quantity as mentioned earlier (just a few examples out of many: this this and this). Of course, some mistakes are inevitable, but I feel these are due to a fundamental problem with the way The Thing works, rather than brief lapse of concentration. Sorry for the long rationale :/ - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose Absent anything more than a lot of deletion work and reverts of vandals - neither of which require one to be an admin, there are no reasons to support. Add to that an apparent emphasis on number of CSDs and a lack of any response to the issues raised in some questions (Yes - I find the absence of any comment at all to my question 4 to be troubling) and I can not offer support. Collect (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Weak Oppose I'd like to see some content work even if it was just the typo fixing and categorisation that is my stock in trade. I respect FAs and GAs but as an admin with neither I certainly wouldn't set the bar that high, but I do think that an admin needs to have done something to build the pedia as well as defended it. One reason why admins need that experience is to screen out those who are overhasty at deleting good faith contributions, aside from the 4% of your CSD tags that you acknowledge were declined, this was tagged A3 the same moment it was created. I'm also concerned at your remarks implying that speedy deletion should all be handled in an hour or so, with attack pages that's fine - and most of your tags were correct and the articles needed to go ASAP. But good faith newbies often deserve a bit longer. ϢereSpielChequers 10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    In fairness, that one you mention above that was tagged for deletion at the moment of creation read (as created): "God! I love [redacted]. She wears no makeup, she is naturally beautiful. Uber pretty. Super clever. Goes to a Grammar school in Walsall. Sexy. Fit. Whenever you want to say but God is she hot. Woah! She is smoking! Sexy!! Hell YEAH!! We all love her. We love [redacted]! Natural straight hair. Great swimmer. Great runner. Super fit in her cycling shorts. Phwoar!! SEXY!! HELL YEAH!! I sooooo wanna do it! Oh yes!! She is wicked. You diss her, you dissing everything I believe is hot. PHWOAR!!!". I don't thing there was any great likelihood that the usual 24 hour wait before tagging was necessary in this case. – iridescent 17:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    OK that was the previous edit which was one minute earlier than the one I saw. The Phwoar nonsense had been taken out by the time The Thing's tag came in - but he was presumably judging it by the combination of the two. - I've struck that example and moved to weak oppose. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

14. Concerns I have expressed in your last RfA still apply. —Dark 11:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
15. As far as I can see, you've completely ignored the concerns raised in your last three RFAs, and keep coming back here expecting a different result. While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. Kingpin and Vodello above put it best; despite your edit count, I don't think you really understand how the internal dynamics of Wikipedia actually work. You fall squarely into that group whom I'd support if we had a working and binding recall process, but not otherwise; as it stands, there seems too much risk we'd just be adding another trigger-happy block-first-and-ask-questions-later problematic admin to the pile. – iridescent 12:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
16. Maturity concerns, as well as lack of content contribution...off-wiki activities questionable (again, maturity). And this is, like, the 5th RfA? THENEWMONO™ 01:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    What does off-wiki activities have to do with what happens on-wiki? IRC ≠ Wikipedia. ~NerdyScienceDude 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

17. Oppose The content issue concerned me, then this interaction solidifies my oppose.[2]--Cube lurker (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose Immaturity. Seems a little too anxious to gain adminship without taking previous failures into account. Gigs (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
19. From neutral. Kingpin basically sums up what I'm thinking. RfA is a question: Do you trust this user as an admin? Quite frankly, after considering it, I don't. My impression of him has been that he seems to be unable to handle stress well, and insists on being able to edit. Additionally, his refusal to make a full effort to improve for his next RfA shows lack of maturity and refusal to respect consensus, something which is essential in an admin. (X! · talk)  · @803  ·  18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
20. Absolutely goddamned not. The Thing came to RfA. He was told, by the community, "go away and don't come back until you've touched an article with more than AWB". He went away, came back, and was again told "go away and don't come back until you've touched an article with more than AWB". He went away, and now he's come back. My response? "go away and don't come back until you've touched an article with more than AWB". This is no longer about content edits; it wasn't, for me, when the second RfA came around. This is about a user who, when faced with community consensus about his behaviour and actions in relation to community trust, chooses ignoring it and biding his time as a preferable option to listening. Any RfA is based, as X! says, around the question "do you trust this user as an admin?", and the answer has to be "no". Why? Because an admin has to listen to the community. Because an admin has to be able to accept when he's wrong, or when his opinions on a block, or delete, or article protection, are different from those of everyone else in the room. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that The Thing is capable of that; on the contrary, as I have shown, the only evidence is that he ignores community consensus. I do not want an admin who does that. I particularly do not want an admin who does that on issues of trust. Ironholds (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose But perhaps not as vehemently as some above me. This diff has been badly misconstrued - it's a view I have peronally also long advocated - for I believe over two years in fact; TTTSNB has perhaps being less than articulate in the way he's expressed it, but he's simply not saying vandal fighters are more important than content contributors and it's a shame that people have interpreted it that way. I'm still not happy to support however. I note that the candidate acknowledges his odd mistake, and indeed rectifies them (I commented to this effect on his talk just a few days ago regaring this very odd revert/self reversion [3]) with automated tools; nevertheless this worries me. The almost desperate desire (IMHO) for the admin bit also puts me off. The lack of content I could live with, but really something would help. Sorry, and I totally respect and value your hard work - I'm just not convinced you're right for the bits at the moment. Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose, with regret. The candidate's work overall is fine, but the concerns raised by Pedro and Ironholds persuaded me to oppose. As Ironholds notes, this is RFA #5 and there has been very little change in editing patterns from RFA #4 - which speaks to the candidates willingness to take community criticism on board and adjust behavior accordingly. Sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose again, with regret. This user is an excellent vandal-fighter, and I would be more than happy with them entering into that field as an administrator if it weren't for the fact that they've been told multiple times now to edit content by the community, and multiple times they've ignored this advice. I don't mind someone with such outstanding contributions not having a GA or an FA but administrators need to respect the authority and suggestions of the community and I just don't see that reflected in this user's conduct. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
24. Strong Oppose: More than willing to do what he wants with vandal-fighting, but shows a lack of interest with community matters and community opinion. Diversify your portfolio. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Great vandal fighters (and we have one under consideration) don't necessarily need buttons to do their work. I like my admins to have more experience with and love for the other aspects of building an encyclopedia--writing, discussing, consensus building, etc. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
26. Regretful Oppose. This one was a very tough decision for me, and I really don't like having to oppose. I've encountered The Thing around the place a lot, and what I see is an extremely prolific vandal fighter who has contributed an enormous amount of good work to the project - I'm another who often gets beaten to reverting vandalism, and seeing The Thing start a session makes me feel OK to knock off and go get some rest. I don't insist on lots of content creation in order to make my decisions, and I have no objection to admins whose focus is essentially anti-vandalism only. However, I do think that admin requires a different approach to what I have been seeing. Rather than the "hit them as fast as possible" approach, admins need to be able to look at things slowly and carefully, ponder decisions carefully, and explain and discuss things with people they anger by blocking and deleting (because admins will inevitably anger other people - it comes with the job). And while I'm not saying that The Thing isn't capable of that, my problem is that I really have no way of knowing. Tens of thousands of rapid semi-auto vandal reversions, AIV reports and CSDs are great (though I do think that a lot of people are often too trigger-happy with CSDs), but that doesn't really touch on what I want to see in an admin candidate. I want to see discussion, negotiation, compromise, consensus-building, support, encouragement, sympathy - in short, I want to see a significant amount of person-to-person interaction. What I suggest is that The Thing should spend some time engaging in some other activities, perhaps WP:Wikignome things, AfD discussions, typo/spelling corrections, a bit of Wikification, maybe even some copy editing - just a general spread of things that will help us to evaluate interaction abilities. Or just forget about admin and carry on with the great anti-vandalism work. And, erm, sorry for waffling so much. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
27. Oppose on the answer to 7. You can find the time to click buttons, but not to write articles? We need admins who understand and sympathise with editors watching articles they've written be turned into battlegrounds, not admins who block people for adding "TUCKER JENKINS IS GAY LOL". I don't think its possible for you to be that person if you haven't written at least one article. Parrot of Doom 22:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
28. Oppose, IMO, the answer to question two must include content work. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
29. Oppose for the fact that you've been asked 5 times to work on one, just one, article and develop some content. Also is doesn't matter a jot if an article survives for 1 hour 23 minutes before being deleted (copyvios and attack pages aside.) --Stephen 23:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose because of his stated intention to delete articles unilaterally. This is something which is as it should be, strongly discouraged in most cases. As I see the long discussions on this, the main reason it is not out-and-out forbidden is because it is actually needed in some special cases, and nobody has been able to clearly delineate them--so it has to be left to good judgment. I would certainly vote for the recall of any admin who does so delete routinely, and most certainly not add to their number. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

    I must be missing something. In part C, were you not referring to pages that fall under CSD criterion? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

    I think the point DGG is making is that, apart from articles that need to be deleted straight away, (G3, G10, etc.), it is a good idea to either tag articles for speedy deletion and let another admin delete, or review articles tagged by others, thus giving some time between the tagging and the deletion. I may be wrong, but I think DGG's concern is your stated intention to delete articles for criteria such as A7 without ever having tagged them, which gives neither the author time to address the concern nor any other editor the chance to review it.  -- Lear's Fool 03:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

31. Maturity and temperament. Townlake (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
32. Oppose, concerns over temperament, and lack of quality content experience. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
33. Oppose. I share the views posted above by Boing! said Zebedee at 21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC), so I won't repeat all that. – Athaenara ✉ 01:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
34. Oppose. The criteria for a repeat nominee at an Rfa is different than a first time nominee, IMO. Did the nominee pay attention to the "opposes" at the previous three Rfa's? Did they listen to the "If they do 'x', I'll support next time" ? Nope. VictorianMutant (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
35. Administrators should have substantial content creation experience.  Sandstein  05:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
36. Oppose with regret. I'm sorry, dear The Thing That Should Not Be. I know how hard vandal-fighting can be, and you really do it excellently, but it would be nice if you had a bit more article work (as users said in the previous request). I know - that said, I should take my own advice and try to write some more real content.. :P So many unsuccessful RFAs are rather troubling as well. However, it isn't so much these concern as the concerns of maturity I'm worried about. Your reply to IShadowed on your talk page, while understandable, was a rather tu quoque response which could have been more politely and kindly worded. I'm very sorry, but because of all these reasons, I must sadly oppose. You are obviously a great and valuable asset to Wikipedia, so if this RFA fails, I sincerely hope you'll continue your lovely work. There are better ways to help Wikipedia than being an admin, remember! :) Love, Clementina talk 06:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
37. No No No! I know he's done lots of rollbacking but he's made too many reversing actions and I wish he could do some article promoting. Also, too many RfAs even though the last one was a while ago; and yet he still hasn't been much different. I can now tell that he's a trigger-happy type of user and he may not realise how harsh some of the administative actions might be. Minimac (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
38. Oppose - not foreman material. Crafty (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I don't know. I supported his last RfA, but the answer to question 4 in the last one is rather worrisome. If someone doesn't have the patience to edit articles, I don't know that adminship is for them. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   I don't have much content work either. I'm a terrible writer. Does that make me a bad admin? T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   It's not because he doesn't have much content work, it's because, "it's slow and demands too much concentration from me." Admins should not be afraid to do something because it demands too much concentration from them. I'm not sure he's really cut out to make difficult decisions. Still, I voted neutral instead of oppose because in the AV department he has made some fantastic contributions. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   The answer to that question is more or less outdated. Nowadays, it's because, well, everything that I would want to write about has already been written about. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Bullcrap. So every article you wanted to write about is an FA already? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   1. I never mentioned anything about how well the article is written. Everything that I would want to write about is already written about, and I can't find, or think of anything to add, or think of ways to make them better. It doesn't matter if it's an FA, or a stub. Maybe someday I'll find something that I haven't thought of yet. 2. Was the "bullcrap" comment really necessary? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   You don't have to start articles from scratch, you could always find sources for something or add a decent amount of content to it. I didn't mean to offend, if that's how my comment was taken. All I'm saying is that pretty much every article can be improved. You mentioned that you don't have enough attention for much content editing, but you spend hours upon hours in reverting vandals. Don't get me wrong, that is important, but I'd say content building or collaboration supersedes that. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   In my view, protecting the reputation of this website is more important than creating content. If all of the content creators were to suddenly disappear, we would still survive with the information we have. But if all of the vandal-fighters disappeared, the wiki would be overrun with vandalism and BLP violations in a matter of days. There are other people creating content that are far better at doing so than I could hope to be. I'll let them create the content, and I'll fight vandals. It's what I enjoy doing. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry about the vague platitude, but I have to say it: Wikipedia is a team effort. If wikipedia had only article-creators, or only people fine-tuning existing articles for FA, or only vandal-fighters, or only MOS pedants, then Wikipedia would be awful. Wikipedia is good because it has all these people in the team, and wikipedia can only progress in this way. If somebody does exceptionally well in one particular role at the expense of other roles, to me that is a reason to support, not to oppose. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   This is the Neutral section.  f o x  23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, I don't know why it wound up there, fixed it though. My vote is in oppose now. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2. No articles.  f o x  23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral - This user appears to be excellent and patient when fighting vandals. I'm not sure about their other on-wiki interactions yet. Awaiting the answer to question number 6. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

3. I could care less about the lack of articles, but I do have concerns about maturiry. Will mull it over. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

   Agree with fox. Lack of content contributions doesn't normally bother me, but when of 165,000 edits, they're this limited... Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) See oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   I'm still on the fence here. I don't know if I trust you with block and delete just yet. You've improved greatly, but a gut feeling inside me still has qualms. (X! · talk)  · @157  ·  02:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose (X! · talk)  · @802  ·  18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

4. I greatly support the user when it comes to his ingenious vandal-fighting skills, but his maturity is still kind of an issue. Also, has The Thing ever made RFPP requests since he became highly active? I haven't specifically been searching for those in his contribs. Schfifty3 03:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
5. I do value vandal fighters, and I have no problem with the majority of edits being automated, anti-vandal work. It's important stuff. But I cannot support a user having the block, delete and protect buttons who places such little value on content work, both in actions and words. I don't rule out an oppose, but cannot oppose in good faith without being more familiar with a candidate's contributions than I currently am. —WFC— 05:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
6. I !voted neutral at the last RfA, and have regretted it ever since. After hours of late-night Huggle patrolling, I always welcome seeing a revert from The Thing: it means I can go to sleep knowing a vandal fighter much more skilled than I am is looking after Special:RecentChanges. Furthermore, while I generally would not support a candidate with effectively no content work, the sheer volume and quality of The Thing's edits in his chosen field would be enough for me to ignore this criterion.
   What gives me pause, unfortunately, are two remarks at this RfA. Firstly, the diff provided by Vodello does worry me: when faced with a situation such as this, I expect administrators to act in such a way that does not escillate conflict, even if it means not responding to unfair criticism at your expense. With that remark, The Thing has done quite the opposite. Secondly, the view (expressed here) that vandalism patrollers are more important than content creators, and particularly the apparent impression that they do more to fix the BLP problem than content creators, worries me. 150,000 vandalism reverts (while valuable) won't reduce the size of Category:Unreferenced BLPs one bit. I am open (and willing) to being convinced that these remarks are either not indicative of broader problems with judgment, or that my concerns do not sufficently relate to suitability for adminship, but in lieu of that I'll be staying in this section.  -- Lear's Fool 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   I agree that was poorly worded ... if the content creators disappeared, there wouldn't be any need for vandalism patrollers since we could just lock the database, or even shut down the site and be done with it. I think he could have communicated the same ideas in a less partisan manner. I am not worried about TTTSNB carrying on an agenda against content creators, though, as I think we'd have seen evidence of it long before now if he were. I do urge him to be a bit more cautious when defending himself against criticism, but I've (co-)nominated him despite those issues. —Soap— 14:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral Yep, he's been around for a while, and that's why I would have supported in the first place. However, all the tools he plans to take reverse the actions of other editors, especially rollback and delete, which I know he's done for a long time. I wish him good luck if he does get the tools, otherwise, I wish he could contribute to bring our encyclopaedia one step forward. Minimac (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Going to move vote to oppose. Minimac (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

7. Maturity concerns, but not going to be a dick and pile on. Aiken (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Neutral - It takes all kinds of people to maintain this project. Editors who are willing to perform maintenance functions are no less important than content creators. However, the maturity concerns noted in some of the oppose discussions prevent me from supporting at this time. SnottyWong ^confess 17:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral to many conflicts of interest here. Best of luck. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Neutral I'm going to have to agree with Snotty here and a few others in that you are a wonderful person but there are some nagging issues that prevent me from supporting at this time. Please create content and I will support you next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral - the persistence is requesting adminship and strong responses to some opposes are cause for concern. The high level of automated vandal-fighting does not concern me, but possible lack of maturity does. I'm sorry. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
12. Neutral I can't really see what way I should go. Buggie111 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Neutral. You've been here three times, you've been told no three times and you're still knocking this door. Why? I don't understand. East of Borschov 08:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)