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

Final (120/23/7) Ended 01:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Thatcher131. Quite a number of you may be surprised and think he already was one. Indeed, while a number of editors 'evolve' after they become admins to become more involved in meta tasks associated with project management, Thatcher131 went through that evolution quite some time ago.

Thatcher131 has been with us since February of this year. During that time he has contributed more than 7000 edits across a broad cross spectrum of Wikipedia. In particular, he's been very active at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Most of you probably know him from one of those two places. Another area he has been heavily active has been in helping to manage Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, where his help has been immeasurable. He created two templates for checkuser purposes at {{Confirmed-nc}} and {{Crystalball}}. He has also made significant contributions to Wikipedia:Dead-end pages, Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles, Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and Wikipedia:Village pump.

He has a good understanding of blocking policy [1][2][3], and has aided people who desire to be unblocked [4]. He has a solid grasp of 3RR as well [5]. He is willing to mediate in difficult situations [6], and despite working in sometimes highly contentious areas I've found no evidence of him losing his cool. In fact, he works to avoid future conflicts [7]. He is respectful of copyright [8] and understands fair use implications [9] (see last paragraph). He is pleasant in warning people [10], frequently helpful [11][12][13] and assumes good faith [14]. He has also been active in vandal fighting, and has used warnings appropriately [15][16][17]. I appreciate that he is willing to take the time to explain situations to people in detail [18][19]. He has also shown an interest in working as a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee clerk and has done some informal clerking duties already, with current clerks knowledge and acceptance.

Interestingly, and important given the modern context of online stalking, he was the creator of Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy.

Importantly, he is willing to be told he is wrong [20], and within the context of his own definition of a good admin vs. a bad admin [21], speaks volumes about his future ability as an admin. It's time for Thatcher131 to get his own mop and bucket, rather than asking other admins to act on his behalf (as he has done on a number of occasions). --Durin 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for a terrific nomination. I accept. Thatcher131 23:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I think the customer service aspect of being an admin is sometimes overlooked. There are editors quietly writing articles who don't hang out in project space and maybe need an admin one time, and they should get the help they need or at least a useful response. WP:AN3 is a good implementation of this, but there are times when reports go unanswered, especially since 90% of the work there seems to be done by one admin. Sometimes reports at WP:AN and AN/I fall through the cracks if something more dramatic is on the page at the same time. I have also taken an interest in Arb enforcement, which I think many admins avoid because it is usually contentious and can take some time investigating and understanding the history. Since I don't mind taking a little time to check out complex problems, I think I can help in those areas (as well as with the perpetually backlogged copyvios). Beyond that, I'm happy to work on any of the perennial backlogs, and you'll probably also see me following up on checkuser requests with the occasional block.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I originally joined Wikipedia to write two articles (here and here) but quickly became addicted. Most of my editing has been various forms of cleanup, although I occasionally delve into deeper content issues. For example, I worked on a rewrite of Placebo effect that settled a NPOV dispute by adding and explaining important works from the medical literature, and I spent some time working on Killian documents as well. I have also turned around a few AfDs by being able to cite newspaper and other sources from LexisNexis, which reaches farther into the past than Google and which I have access to through my employment. Finally, as Durin mentioned, I created the policy draft WP:CHILD, which some people seem to like (although it doesn't seem to have too much steam lately).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I may have had one or two mild content disagreements but I don't believe I have ever let them become personalized. I did find myself in the middle of a unpleasant situation editing Al Seckel, between Mr. Seckel himself and a long-time critic of his who were both trying to put their spin on the entry. (Talk:Al Seckel/Archive 1 if you're interested, although it's been largely sanitized.) In general, most editing conflicts can be handled by keeping cool, knowing when to ask for outside help (although, like asking for directions, doing it is the tough part for some people), and finally remembering that nothing is so bad that it can't be fixed tomorrow.

Response to Rory096. I was referring to User:SPUI's efforts to prolong the poll because it didn't turn out his way and then bring the disruption to AN/I. He has been disruptive about this issue for a very long time. The process he agreed to returned a result he didn't like. He had the option to live with a result he didn't like or continue to be disruptive. At some point, continuing to disrupt highways articles is going to result in either a community ban or an Arbcom ban, its his choice, and that was what I was referring to. I certainly wasn't referring to anyone else, nor was I referring to anyone who might disagree but be willing to accept the results of the agreed-upon process. You might also want to look at this edit an hour or so later. And of course, Lar blocked him later that same day for violating his probation. Thatcher131 03:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the oppose votes based on this are largely taking the comment out of context. Thatcher was acting in accordance with an ArbCom decision. The reality is this was a highly contentious issue that an editor refused to compromise on. Reviewing User:SPUI's extensive block log [22] should shed considerable light on what Thatcher was contending with. In fact, User:SPUI has been blocked three times under this ArbCom decision alone. If the oppose voters can find nothing but that one comment on which to consider Thatcher not ready for adminship, their concerns are in my opinion not solidly based. If you can find other similar comments to back it up, to show some kind of pattern, then by all means do. If all that can be raised is this one diff, I think you need to reconsider your position. Thatcher has been unflinchingly fair and cool under stress. --Durin 04:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To the contrary, there was no ArbCom decision saying that if SPUI contested that the judged consensus was truly consensus. While SPUI does have a long history, as most of us know, at the time he was not making any disruptive pagemoves and was simply discussing the process of SRNC. While there might not be any other comments like this (though I didn't look too closely, Thatcher comments on ANI a lot), if Thatcher were an admin at the time and had actually banned/indef blocked a user solely for discussing a judgement of consensus, I have no doubt that there would be repercussions using some form of the dispute resolution process, possibly even RfAr. If he could say this once, and so recently, how do we know that he won't actually do it as an admin? --Rory096 05:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As I tried to suggest above, I viewed a block or ban as the likely outcome of a refusal to accept the result and move forward (especially in view of Arbcom's finding of fact that even an arbitrary decision was better than no decision at all). At that precise moment I had no thoughts of blocking SPUI for just raising the issue. I freely admit I could have phrased my opinion better and I have certainly taken your comments seriously. Thatcher131 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rory, I'm not sure what you're driving at. SPUI was blocked for disrupting the process being used in WP:SRNC, after being warned not to do so. The block was reported at AN/I (see the talk page of this RfA) and supported. So your comment that SPUI was blocked (or contemplated being blocked) "solely for discussing a judgement of consensus" seems incorrect and not very apt. He was blocked for disrupting the process, and trying to widen the disruption. I stand by that block and I would do it again. Further, there was talk (you can see it in the AN/I thread) that his block be extended to a community ban. Although that had some support, it didn't have enough at that time to be enacted. It still could though. So your taking Thatcher to task for speaking of bans really seems like quibbling. I think the process would be better served if you focused on wider issues. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the highway editors involved in the dispute. Under the circumstances, I feel that Thatcher131's comments were not harmful. In fact, I view them as helpful to the situation. Many, including some admins such as Tony Sideaway and Fred Bauder, took the same opinion that Thatcher131 did. I can provide diffs if anyone wants them (although I will have to go digging). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit statistics

• See Thatcher131's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Thatcher131's edit count table is available on the talk page. --Durin 18:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (section for reaching consensus without numbers)

• All of my encounters with this user have shown him to be an excellent candidate. —Centrx→talk • 23:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been around this user a lot. He seems thoughtfull and clear-headed. He is very well aware of current issues on WP:AN and related issues. The new tools could be usefull for ArbCom enforcement (protect, block) and RFCU matters, along any other issues that come up around here on AN/I.Voice-of-All 01:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think he seems like a strong candidate, he's got all-round experience and is willing to learn. I think we should sysop him. --Doc 10:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm getting tired of the 1FA'ers. That is an irrational criteria and it reflects poorly on those opposing candidates for it. I, for one, never participated in a FAC, nor do I have any intention to start. I'm just glad I beat the 1FA oppose phenomenon by about year during my RfA. El_C 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody invoked 1FA in this RfA. And why is this section here; shouldn't it be in the comments section? --Rory096 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an "issue" last night between 2 editors over the formatting of this RFA, and this section is the result. I'm sure the bureaucrats can sort it out. Thatcher131

• Opposing someone for suggesting that failure to get with the program would lead to a ban is somewhat perverse. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Mackensen. While the diff appears troubling on the surface, the intent, I believe was to note that users who continually defy consensus will eventually find themselves on the receiving end of a ban. This is true, and I think Thatcher131 should become a sysop. Ral315 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support per above. --Durin 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Seen this user around and always seem to give calm and well reasoned comments. Good use of talk pages. Looks like someone who may well mediate his way out of blocks but should have the conveniance of it when it is needed. Most importantly seems to be the kind of editor that does good research before barging into a situation. I particularly like the arb enforcement contributions he seems willing to make since this inevitably gives more weight to arb com decisions. David D. (Talk) 23:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   After seeing the recent edit pointed out below in the oppose section I wanted to see the context. After reading the archived section and looking into the dispute a little more it does not seem particularly hostile. Especially given his second comment in the relevent section (see talk page). He seems to be affirming an arb com ruling. I don't find any strong reason to withdraw my support. David D. (Talk) 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support He's often a voice of reason in heated discussions, which is an exceptional quality for an admin to possess. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support No question at all. A terrific user that would benefit from the tools and has done amazing work in every single possible aspect of Wikipedia. There are very few users this proficent and this incredible. Yanksox 23:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Enthusiastic support - in my experience, Thatcher has been a cool-headed and productive editor. TheronJ 23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Edit conflict Support! I've noticed this user around a lot and, I confess, I did think s/he was an admin!! I especially applaud the user's hard work on the aforementioned WP:CHILD. This user is levelheaded, trustworthy, and dedicated. Bring on the mop!! Srose (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support No cliche. I've had the knowledge that Thatcher131 was not an admin burning in the back of my mind for a while, but since my interactions with him have been all secondhand I didn't ever ask why he had not "made the run" as it were. I'm proud to be among the editors who hold a high opinion of Thatcher131. I even hit ctrl-c on my comment because I fear edit conflicts in making my comment here Syrthiss 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Editconflict Oh noes, cliche Support. — Werdna talk criticism 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I could right per above or per nom (or per Syrthiss since my thoughts are almost identical to Syrthiss's unfortunately for me Durin had priority on nominating Thatcher otherwise I would have nommed Thatcher months ago). JoshuaZ 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Support - insert {{RfA cliche #1}} - but I really did think he was! - Glen 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Infinite Support - Definitely one person who deserves the mop and bucket. Cool, Calm and Collected all apply to Thatcher. :) Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Support per all of the above. A truly dedicated user. —Khoikhoi 00:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong Support per all above. He is extremely dedicated. Hello32020 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support per nom. John254 00:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per nom. Michael 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support He's not an admin yet? Really? Hmm... he should have a squeegee too, for that extra sparkle and shine. BaseballBaby 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strongest support per the excellent nom statement and answers to questions. Enormous contributions in a number of areas, always level-headed and a voice of reason in tough situations. He's helped out in admin situations for a long time and he's to be trusted 100% wielding the tools for himself. I would, however, encourage him to write another article sometime. Newyorkbrad 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Continued Support after reading the exchange under scrutiny. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support ~ Dlohcierekim 01:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. STrong support.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Pete.Hurd 02:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support: a nomination from Durin is golden. Jonathunder 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I've been very impressed by his hard work at WP:RFCU -- Samir धर्म 02:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Merovingian - Talk 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. User has done admirable project work in several important areas and clearly has use for the tools. I have no concerns about the use of those tools. I must respectfully disagree with the interpretation of what was written by those who currently oppose. I don't think that was a threat at all. Indeed, user could not have banned anyone at that point. What he said strongly appears to me to simply recognize the reality that willful and repeated action taken in contravention of that vote would surely result in a ban. I don't have any concerns. Erechtheus 02:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong Support - per nom and good upload log --T-rex 03:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong Support As a fellow clerk at checkuser, I have seen Thatcher do tons of stellar work there. His behind-the-scenes contributions are absolutely invaluable to the checkuser process. As Durin has explained with several diffs in his magnificent nom, Thatcher has been heavily active in several important areas of Wikipedia and his actions and reasoning has always been impeccable. I don't think that the diff cited below is a solid enough reason to oppose. On the other hand there are volumes of evidence showing why Thatcher would make a great admin and I feel he's one of the most deserving admin candidates at present. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - he does impressively good work in many areas. NoSeptember 07:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, he's not one yet? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Excellent answers to questions and a good editor. Deserves to be given the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per nom and most of above (like not cliche #1 because I knew this nom was coming). Petros471 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support--MONGO 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support I've been working almost all night today, but that doesn't prevent me from supporting someone who should have been adminned months ago... Scobell302 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support with pleasure. Sensible, intelligent, reliable, and a good editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Thatcher is an asset to the project and real pleasure to work with. I only regret that I was beaten to the nomination. Mackensen (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strong support Nom has an excellent grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has interacted positively with many editors and admins about complex and difficult issues at Check user and Request for arbitration. I have no worries about his misuse of admin tools. The example given does not persuade of a problem. Rather it shows me that nom has gained valuable experience dealing with problem users. FloNight 11:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong support, knowledgeable and judicious contributor. In fact, is this some kind of joke? This one has to be one already! Bishonen | talk 12:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
39. Support. --kingboyk 12:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. El_C 13:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Super strong support I already thought he was an admin, but all my interactions with Thatcher have been promising. I have full faith that he'll be a great admin. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 13:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support I've seen the candidate around and have no reservations that giving him a bit of responsibility could only help the project hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Weak support, was going neutral but.. nah, what's under oppose at the moment doesn't bother me, really.--Andeh 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strong support per nom. the wub "?!" 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support per nom and my own observations of this user. I don't really see what all the heat is about in the oppose section, when taken in context. -- nae'blis 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - would like to see more article and less policy work, but agree that he seems quite soundly sane, and that the roads business in the oppose section is a vast red herring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support per nom and based on (very limited) prior interaction, hard-working and provides clear, helpful input in a variety of areas, as his contribution history clearly demonstrates.EricR 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. --Ligulem 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Very Strong support. A fair, balanced, thorough editor. Sandy 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC) One edit is given as the reason to oppose Thatcher131: that only one (marginally) questionable issue has come up is good enough reason for me to switch to strongest possible support. Sandy 20:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. The piggy will get you! :O Highway ^Daytrippers 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support as having seen this editor in many places and been impressed with the balance, patience and solid work done for the project. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support despite my opposition to his WP:CHILD proposed policy. Batmanand | Talk 21:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support consistently helpful. Fred Bauder 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support for clerking at Requests for checkuser. DVD+ R/W 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. Sounds like he knows his shit; per users above I trust and a quick survey of contribs. Diff below is of concern, but I've no interest in sinking an RfA over one comment if it it isn't representative of the user's overall approach to an issue. I requested more information from the oppose voters, and I'll still look at it if I get it, but things look good to me at the moment. -- SCZenz 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. DarthVader 23:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Strong support. Thatcher knows his stuff, there is no doubt about that. The most important justification for giving him the tools is that he needs them to do the work that he does for the project. I found this myself when asking him a question about an ArbComm case that involved a deleted page. Without the admin tools he couldn't help me. Making him an admin will mean that he can serve the project better. Bucketsofg✐ 23:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Weak Support the mainspace contributions are slightly below my requirements but still are quite reasonable - he wrote at least two good articles and copyedited quite a number of them. Contriburions to the Wikipedia space are quite good. Overall seems to be a good fellow. abakharev 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support—Looked at this yesterday & realized this one required a more careful read through than many. Rory096’s concerns about your (Thacher131) advocating "banning" anybody who just "disagrees" with the decision made by the judges over at WP:SRNC gave reason for pause. However I appreciated David D posting the background to the controversial discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thatcher131. After reading it I can somewhat understand your response, but would strongly encourage you to look to the calm, reasonable approach Tony Sidaway took on the same page. Sidaway more closely models Laozi’s dictum: “A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, ‘We did this ourselves.’” I believe an administrator should strive for the most gracious, minimal impact possible to do the admin job. That said, I am willing to trust the substantial administrative powers to block/ban to you. Please read all of the support and oppose comments carefully, reflect on the lessons to be learned from them & use the admin powers wisely - Williamborg (Bill) 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. support, thought Thatcher was one already ~crazytales56297 - t-e 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. The comments of his I've seen have been intelligent and reasonable. (The comment cited by the opposition would give be pause if I did not know the context; it was a trying issue for all involved.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support, and who would be edit-conflicting with me now? lol. Likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - I think he has explained his position well -- Lost^(talk) 05:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support He has always been very professional everytime I have come across his editing. Plus, I already thought he was an admin. Geedubber 07:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Pretty much per everyone above. Seen him around a lot being very reasonable. --Spartaz 08:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Have seen him doing useful admin-related jobs competently, and the incident about the highwaymen is rather to his credit, in my opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support: reasonable and active user. Willing to listen and learn, so has learned. Stephen B Streater 09:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support with a Hope that he understands his mistake and does not repeat in future. Doctor BrunoTalk 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Suppo[reply]
70. Support per Durin's excellent nomination. --Guinnog 13:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support We musnt let trolling get the upper hand on RFAs. Would make a good buffer against abusive editors. Truthseeker 85.5 14:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Talented and reasonable user.-- danntm ^T _C 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Seen him around. Always impressed with civility and conduct. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support keep up the good work show them whos boss Mjal 19:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Oliver202 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Like many of the others who are in support, I have seen this candidate around quite a bit. I feel this person is very civil. I am not afraid to say Give-em-the-mop. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - while I would like to see him more active in the namespace, his work with WP:RFCU has been of very high quality.--Aldux 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support, Rory's diff notwithstanding. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support I like the way they handled themselves, in the worst case scenario which has been portrayed below by oppose voters. A disruptive editor is a disruptive editor, and the block log as endorsed by many independent editors shows that his comment was not without a strong precedent. Ansell 01:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
80. Support. Of course; exactly the kind of hard-working, in the trenches, grunt work editor that would benefit from admin tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support - Has been a positive contributor in admin areas for a long time, and has shown good judgement and temper. Georgewilliamherbert 03:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Kokota 12:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support wholeheartedly. A valued editor who has become a real asset to Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support, a very qualified candidate, and the provided explanation of the edit most oppose voters refer to is perfectly acceptable. (Liberatore, 2006). 13:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - I thought he was an admin already.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Tony Sidaway 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Very impressive.[reply]
87. Support this candidate. Seems a good sort. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support: already acting well in admin-related areas. TimBentley (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Strong support. Clearly knows policy, clearly makes the encyclopedia better, and, finally, even more clearly willing to wade into difficult situations and make hard decisions. One can see from the oppose votes below that this has given Thatcher some detractors, as would be expected. This is actually a good sign, IMHO. Because of this, FWIW, the oppose dialogue below makes my support of Thatcher all the stronger. --- Deville (Talk) 21:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support per nom, good editor Anger22 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Per Rory096 - suggesting the application of blocks or bans when necessary does not indicate a bad admin candidate, it indicates a good one. --Cyde Weys 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was not necessary. SPUI at that particular time (though certainly not at other times) was not being disruptive- he wasn't moving pages, he wasn't vandalizing anything, he wasnt making too many sarcastic comments. He was just discussing whether the poll really resulted in a valid consensus. A ban certainly wasnt necessary, especially for the reason Thatcher gave. --Rory096 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope I have clarified above that it was not my intent to block or ban him for his comments at that time, but that a block was the likely eventual result if he did not accept the outcome of the process he agreed to, although I freely accept that my words could have been interpreted that way. I am more than delighted to read below that a compromise is in the works. In a perfect Wiki, admins should never have to intervene in content disputes, whether to prevent disruption, enforce consensus, or for any other reason. Thatcher131 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

92. Support. This is the first time I've voted at a Request for Demotion to Low-level Duties, partly because I hate the way one mistake is typically blown out of proportion; that appears to be happening here. The applicant has a talent for managing difficult WPians; Thatcher131 is brave in the face of criticism and abuse, and shows a rare ability to understand psychological nuances in an online community. I've seen examples of the applicant's good work in admin areas, which indicates a keenness to take up the role. Rejecting this application would be shooting ourselves in the foot. I ask the opposers to reconsider. Tony 01:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support While I recognise the concerns highlighted by Rory's diff, it doesn't seem to merit such heavy criticism when seen in its context, and doesn't really indicate that there is a problem with this editor which would preclude them from adminship. Tewfik^Talk 03:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support Seems like an asset to Wikipedia and I'm unconvinced that Rory's diff is indicative of a loose cannon. --Dweller 11:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. -- Szvest 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Generally impressed by the approach, able to make decisions and doesn't shy away from being firm where required.ALR 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support I have always respected his approach on WP:RFCU, and thought he already was one. Good luck! -- Avi 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support My run ins with Thatcher131 have always been nothnig but pleasant, even when we did not see eye to eye, a model wikipedian, minus that threatening issue. --User:Zer0faults 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose --User:Zer0faults[reply]

99. Support A user that will contribute a lot with the tools, and I'm not convinced at all on the strength of one diff that he'll go ban users willy-nilly. Borisblue 20:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support. Does good work. Seems to be sound. AnnH ♫ 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Good work. --Tbeatty 06:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support per the strong and detailed nomination. Thanks to David D. for providing the transcript of the disputed edit on the talk page. Looking at it in the context of the months old acrimony and disruption caused by the Higways naming issue, I don't see a problem here. I am sure Thatcher131 will make a fine admin. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support - Puts an effort into less thankful parts of wikipedia, as such shows his commitment to the project. Agathoclea 12:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. No issues here. alphaChimp^(talk) 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. I can't see any reason why a user as well-rounded as Thatcher131 should be denied adminship over a single sarcastic comment. --Aaron 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Support - to be honest some of the opposes surprise me; quite simply any call you'd state you'd make before having the tools is irrelevant when you actually do have them in reality... I am certain Thatcher would not indef ban anyone once he actually can without serious thought. I see no problems at all - Glen 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Duplicate !vote - Tangotango 08:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

107. Support While in retrospect Rory096's comments may indicate an sense of mistaken hostility, one must remember that at the time, discussion and tempers became so heated that there was talk of opening another RfAr over SPUI's antics and refusal to accept the results of the poll (and was hence agreed upon as disruption by numerous admins and editors). In the context of the time, I believe that Thatcher's comment(s) fitted the mood, and should be commended for bringing the gavel of reality down to earth, not demonized for trying to stop others from whining about a result everyone else agreed on. --physicq210 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Has done an excellent job of cleanup and clerking. Should, by all means, have the tools to sweat the "small" stuff. Choess 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. You-mean-I-haven't-already-supported-yet...geez,-how-did-I-miss-this-RfA Support - great user who could benefit Wikipedia by having the mop, especially regarding this users' interest in RFCU (being a clerk and all) and the enforcement of the results of these checks. Daniel.Bryant 05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. My dealings with Thatcher131 have been entirely positive, a review of contributions to talk space shows that this is also a fair-minded user who can admin when an opponent has a point. Should be even more of an asset to the project as an admin. Guy 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     I suspect that Guy meant "admit" rather than "admin" there. But actually, either one works. Newyorkbrad 17:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

111. Support. Nothing to add to what has already been said. Bobblehead 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Strong support, I thought Thatcher was already an admin a couple of months ago. Thatcher has a very cool head and is fair-minded, and isn't afraid to get tough when Wikipedia policies are at stake. We will be lucky to have him. Mangojuice^talk 17:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. Strong Support Sugarpinet/c 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Strong support per David D.. Many thanks, David D. for all your research work on the talk page for this RfA! --A. B. 01:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. Great user, will make a fine admin. --Nishkid64 14:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support On the balance of things, I think it will benefit the community to give Thatcher admin tools. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support. He's already been doing the job for quite a while anyway, and the supposedly controversial diff doesn't bother me in the slightest, given the context. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support Naconkantari 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. User does good work and therefore I support. DS 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. I've seen Thatchet acting as a voice of reason in complex or tense discussions, and while the issues raised by the opposers gave me pause, I'm convinced that he would act reasonably and according to community standards. Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose. This comment just two weeks ago shows that this user is not yet ready for adminship. The user advocates "banning" anybody who just disagrees with the decision made by the judges over at WP:SRNC. This shows that this editor is not familiar with our policy at WP:NBD WP:CCC, and seems to think that people should not be allowed to express disagreement with a decision, whether that decision is valid or not. The user may make a good admin sometime in the future, but I don't think that now is the time. --Rory096 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm puzzled by your above comment. Considering how contentious that discussion was and the continued rounds of blocks and revert wars that comment seemed to be one of the most sensible made in that context. The entire point of the poll was that some standard was needed. Furthermore, this isn't an issue of WP:CCC since Thatcher's point seems to be in the context of the user in question declaring the poll to be invalid and complaining at ANI. Given these circumstances Thatcher's behavior was reasonable. JoshuaZ 02:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   To the contrary, that was one of the least sensible there. He didn't just support the decision even if it was arbitrary and back it up by saying the ArbCom supported having any decision. He threatened, under no authority, to "ban" anyone who just disagreed with the decision; how is banning someone who's just discussing a decision in dispute a reasonable thing to do? We don't ban anybody on the other side of the argument, and I fear what this user might do with a block button. --Rory096 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Although it might have been troublesome in another context, Thatcher131's comment in this context of this particular situation was justified and understandable. For more than one year, there has been an ongoing battle between editors of articles about U.S. highways concerning the convention for titling those articles. This seemingly minor issue has seen more revert warring than one could possibly imagine and has been the subject of endless talkpage debates, page protects, RfC's, and ultimately an arbitration case that culminated in a straw poll that resulted in a 59%/41% split, at which point a huge number of uninvolved admins decided that the reverting and arguing just had to end. I don't have the endless diffs (there is recent discussion on WP:RfAr, for one) but I'm sure there are highway editors who know by heart where to find them by now. This was a situation analogous to "should we drive on the left or should we drive on the right?" It's fine to drive on the left, and it's fine to drive on the right, but if we give each driver his or her choice, there's going to be a difficulty. Thatcher131 was articulating the widely held view that it was time to resolve this. He can't reasonably be faulted for that. Newyorkbrad 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I know very well the context of the comment. While saying that the highway debate should be resolves is of course good, saying that we should ban the other side to end it is not. We don't ban people who drive on the right side of the road. --Rory096 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   To continue stretching this analogy this would be closer to a new country having to decide which side of the road people should drive on and after a civil war on the matter a referendum was called giving driving on the left a slight majority. Thatcher's comment is then equivalent to saying "if you try to drive on the right we will not let you drive on the road." JoshuaZ 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I disagree. Thatcher's comment would be like beheading anyone who thought the decision to drive on the left was wrong, or that there was a problem with the vote tallying. Saying if you drive on the right you can't drive would be like forbidding SPUI from making disruptive pagemoves of highway articles, which he was not doing. --Rory096 05:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   See my response above Thatcher131 03:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: a user has copied the entire highway discussion including the edit in question to the talk page to give the complete context. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. While I have seen some good come from this editor, the diff that Rory provides is very, very disturbing. The "accept or get banned" mentality is unproductive and more than a little extreme. I am, of course, willing to reconsider if this is explained to some degree of satisfaction.--SB | T 02:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I think there's a misuse of the term ban because what I was handing out (and will do so again if I have to) were blocks not bans. Those blocks were being given out (and threatened to be given out to others) for things like tendentiously arguing against a process that had consensus, and that ArbCom asked be carried out, for forum shopping, for being disruptive in general in a process that, frankly, is way out of the norm for us but which the road warriors brought on themselves. I find it distasteful in the extreme to have had to block or threaten to do so. But there appears to be no alternative to getting to closure on this mess than to handle it the way I handled it. I note that I put my blocks up for review on WP:AN/I, and I sought ArbCom validation for my approach. If you have an issue with how WP:SRNC has unfolded, your beef is with the entireity of the road geeks for causing the mess, or with ArbCom for mandating some solution be arrived at, or with me for trying to ramrod the whole thing to a conclusion... not with this candidate. I am not prepared as of yet to comment on whether I find this candidate suitable, and I admit I have other concerns, but this matter is not one of them. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I considered the misuse of the term, but I feel it's only possible, I'm not sure. Either way, though, it makes this editor a less appealing candidate for adminship. If he meant block, then he doesn't know the difference between the blocking policy and the banning policy, which is disturbing to know about an admin candidate. If he meant ban, then it shows that he might use extremely excessive force as an admin, as a ban was certainly not warranted in that circumstance, especially for that reason. I don't disagree with your block, and couldn't really care less about the highways debate- this is about Thatcher's suggestions, which would have been completely inappropriate for an admin. --Rory096 05:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per the disturbing observations of Rory096. The patently incorrect outcome of a incorrigbly flawed poll should not be defended out of misplaced process libido, and certainly not by blocking those who disagree with it. Process gets things wrong, and upon reading the remainder of this page, I'm afraid this RFA will be no different, and quite frankly I'm sick to my stomach. —freak() 02:57, Sep. 15, 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose based on the diff provided by Rory. We all make mistakes (I am certainly no exception), but telling another editor "Accept it, or get banned" is just plain scary. Especially since it was less than a few weeks ago. Consider what he might have done had he actually had the button. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 02:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   While I must admit I did already think he was an admin, the diff provided by Rory means I cannot support. This is a weak oppose. – Chacor 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Changed.[reply]

5. Oppose per above. I'm not even gonna invoke 1FA here. -- Миборовский 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. OpposePer attitude to editors. Also, he freely and often puts himself in the middle of admin disputes, a behaviour that does not bode well for his actions should he actually become an admin. I don't think he's ready to be an admin. pschemp | talk 03:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I was under the impression that non-admins getting involved in admin related matters was a good thing. Thatcher's comments on admin matters have been almost universally well thought out and helpful. (Certainly 5 months ago people in my RfA seemed to think that my commenting on ANI was a good thing. Has something changed since then?) JoshuaZ 04:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That's the thing, I've found his comments to be unhelpful, showing an extremely strict interpretation of policy and generally they give me the impression he doesn't really understand how things work. Also, regardless of what others think, I feel the commenting excessively on ANI just shows a person desperate to show how insightful they are and "getting their name out there" so they can pass an RFA. pschemp | talk 04:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Thatcher131 was not in any way trying to gain name recognition to pass RfA. In fact, quite the opposite. When I first contacted him a month ago regarding the possibility of adminship, he was fairly reluctant. I had to verify and be certain he really wanted to run before I began my review. That disproves the name recognition theory on its own, much less that he was patient in waiting a month for me to get around to doing his nomination. --Durin 05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, reluctance to run doesn't change the fact that I think his comments on ANI show an overly strict interpretation of policy that is not a good thing for an admin among other things. Its the substance of his comments that bothers me the most. The other part was really a response to JoshuaZ as to why commenting on ANI can be a bad thing. pschemp | talk 05:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you provide any cites to back up your claim that he has an overly strict interpretation of policy? I don't see how trying to help at WP:AN/I can be in any way construed as a bad thing. Are we now to oppose nominees for contributing to WP:AN? What about excessive vandal fighting? What about excessive voting at WP:AFD? --Durin 05:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I already said how it could be. I will not repeat myself. You can oppose nominees for whatever you like. I don't care. And no I will not go hunt down diffs, If you think that I'm such an unreliable person that I would lie about what I saw, so be it. Its cute how you are defending your nominee though. pschemp | talk 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the important part of what you're saying is "Per attitude to editors. I've found his comments to be unhelpful, showing an extremely strict interpretation of policy and generally they give me the impression he doesn't really understand how things work........Its the substance of his comments that bothers me the most". I don't think anyone is saying that you are lying. However, it would be good to see some examples. The most effective opposes are those that allow others to see an editor in a new light. Personally, I find it hard to interpret what you mean by 'attitude' and 'substance' without a diff. David D. (Talk) 05:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi pschemp, while I trust your opinion implicitly, I wouldn't mind seeing diffs also as I've personally thought Thatcher131 to be very helpful at AN/ANI from my limited interactions.Thanks--Samirधर्म 06:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Well I hardly see the point since JoshuaZ and I are often on opposite sides of discussion. What I think is unhelpful, he will of course think is helpful. I'm not going to change his mind with a diff. My oppose is meant to express my opinion, not sway the legions to oppose also, so I don't think diffs are needed. I just don't feel like being that mean. Honestly, ANI is such a cesspit that I would rather not revisit the bad memories there too. And yes, I think that people who frequent cesspits have issues, including myself. I'm currently on a no ANI break. I know the implicit assumption here is that "we will disregard your opinion if you don't show us proof". So go ahead and disregard it. Parading around skeletons is not my thing right now. pschemp | talk 06:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Frankly, I would like to see some diffs also, because I would like to make an informed decision for myself. You and other people might see the same comments in different lights—surely you can understand why it would be helpful for the RfA process to have more info available? -- SCZenz 08:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Leave it alone - we've got enough bureaucracy already, and so far, I've only seen spite come out of people tossing around diffs. Not something we need more of. If you need more info, you can doubtless find it in the contribs of the candidate. I tend to find it more fun to discover the evidence for myself. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Um... Excuse me? You've got your style, and I have mine. I think it's fair, if somebody makes a claim about a user's edits, that they point to specific examples so the rest of us can understand the issue. -- SCZenz 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Excuse me but I don't *have* to do anything. You seem to be missing this point so let me repeat it, I am not trying to change anyone else's opinion with my oppose vote. Therefore, go do your own research and draw your own conclusion, I don't care what it is, but use your own brain, not mine. I'm not giving diffs no matter how long you argue about it or what you say about it or even if you were to get my vote thrown out for lack of proof, so please leave it. pschemp | talk 04:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Do what you like. In my opinion, however, this approach is not consistent with helping Wikipedia make the best decision possible. We're having a discussion here, in an effort to reach consensus, so if you're not trying to change others' opinions, what was the purpose of commenting at all? -- SCZenz 07:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per attitude to banning - precisely the sort of bullshit we can do without. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC) changed to neutral pending question.--Mcginnly | Natter 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Charming. I suppose you prefer civility from admins as well? Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Civil admins? what will they think of next. --User:Zer0faults 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. There's been way too many questionable blocks in the recent past. Additionally, the candidate seems not interested in main space editing, which is the only reason why this project exists. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • Could you please explain what you mean by that? His block log is empty and obviously he can't issue blocks himself. Mackensen (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Subject to Ghirla's correcting me, I assume he means that there have been controversial blocks of other users by existing admins, and that he fears Thatcher131 would behave similarly. (I disagree with him; I think Thatcher131 behaves with fairness and restraint, and I doubt that he'd ever hit the block button against a good-faith editor without major cause.)

   • Dont mind him. Ghirla just wants to secure his right to be incivil by voiciferously campaigning against due blocks and people who might use them, knowing his behaviour would merit such a move. Truthseeker 85.5 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per Rory. I understand that the comment came in the midst of the heaven-forsaken, heated roads debate, but its brevity and tone are still troubling, especially when the user wasn't an admin, and had no authority to block or ban anyone. Moreover, it suggests editor is unclear on the difference between a block and a ban, a subtle but basic point. Xoloz 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to Abstain per Jonathunder. Xoloz 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Xolox, I respect your opinion and often agree with your take on RFAs, but I must respond here. This warning message to a very problematic user came after several blocks had already been given and warnings that the disruptive behavior was not acceptable had come from multiple admins, the arbcom, even Jimbo himself. In this context, a ban really was possible, as this candidate correctly saw. I left this project for a time, in part because of idiotic insistance of this disruptive user that he knew better than I the names of roads I not only wrote articles on and drive every day but that my father helped build, and the failure of the community, for far too long, to stand up to bullying, mass moves of road articles, and general nonsense. That Thatcher131 correctly and plainly told the most disruptive of the road warriors to accept and move on or be banned is quite to his credit. Durin nominates only the very best candidates for adminship, and I really encourage you to give this one another look. Jonathunder 17:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm so happy to see you back, Jonathunder, that I would eat dirt if you asked me to, much less abstain from an RfA. :) Xoloz 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. No per the first diff. EFG 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Note - this user's first edit was only 3 days ago. Syrthiss 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This user is Freestylefrappe. Fred Bauder 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Strong oppose. Craigleithian 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   User (Craig, not EFG) seems to be a sock, possibly vandalic, see contribs and talk. Note that I didn't indent this, he added it as #::. Singopo moved it to just # (damn edit conflicts). --Rory096 00:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Confirmed sock puppet. I presented evidence of him vandalizing checkuser pages in an arbitration case. Thatcher131 04:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose per above oppose votes. User needs to work on positive communication skills with other editors. Singopo 00:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong oppose. Threatening bans on well-respected editors in absence of a serious offence is definite no-go territory for admins. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You know the comment was directing toward SPUI and not Kim, right? -- SCZenz 07:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to rehash all that's just been said above. But I think it's important to note that Thatcher's comments should not be interpreted as a threat to ban anyone--he is not yet an admin and has no such powers. WP:AGF surely requires us to assume that he was saying that ignoring an ArbComm ruling would result in a ban (imposed by someone else). Now, you are free to oppose if you think that his remark was too intemperate for an admin, but you really shouldn't oppose because he threatened to ban anyone, since there was no such threat. Bucketsofg✐ 14:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose per Rory. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose per Rory096. - Mike 16:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (In response to MIke, Samsara, Mcginnly and Ghirla) I admit that I did not express myself carefully. I should probably have said something like, Per Arbcom, an arbitrary decision is better than no decision, and per common sense, 59% is better than arbitrary. You agreed to this process, and I'm sorry the outcome is not in your favor. You have to choose now whether to accept the results or to continue to be disruptive, in which you will eventually earn yourself a permanent ban. If you oppose me because I was hasty and imprecise in my comments, that is something I can be more careful of in the future. (In fact, there are many times when I will get half way through a comment and decide to copy it to my sandbox and think about it for a while before posting it.) I think my record of edits to the talk pages of problem users and AN/I shows that I generally have a good record of being careful about what I say. On the other hand, if you are opposing me because of the intent of my comment, that if SPUI did not accept the results of the poll he would not last long, then oppose away, because I stand behind that sentiment. I believe I understand the difference between a block and a ban, the need to warn first, the duty to avoid blocking someone with whom you in conflict, and the other aspects of blocking and banning policies. In fact, I have recently been accused of being too lenient. I also intend to state explicitly on my talk page that any other admin may undo my blocks no questions asked (applying WP:OWN to my adminstrative actions). Thatcher131 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13. Moderate Oppose per Rory, Singopo. Markovich292 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per Rory. Rama's arrow 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14. Strong Oppose, per Rory. Not the right attitude at all.  Grue  07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Question. What's your solution to resolving the long, protracted, and acrimonious disupute over highway-naming, particularly given the unwillingess of parties to agree to any kind of compromise? Mackensen (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply use the official names.  Grue  06:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, Mackensen, the parties have agreed to a compromise and are working together to perfect it. The highway dispute is virtually resolved. --Rory096 16:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose Per Rory and others.People Powered 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for all the updates to the New Hampshire election results you did. We're always on the lookout for New Hampshire contributors here ;). NoSeptember 01:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    While I support this candidate myself, I do not think this is the right way to counterargument an opposition (Liberatore, 2006). 12:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't actually engaged in counterargument here. Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of my comment. On an unrelated note, I can honestly say that New Hampshire is a beautiful state, and that the comment above has nothing to do with whose RfA this is or whether I have a position on the candidate or not. NoSeptember 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    I understand the purpose of your post; I disagree with the way it is formulated, however. (Liberatore, 2006). 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You have me at an advantage Liberatore, I do not understand what my home has to do with my opinion. Maybe us Granite Staters are just plain better people, thus the value you put to my vote. :-) People Powered 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16. Strong Oppose per Rory. Travb (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per Rory. —Jared Hunt September 20, 2006, 04:26 (UTC)
18. Oppose Per Rory, and recent enlightenment of this user mocking others. I think admin civility is now a big issue for consideration and this user seems to thinking mocking others is ok. --User:Zer0faults 13:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mocking? Cites? --Durin 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're referring to this? From my chair, not being involved in that situation, the comment does not appear to be directed at you, but is instead a humorous comment shared with Mackensen at nobody's expense. There's quite a bit of truth to the sentiment; screw up once around here and you're often marked for it for a considerable period of time. That said, I went digging for the mocking you refer to because it is a very serious issue to me. If a user seriously mocks another user, they are indeed unfit to be an admin. I've opposed for it before [23] after this comment and would gladly do so again. In fact, if I felt there was substantial evidence showing Thatcher131 to have engaged in willfull, hurtful mocking of another user I would retract my nomination of him. It's that serious to me. I don't see the case here. --Durin 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure why this is in response to me. If you cannot see that my name is above the section, then I do not know how you can think it was not directed at my situation, nor do I see why you attempted to discredit my view. There is a place to post your views on this adminship, i will would like it if you did not attempt to discredit my view or others. Mocking users to me and the civility of admins is a big issue. Good day. --User:Zer0faults 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not attempt to discredit your view. I asked you to expand on it, and did some research on my own. As I noted above, if there was substantial evidence showing Thatcher131 to have engaged in willfull, hurtful mocking of another user I would retract my nomination of him. I too take it seriously. If the only evidence you have of that is the diff I found above, then I personally don't feel this to be sufficient. That's not discrediting you. It's voicing my opinion on the matter, which is entirely proper and relevant to this RfA. --Durin 13:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The irony here is delicious. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes like Milk and Cookies, as usual Mackensen your insights are always well appreciated and quite helpful to the continued growth of the community, I thank you for refraining in your language considering your history. But your reply here only serves my point. --User:Zer0faults 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering my history it would be unlikely for me to be anything but restrained in my language. How's that RfC coming? Mackensen (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you, please take it elsewhere. This RfA isn't the forum for it. --Durin 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose per Rory's diff. Judging by the massive support, this won't make much of a difference at this point, but that's a very disturbing attitude to see brought across for someone requesting the tools to do exactly that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strongly oppose; alarming attitudes. Everyking 19:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose per Rory and alarming controversies until a clear, transparent and implementable deadminship is developped. Also, I am dissatisfied by the mainspace contibution. How can the user work on providing the comfortable environment for editors unless the person knows for sure what is editing and how editors act in real life? --Irpen 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What controversies, plural, please? -- nae'blis 21:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose: Lacks experience in article space. Attitude to banning is concerning. Primarily we are here to write an encyclopedia, I feel he needs more experience in this department first. Giano 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per Giano. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Changed from weak oppose. – Chacor 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. Re above, one diff does not an oppose make for me, particularly given supporters pointing out how difficult the discussion was. However, I find this user's contribs fairly radically skewed to the Wiki space and I generally expect a plurality in main space. Thus, a neutral. Marskell 09:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. Very few of those edits are to core article content. That is the fundamental mission here, after all. Derex 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral. I really like his work with RFCU and AE - AE in particular because it is such an under-watched page. I strongly wanted to support him, but the comment brought up by Rory leaves me concerned. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral Edit mainspace more. Kevin_b_er 15:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral although Rory's point is quite valid, I don't know if I can't apply WP:AGF and know that Thatcher131 will improve. He certainly has other positives. Rama's arrow 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral If I'm to believe the rory comment is a one-off in context remark, under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.