Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thingg 2

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

Thingg

Final (111/0/0); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thingg (talk · contribs) - It has been nearly six months since I first nominated Thingg for adminship. He has now nearly a year of service on the project and all of the things I said in my past nomination statement hold true: a prolific recent changes patroller who maintains composure under fire, a contributor to several WikiProjects, a sizeable edit count, and a solid knowledge of wikitext, formatting, and parserFunctions.

Most of the opposition in the first RFA hinged upon Thingg's grasp of our speedy deletion policy. In my review of the last 60 days, I only found one CSD tag that was declined (based on this version of the article with only a very weak assertion of notability as discussed in the AfD for the article). Thingg's main area of focus is in recent changes patrol, and his reports to AIV are always spot-on: it would save the rest of us admins a lot of time if he could perform the blocks himself.

Thingg was recently involved in a situation on the Barack Obama article. The FAQ on the talk page of the article states in no uncertain terms that the instruction of the article is to refer to Obama as "African American" taking lead from the bulk of the reliable sources. This did not stop a POV-pushing SPA sockpuppet account to attempt to modify the lead-in, and per the prevailing consensus, Thingg reverted the changes. An administrator originally saw this as a 3RR violation but later rescinded his block as erroneous, agreeing that the sockpuppet's edits could reasonably be construed as vandalism and thus 3RR exempt. As usual, Thingg maintained incredible composure throughout the entire situation.

An entirely trustworthy fellow who never fails to learn from his mistakes, I have full confidence in Thingg's ability to wield the mop effectively. –xeno (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom by Frank

When I noticed the block mentioned by xeno above, I immediately stepped up to ask the blocking admin about it. I was very pleased that Thingg maintained composure, and that the blocking admin came around. It is a credit to them both; 'nuff said.

As you look through Thingg's contributions, you may take note that there is no small amount of Huggling in his history. That gives some editors pause (honestly it makes me dig a little deeper too), so I want to address that issue a bit. This is no Huggle-bot automaton. Here is a page of edits, and right there in the middle of all those standard reverts are edits which were carefully picked out and dealt with individually. Two examples are edits to Mega Man & Bass and Online questionnaires. Instead of just reverting and moving on, these two edits (among others on the page) show particular attention to the content rather than simply reverting what appears to be vandalism without investigation. Here is another one, from among a long string of reverts.

OK, so Thingg's vandal-fighting pedigree is excellent. It is worth noting that Thingg also knows about the other things that make Wikipedia tick. Take a look at this group of edits, which show a bunch of varied contributions - some vandal-fighting, some not. And, picking a random group of edits from four months ago, you can see that this consistent level of contribution to the project has been going on for quite a while. Note the removal of unsourced material and spam links, the spelling fixes, image uploads, table formatting fixes...in other words, Thingg finds time to be an editor as well as a vandal-fighter.

Finally, I'm not one to be concerned with counts, but I do note there's at least one DYK notice currently hanging out on his talk page as well.

I have no reservations: this is a trustworthy, productive, prolific editor who will be an even more positive asset to the project with the mop.  Frank  |  talk  15:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As I do a quite a bit of vandal-fighting and new page patrolling, admin tools would be very useful by allowing me to block persistent vandals myself instead of waiting for another admin to block them. The extra buttons would also come in handy when I come across pages that clearly meet the criteria for speedy deletion as I could simply delete the page rather than add to other admins' workloads by nominating it to be speedily deleted. Another area I have worked in (though I have not done so as frequently in the past few weeks because of real-life time constraints) where admin tools would be helpful is the DYK nominations process where being an admin would allow me to update the DYK template on the Main Page when it is time for a fresh batch of hooks.

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

A: My interests on Wikipedia vary widely and I seem to go through "spurts" where I edit heavily in one area and then move on to another one. That being said, I have done a fairly large amout of vandal fighting on a more-or-less steady pace since late February, and this activity probably makes up about 70-75% of my edits. My single best contribution would probably be getting PlayStation 3 to good article and featured article status and helping to keep it at FA status by formatting additions if necessary and removing vandalism and inaccuracies. I also made extensive improvements to PlayStation Portable, though it did not pass it's FAC due to a lack of sufficient referencing and I helped get Wikiproject Xbox started and helped design the project's portal and some of its templates.. Also, I have reviewed quite a few DYK noms, (I'm not sure exactly how many; probably around 300 based on the number of edits I have on that page), though, as stated above, I haven't been as active on there as I once was. However, despite the number of noms I have reviewed (I've also nominated a few pages created by other people), until recently I had never had an article that I created appear in DYK. This is probably because most topics in my main of areas of interest (science and technology) already have articles and I am better at organizing and formatting existing content than creating large amounts of new content. (It's also easier to do this, which probably contributes to my being better at it...) Recently though, I have been writing and improving quite a few small articles on islands in the Bering Sea. Although most of them are relatively short, (for example: Chagulak Island, Baby Islands), one article, Uliaga Island, is a bit longer and became my first self nom DYK.

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: The only recent conflict I have been involved in was the Barack Obama incident mentioned by Xeno and Frank. In retrospect, it probably would have been wiser to stop after the third revert and let someone else take care of it, but unfortunately I did not think of that at the time. I had actually signed off Wikipedia soon after the vandal stopped (it was like 2:00am where I live), so I didn't find out about the block until the next day. I think I handled the situation pretty well and the admin said later that he probably would have given me a warning instead of a block if he saw the situation again. I do have to say though, that I have been and will continue to be much more careful in the future when reverting edits that aren't necessarily vandalism. Other than that incident, I haven't been involved in any really large conflicts except for some rather heated discussions relating to the Blu-ray - HD DVD format war in January and February. Although I do not avoid conflict if I feel the issue being debated is important, the vast majority of heated discussions are trivial at best and I generally do not get involved with them.

Optional questions from Protonk (talk)

Since you said you wanted to work in CAT:CSD, I'll ask a few questions relating to that.

4:: Let's say you come across a new article about The Funky (my)Space Monkeys, a band. The article only notes that they have a myspace page, so it seems like a good A7 candidate. You tag it as A7 and inform the author and the page creator places a {{Hangon}} tag on the page, but that is all. How long would you wait before deleting it? What would you do if the editor makes an implausible but not impossible (and unsourced) edit to the article that makes a claim to the article?

A Well, to answer your question, I'll have to explain a little about how I handle articles like this one. If I come across a new article about a band that is not clearly non-notable, I do a google search to see if anything other than a few Myspace-like pages show up. If nothing does show up, I generally place a speedy tag on the page. If the search reveals some information other than the Myspace variety but I still feel the band is non-notable (ie, if the info is not from a reliable source), I generally PROD the page. So, to answer your question, if no citations are provided and/or I can't find any reliable information about the band, I will probably delete the page regardless of what edits are made to it because there would be no way to verify anything about the band. However, if I feel there is a possibility the band is notable, I will most likely take no action regarding deleting the article. Also, I'd like to say that what I've written above is not what I do/will do in every case where I see an article about a potentially non-notable band as every case is different and there are exceptions to every rule. However, this what I generally do with band-articles that aren't clearly non-notable.

5: What kind of hoax articles can be speedied?

A: Only hoaxes that are blatantly obvious (eg. The South won the American Civil War) can be speedied. Obviously, there is some room for interpretation as to what qualifies as "blatant," so if I have a question about it, I usually PROD it.

Additional questions from Irpen

6 Content editing: Could you elaborate on your answer to question 2 in a little more detail? For example, could you provide diffs (or series of diffs) that would show your improvements to the articles you listed in your answer? Particularly, diffs to sufficient content additions would be most appreciated.

A: With PlayStation 3, I didn't really have to add a large amount of content, though I did have to add quite a few citations and reformat a good portion of the article. some diffs: (Just so you know, I was a pretty new user at this time (less than 1.5 months), so there are some odd, overcautious html comments in some of these) improvements to article prior to failed GA nom. Later diffs: adding refs to existing content, reorganizing a section, fixing the lead, adding and fixing refs per concerns at FAC. If you need more diffs, most of my improvements to that article can be found here.

For PlayStation Portable, I had to pretty much re-write the article from scratch because the old version was in pretty bad shape. some diffs: complete overhaul of lead, add a few sections, fork info to a sub-article, corrections to previous edits based on new info I located, 26 various edits. More diffs may be found here. The complete diff of changes from beginning to end of my major improvements to PlayStation 3 can be found here, and PlayStation Portable here (warning: long pages). Please note that in both cases, all of the edits between the diffs were not made by me, though the majority of edits were.

I also recently created Chagulak Island, Adugak Island, Baby Islands, Uliaga Island, Sagchudak Island, and Aziak Island as well as making around 95 edits of this variety to the islands listed in the {{Islands in the Bering Sea}} template.

7. Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors, particularly in the discretionary rather than direct action? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for general edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Also, do you plan to enforce WP:3RR by patrolling WP:AN3 and the arbcom decisions by patrolling WP:AE? Particularly, would you enforce the so called "general sanctions", "civility paroles" or other wide scope measures that the arbcom frequently passes lately with a significant administrator's discretion being allowed?

A: Well, at the present, I don't plan on actively monitoring WP:AN3 or WP:AE, but if I come across or am made aware of a situation where an editor is being disruptive and is refusing to talk about the disagreement, I would be willing to administer a block if I thought it was necessary to end the conflict. I would also be willing to enforce other arbcom restrictions if necessary. However, I would not impose a block unless I felt there was no other way to end the argument.

8. Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on content editors on your own?

A: I'm not sure I grasp exactly what you are asking, but if you meant "will I single-handedly impose permanent restrictions on editors who have not made clearly disruptive edits," the answer is no because that authority rests with the arbcom, not with individual admins. Is that what you meant?

9. What's your opinion of IRC. Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel?

A: I don't really have a particular opinion about IRC because I have never used it. I also don't plan on using in the future at this time, but I may end up using it at some point. A proper use of the IRC channel would be to talk about things that don't need to be documented and to get help from people if you need it. It would also be useful in a rapidly-changing situation where you need to communicate with other users quickly. An improper use would be to surreptitiously organize activities for the wiki and to talk about people behind their backs.

Additional Questions from Giggy

10. Comment on opposes 2, 4, 11, and 28 at your past RfA, please. Giggy (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A. #2 was a valid objection to an error I had made when replacing a speedy tag on a page without checking the article first. I was pretty new at NP patrol at the time, and I made a much larger number of mistakes. The first part of #4 was a similar objection to the above and resulted from an incomplete knowledge of the CSD rules and not being careful when placing speedy tags. The second part was an objection to an incorrect fair-use rational I had placed on an image I had uploaded very soon after I joined Wikipedia. I didn't understand fair-use then and I had neglected to fix the rational after I gained a better knowledge of the rules. #11 part one is the same objection as #4 part two and the second part was an astronomically boneheaded placing of a speedy tag on Avenged Sevenfold after it had been vandalized a few times. As for #28, I don't think I have a mechanistic view of the policies, but looking over my cautious answers to the questions, I definitely see that I gave that impression even though I did not intend to. To be honest, looking back at my level of experience in several key areas of Wikipedia, particularly CSD, at that time, it probably was for the best that my first RfA did not succeed as I'm fairly certain I would have made some rather embarrassing mistakes. This is not to say I think I am perfect now as I most certainly am not, but I am definitely more familiar and experienced with the admin areas I'm interested in working in.

11. (copied from previous RfA) A new editor, user:wiwiwejd992728, has made 23 contributions to WP. 10 of those are vandalism, the rest are things like typo or spelling corrections. What do you do? Giggy (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A. It would depend on how "bad" the vandalism was and when it was made. If the vandalism was of the "eighiehieihgihgie" or similar variety and occurred at the start of the edits followed by a string of constructive edits, I would most likely take no action regarding a black. On the other hand, if the editor made some constructive edits followed by page blankings and "F*** YOU!!!1111"s, then I would almost definitely block them if the edits were recent. Basically, what action I would take would depend totally on what edits were made and when they were made, so I can't really give an entirely accurate answer when speaking in generalities.

Additional Question from RockManQ

12. Do you agree with every Wikipedia policy, or guidline? If not please give an example and tell why.

A. I can't really think of any Wikipedia policies I disagree with. I am not saying that I think Wikipedia is perfect, but for the most part, I think the guidelines in place have been fairly well thought-out and work pretty well.

Additional (optional) question from Toddst1

13. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do? (Note: Wikipedia:SUICIDE is not policy).

A. hmmm... that's a good question and one I haven't really given much thought as I've never encountered a situation like that. I would probably leave a post on WP:AN mentioning the message and requesting someone with some experience in that area to contact the user because I do not have any experience with counseling suicidal people.

'Additional (optional) question from  Marlith (Talk) '

14. What would you like Wikipedia to be in ten years time?  Marlith (Talk)  03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

'A. Wow I'm sorry I missed this one. What would I like Wikipedia to be like in then years? hmmm.... Well, in many ways, I'd like it to be like it is now: lively, active; a fun place, but one where work gets done and we accomplish something useful. I especially hope Wikipedia never loses its sense of "newness" where we still have rules that can be changed and policies that can be adjusted if necessary. One of my greatest fears for this site is that as a community we will fossilize into an unmovable bureaucracy of tradition and hard-fast, set-in-stone policies. Now, I'm not saying I think no rules should stand as any organization must have some sense of stability to be successful, and some policies (such as the five pillars) should never be changed in my opinion, but I think that one of Wikipedia's strengths is its adaptability and freedom of action when working for the good of the project (WP:IAR). I hope that never changes. Another thing I hope stays the same is the ability for truly anyone to edit the majority of pages on this site. I mean, that ability is, in a large part, responsible for the spectacular success of this encyclopedia, and while that ability does contribute to much of the vandalism here, it enables us to keep up with current events rapidly (a huge asset in a lot of cases) and is also (in my humble opinion) one of, if not the defining feature that sets Wikipedia apart from the myriad of copycat projects out there. I also hope that never changes. However, there are a couple of things I would like to see change on Wikipedia over the next decade. The main thing I'd like to see is a much higher average quality level for articles, especially in the area of citations. While we have made a lot of progress in this direction (as evidenced by the constantly increasing number of edits per page and featured articles), we still have a lot of work to do on a lot of articles. I would also like to see large-scale vandalism become a a much less serious issue than it is now. While automated and semi-automated tools have helped a lot in this area, vandalism is still a large problem, and one I hope we can find a way to at least greatly reduce its impact compared to what we deal with today.

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Thingg
• Requests for adminship/Thingg 2

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Of course (per nom) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Nothing immediately alarming :) Good luck! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Support – Yes, I've been waiting for this for a while now, and have always thought Thingg would be a fine administrator. I've been watching his talk page and his edits for a while now, and see most everything constructive. Happy to support. Good luck! -- RyRy (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Thingg has an impressive WikiResume, displays great understanding of Wikipedia policy, and has the temperament to be an administrator. Although I have had only minimal direct interaction with Thingg, I am constantly bumping into him at AIV and other places - and all I see is indications of a reasonable, thoughtful editor. Tan | 39 21:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Seen nothing but good things from Thingg: he's always been sensible whenever I've seen him. I was the one who gave him rollback as well, which he has been great with. Acalamari 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - a little soon after his last RfA but what the hell. Garden. 21:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

   Are you sure? Caulde 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

   It's been around five months, Garden. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

   Oh. Feels like a lot less than that. Peh, ignore me. Garden. 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

7. Support – i've seen this guy around a lot, and he seems to get it. The issues brought up by the opposes last time around seem to have since been dealt with. Yilloslime (t) 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - all-round good candidate from my experience. Best we've had in weeks, in my opinion. Caulde 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

   I fail to see why your support for this candidate has to spill out into disrepect for other candidates, some of whom are currently standing. I think you have over-stepped the mark. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

9. Strong Support. By my past nom. Glad to see you back at RfA! Malinaccier (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - Absolutely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Hello, I'm Catherine the Great and I'm in a frisky mood -- I'll take a dozen oysters and a horse, please...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Strong Support for one of Wikipedia's very best editors (truly)! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Support (edit conflict x2). Only 913 reports to AIV? I've seen Thingg's work and it's always seemed good to me. Seems to have a good handle on policy, and has demonstrated the ever-subjective clue. That's some serious Huggling you got there, but you have other work as well. I think he'll do fine as an admin. Useight (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose :) per he is the perfect candidate with excellent nominations and therefore there must be something wrong with him ;) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

    _{If you didn't understand the humor, that's a support. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}My work 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)}

    See here for some context. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

    Ha! That's absolutely amazing. [/pointless conversation]. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

14. Support. I've never interacted with this user, but from his responses to the questions, the nomination, and from the approval of other editors. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. I've seen Thingg's contributions for quite a while and I know he's an amazing editor and vandal fighter. Definitely will make an amazing administrator as well. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - nothing wrong, at all. iMatthew (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Everyme 22:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Support per Bsimmons666. LittleMountain5 ^review! 22:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Makes sense. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Support a demonstrated need for the tools and a good demeanor. - Icewedge (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Support of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Support User won't abuse the mop. SchfiftyThree 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

    But will he abuse the mob? Everyme 23:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

    Well, by the amount of unanimous supports above, I believe he will do alright. SchfiftyThree 23:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

23. Support as nom. Thingg taught me so much when I was first starting here and as I said to him at my talk page, it's pretty much a travesty that I was made an admin before he was - let's fix that =) –xeno (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Has objectively worked and overcame the concerns raised during the Previous RFA.Further trust the Judgement of Acalamari.See no chance of the user abusing the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Looks good. America69 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
26. Support (ec) Per the above and a clear, reasonable answer to the questions. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
27. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
28. Support, albeit a little weakly. Thingg's instability is a small cause for concern for me: I fear his judgement may at times be lacking, or that he may—rarely, I suspect, admittedly—make rash decisions in the course of his work as an administrator. By and large, however, I believe he will bring some improvement to the project through his having the +sysop bit; I do caution him to take a step back if he feels unsettled on the project, but at the root of the matter I trust him and think he will make a decent administrator. Anthøny ✉ 00:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
29. Support – good candidate. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - Hard working editor with a stable record of contributions and Vandal fighting --Flewis^(talk) 01:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
31. Weak Support Haven't had the best interactions with the candidate in the past, and apparently I'm not the only one with some concerns, as shown by Anthony above. However, I do feel that this will be an overall net gain. GlassCobra 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
32. Strong support I literally, honestly, truly believed you were already an administrator. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
33. Strong support Let's get this Thingg started! Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, that was poor. :-) Anthøny ✉ 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

34. SupporttII MusLiM HyBRiD II 01:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. I kinda thought you were an admin already too. Talk page looks good (You get a lot of pints, don't you!) and contribs...well, as you said, a little Huggly--but I'm not one who considers that a bad thing. Yeah, I'd trust you with the mop. But re: Q5...you might want to go back and peek at WP:SPEEDY--particularly item #2 under "non-criteria". (Did I just give the answer away?)Gladys J Cortez 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

    I would have said the same thing but it appears that, in the breech, blatant hoaxes that are basically speedied on a regular basis. Within the letter of the law or not, that appears to be the operating precedent. Personally, I don't mind it. The biggest fears for speedying "hoax" articles are misidentification and deletion of a factual account of a notable RL hoax. I find that those are usually unfounded and that an admin who sees a blatantly misinformative article would not be in the wrong in deleting it. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

    When I saw your reply, I went back and re-read the "non-criteria" section; and lo and behold, it DOES mention that "blatant and obvious" hoaxes can be treated as vandalism and speedy deleted on that basis. Striking out my misinterpretation of policy and noting that I'm clearly not as smart as I'd like to think I am. ;) Gladys J Cortez 03:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

36. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
37. Support - why not.   jj137 (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Nobody reads these comments, so I'll come forth and say that abortion is the best thing since sliced bread, McCain is a revolutionary step forward in U.S. presidency, and we should work on colonizing Mars because Wal-mart is running out of places to urbanize. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

    o_O Some people read them... GlassCobra 13:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

39. Support (AA) per Juliancolton ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
40. Support As last time. Pedro :  Chat  08:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
41. Support Looks like would be a good mop-wielder. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
42. Support A review of the stats shows no likelihood of mop abuse, and my interactions with the candidate (reviewing/actioning AIV reports) have been good. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
43. Support per Master of Puppets and that I don't see anything troubling. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. Yep, this fellow has the temperament to be an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
45. Really hope this one finally passes. ;) — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
46. Support Never had a problem with this user. Hard worker who deserves the tools and will use them well. Daniel Case (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
47. Support — Realist² 14:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
48.  user OK. macy 15:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
49. Support (again!) — Athaenara ✉ 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Thought he was an admin! -- how do you turn this on 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
51. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
52. Support All problems (even the minor ones) raised in the last RfA seem to be addressed. While I would like to see his answers to the remaining questions, it appears irrelevant. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
53. Support. More Huggly than I personally prefer admins to be, but that's a question of personal style, and to each his own. Editor appears a superb vandal fighter and would be an obvious net gain for the project. Ford MF (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
54. Support Excellent user.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
55. Support. Synergy 19:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
56. Support. Edits and answers look good. -FlyingToaster (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
58. Affirmative. →Christian.И 19:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
59. Support I've seen Thingg around, Huggling and whatnot, and he's done very well. With a bit of my own investigating, I am pretty ready to believe that Thingg will do well as an admin. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
60. "What do you mean you are not already an admin?"-Support Not much more to say, I really thought he was an admin and answers and contribs look fine as well. :-) SoWhy 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
61. Support Seems to merit trust, despite some past controversy. Steven Walling (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
62. Umm...yes. I have no concerns about this user. Xclamation point 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
63. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
64. Already-thought-you-owned-a-mop support — seriously, this one kind of surprised me. No problems with what I've seen of this user, and I think he'd definitely make a fine admin with the areas he intends to work in. The first time I really saw him around was about the time when he once helped cleanup after a little mistake of mine at DYK. ;-) Good luck with everything, keep up your good work! Jamie^☆S93 01:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. Very good editor. --Carioca (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
66. Pile on support. Solid editor. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
67. Support - Good answers to questions, nothing alarming in the past 500 edits. Answer to question 11 was a little iffy, but it was a pretty general question. Matty (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
68. Support. Excellent contributions and sensible answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
69. Support I supported last time per candidate's good work which has only improved since then. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
70. Support As last time Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - No issues. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
72. Support: I've seen Thingg around and found his work to be solid. Should make a good admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
73. Support Seen him around and he does a excellent job. --Patrick (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
74. Support A capable candidate doing very good work...Modernist (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
75. Pile-On/As-Co-Nom/Of-Course/Thought-You-Were-Already-Support  Frank  |  talk  17:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
76. Support Great edits and experience over the past 6 months, good answers. --Banime (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
77. Support - I opposed last time, but my concerns are no more. Have fun mopping! Tiptoety ^talk 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
78. Support - Per noms and answers to the first three questions. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
79. Thingg is one of the sites most fervent and intelligent administrators, there's no reason not to gie him the flag to go along with it. Valtoras (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
80. Support Why not? If there's not not, then there should not be anyone not supporting.  Marlith (Talk)  03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
81. Support per nom and the lulz. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
82. Support No problems, huge positives SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
83. Support (even if my opinion is redundant at this point). He has accumulated a lot of experience in different areas, and he used the feedback from his previous RfA constructively. I see no reasons for concern. VG ☎ 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
84. Support I have no concerns trusting them. rootology (C)(T) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
85. Support: without hesitation. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
86. Support Clearly. Spinach Dip 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
87. Support. Looks like a strong candidate. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
88. very strong support I like people who i find worthy, know how to use the tools, dont like vandals, and will make constructive edits to wikipedia.Hawkey131 (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
89. Support Answers look good, and you seem to have the trust of many users.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
90. Strong Support--LAAFan^sign _review 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
91. Support A top prospect for the Cleanup Team. Freqsh0 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
92. Supportt. Wizardman 12:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
93. Support, good answers to the questions, respectable editing history; seems trustworthy. Dreadstar † 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
94. Support. I would like to see you branch out beyond RCP and new pages patrolling though. Most of that type of patrolling doesn't need the admin toolkit (other than of course administering blocks and making pages disappear). Apteva (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
95. Support : Have a stormy admin life :) Ref: Userbox on the candidate's page -- Tinu Cherian - 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
96. Support - looks good. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
97. Support - per nom, and has over 40,000 edits. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 17:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
98. Support - Seems to be an almost perfect candidate. Lots of frequent edits, many reverting vandalism. Very good question answering too :-). Good luck. AtheWeatherman (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC).
99. Support Hobartimus (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
100. Support, no worries. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
101. Support, everything looks good. Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
102. Support - definitely ——Possum (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
103. Support Wooo! You made it into the WP:100! A great candidate, good record, no bad points brung up and I can't find any; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
104. Support ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
105. Support Definitely trust-worthy. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
106. Support The reasons I opposed the latest RFA are no longer applicable. Cenarium ^Talk 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
107. Support. I supported this user on his previous RfA, but now he has even more experience. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
108. Support. I'd pushed for article probation on the Obama pages, and although it wasn't ideal for the candidate to be partially sanctioned under it, and partially under 3RR, I'm very happy to trust this user with tools for demonstrating what he learnt from that experience. The candidate also provided a nice answer to question 9. Just as a further point on that answer, users too easily start having doubts whether someone is speaking about them behind their back, or vice versa, just because they use it. Sometimes the doubts are well-founded, while other times it's pure paranoia, and the effects of such doubts which can be damaging to collaborativeness. It can never replace on-wiki consensus building, and certainly, doubts shouldn't replace basic AGF. I hope that this is also something that the candidate will reinforce when his RFA is granted. ;) Best wishes, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
109. Support. Impressive.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
110. Very Strong Support - Very impressive contributions. I hope this passes! --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 19:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
111. No-brainer support Nominated by an editor that I have the utmost respect for, co-nominated by another of the same stature, outstanding contributions to the project... what more could I possibly ask for? --Winger84 (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

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.