Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

Editing stats for ThaddeusB at 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC):

General user info
Username: ThaddeusB
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Aug 18, 2008 13:32:29
Unique articles edited: 5,664
Average edits per page: 1.81
Total edits (including deleted): 10,226
Deleted edits: 460
Live edits: 9,766

Namespace totals
Article	5266	53.92%
Talk	910	9.32%
User	164	1.68%
User talk	1377	14.10%
Wikipedia	1456	14.91%
Wikipedia talk	199	2.04%
File	5	0.05%
File talk	1	0.01%
Template	195	2.00%
Template talk	183	1.87%
Help talk	1	0.01%
Category	8	0.08%
Portal	1	0.01%

Month counts
2008/08	2082	
2008/09	602	
2008/10	0	
2008/11	108	
2008/12	1469	
2009/01	553	
2009/02	60	
2009/03	38	
2009/04	541	
2009/05	1659	
2009/06	1621	
2009/07	1033	

Logs
Accounts created: 2
Pages moved: 134
Pages patrolled: 46
Files uploaded: 4

Top edited articles
Article

    * 178 - Sarah_Palin
    * 71 - Superstars_of_Dance
    * 50 - Ryan_Higa_and_Sean_Fujiyoshi
    * 46 - Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin
    * 28 - 2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States
    * 16 - Asafa_Powell
    * 15 - Time_magazine's_"All-TIME"_100_best_movies
    * 14 - Household_Hacker
    * 12 - Alchimie_Forever
    * 11 - Michael_Meeks_(software)


Talk

    * 364 - Sarah_Palin
    * 84 - 2009_flu_pandemic
    * 26 - Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin
    * 21 - 2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States
    * 11 - Karađorđevo_agreement
    * 10 - PokerTracker/GA2
    * 7 - Timeline_of_file_sharing
    * 6 - Sam_Brownback
    * 6 - File_sharing
    * 5 - 2009_flu_pandemic/Archive_5


User

    * 25 - ThaddeusB
    * 19 - ThaddeusB/PROD_Log
    * 15 - WebCiteBOT/Logs/
    * 11 - DeadLinkBOT/Logs
    * 10 - WebCiteBOT
    * 7 - ThaddeusB/huggle.css
    * 5 - ThaddeusB/Swine_Flu_Barnstar
    * 5 - WebCiteBOT/Stats
    * 5 - ThaddeusB/Celebriducks
    * 5 - ThaddeusB/monobook.js


User talk

    * 145 - ThaddeusB
    * 23 - WebCiteBOT
    * 19 - Abyssal
    * 19 - DGG
    * 15 - Hell_in_a_Bucket
    * 14 - GreekParadise
    * 12 - Kittybrewster
    * 10 - 81.102.233.188
    * 8 - Colonelfistertaketwo
    * 7 - DeadLinkBOT


Wikipedia

    * 214 - AutoWikiBrowser/Typos
    * 63 - Bot_requests
    * 52 - Administrators'_noticeboard
    * 40 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 39 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 33 - Bots/Requests_for_approval/WebCiteBOT
    * 23 - Bots/Requests_for_approval/DeadLinkBOT
    * 18 - Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Appelbaum
    * 16 - Articles_for_deletion/Stefan_Rapp
    * 15 - Requests_for_page_protection


Wikipedia talk

    * 68 - AutoWikiBrowser/Typos
    * 26 - Proposed_deletion
    * 14 - Notability_(people)
    * 14 - WikiProject_Academic_Journals
    * 10 - AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests
    * 9 - Citing_sources
    * 9 - AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs
    * 7 - Bots/Requests_for_approval
    * 5 - Dead_external_links
    * 4 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Simplify_policy_RfC


File

    * 2 - ShaolinMonkSuspendedOnSpears.JPG
    * 1 - Pieces_Of_Nothing_Cover.jpg
    * 1 - Typo-bug.jpg
    * 1 - ReedLuplauOnSuperstarsOfDance.JPG


File talk

    * 1 - H1N1_map.svg


Template

    * 127 - 2009_flu_pandemic_table
    * 30 - 2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table
    * 2 - Db-a5
    * 2 - PBL-Pharex
    * 2 - 2009_flu_pandemic
    * 2 - Notabilityguide
    * 2 - Campaignbox_Bosnian_War
    * 2 - Enter_Shikari
    * 2 - Polk_County,_Wisconsin
    * 1 - Ballotpedia/doc


Template talk

    * 121 - 2009_flu_pandemic_table
    * 21 - 2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table
    * 11 - 2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table/Region_specific_disc...
    * 11 - Did_you_know
    * 4 - Campaignbox_Bosnian_War
    * 2 - 2009_flu_pandemic_table/Archive_3
    * 2 - 2009_flu_pandemic_table/Archive_1
    * 2 - Citation
    * 2 - 2009_flu_pandemic_table/Archive_4
    * 2 - 2009_flu_pandemic_table/Archive_2


Help talk

    * 1 - Moving_a_page


Category

    * 2 - Redirects_from_products
    * 1 - Settlements_in_Quebec
    * 1 - Music_of_California
    * 1 - Proposed_deletion
    * 1 - Sex
    * 1 - Redirects_from_characters
    * 1 - Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_Ballotp...


Portal

    * 1 - Quebec/Categories

Pedro's Oppose

If an article can be improved, it should be. Tagging it for rescue is a request for assistance in improving an article through normal editing. If the article is improved, so is the project. If it not improved or cannot be improved, it will go. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what has AGF go to do with this? Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My response to your comment was not intended as a badger, if that's what you felt it to be. I only intended my comment to be seen as ThaddeusB's rescue tag was a good faith effort in that he has found sources and offered them before so tagging in his effort to offer opportunity to improve the article. Please do not take offense. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just take a look at User:ThaddeusB/PROD Log; that's a pretty long list of articles where he's contested PRODs and sourced. Also, you're citing an instance where he flagged for rescue after providing 13 sources within the AfD. While you're entitled to your opinion, it clearly wasn't that tagging for rescue was his only effort, he tagged it almost a day after finding the sources.-SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And the diff where those sources were added to the article would be where exactly? This badgering of a lone oppose on an RFA that is clearly going to pass is deeply sad. The crats are free to discount my opinion. You, however, are only free to ignore it. Pedro :  Chat  22:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Pedro is entitled to his opinion and has provided diffs that concern him. This RfA is obviously going to pass, so what is the point in badgering him? Javert ^{(T · C)} 22:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I had no intent of badgering, sorry if it came across like that, but I was just highlighting that he did find sources before he tagged for rescue. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

While I view this oppose as perfectly legit, I would like to say that I did plan to at least copy edit the article and probably properly source it. If you look at my history, I have fixed up a couple articles near the end of an AfD period after arguing for there inclusion earlier in the AfD. If it had closed as keep/no consensus before I did any changes, I certainly would not have just left it "as is." --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

new editors / new accounts / ip editors

An IP editor could have very many constructive edits, but not be allowed to comment at RfA. (It changes slowly over time, sometimes they're allowed to comment without bolded numbers, sometimes they're allowed comments in comments section, sometimes they're not allowed anything). This, to me, seems odd.
A new editor, with no previous history, is allowed to !vote in any section. It's a good idea to note that they are a new editor. It might mean they don't know how to look at talk pages or histories of candidates, or they might be socks, or whatever. This, to me, seems a little bit odd. A new account created by a previous IP editor does have a history, so if that was relevant to me I'd have commented in support.
I've put my 'support' comment in the neutral section because I want to make it clear that my !vote has low weight. I had a quick scan of the history, I saw the PROD rescues, and that's the kind of thing I like. Once I've built up a history I'll notvote in the proper sections.
tldr adminship is, unfortunately, seen as a big thing. I really don't want my notvotes to create not-needed difficulties for wannabeadmins. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You surprisingly know a fair bit for an editor of your experience. Keep up the good work. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

PRODs and BLPs

I do not see PRODs being where help is most needed. Major point that a single user proposing to delete indicates that either nothing is wrong or it wouldn't really hurt anyone if it stayed. Some people spend far too much time on here looking for stuff to delete mainly to further their own interest. I also think an admin should regard it important that information on people should be absolute fact (not just "reliable") or not included at all. Wikipedia says verifiability not fact BUT the law says verifiable fact. Am leaning towards oppose. Biofase ^flame| stalk  19:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I agree that sometimes people PROD articles for no good reason which is precisely why I patrol the articles tagged for deletion to make sure that worthy articles don't get deleted. If no one takes any action to remove the PROD, the article will get deleted after 7 days (unless the reviewing admin declines, but that is rare).

Certainly I would like all information on Wikipedia to be "an absolute fact", especially when it comes to BLPs. Inaccurate BLPs are the single greatest problem facing Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. An inaccurate BLP not only damages our reputation, but also has the potential for real world harm to its subject.

I absolutely think we should do everything possible to insure good quality BLPs, but I just don't see how one can distinguish between an absolute fact and something that is "just believed to be true" by multiple reliable sources. When sources conflict, we can try to use our best judgment, include both versions, or omit the fact entirely (depending on what works best for that article). However, no one can know for certain what is absolutely true and what is just probably true. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer 2, paragraph 3. You say that 10% of topics are notable. I may have misunderstood this as 90% of them should not be kept. But I would need to know if you were to delete an article or recommend deletion (excluding BLPs) would your main criteria for deciding be notability or value to the reader?

Considering history I personally don't think we should have any BLPs, but as long as they are there a good criteria for how much caution to apply would be how much damage can be done. Answer 9 makes mention of not including trivial details, but it's the non-trivial stuff about people's careers that can cause the most damage. Your answer is satisfying though as you seem to understand how important the issue is. Biofase ^flame| stalk  22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarity I need to segregate my answer into two parts: my personal opinion and what I would actually do as an admin.

As far as my person opinion goes, Ideally I think the project should accept any information that is verifiable. This, however, is entirely impractical from a maintenance stand points. As it is, we simply do not have the man power to properly write and maintain the articles we already have. We can't afford to lax inclusion standards as it would lead to many low quality articles with little hope of ever being improved.

Now, I am a firm believer in WP:PRESERVE and always try to save any usable content I can. The 10% are notable only referred to expiring PRODs, not current articles as a whole. To really get a sense of how much stuff really does need deletion take a look at WP:PRODSUM - the majority of these articles aren't even verifiable. As far as deciding what deserves to be kept or not, I do believe notability is more important but usefulness can play a role as well. If content is useful it can probably find a home somewhere, even if not as a stand alone topic.

I will regularly defend articles that very few people care about and that otherwise might be deleted. I have dePRODed, rewritten, strongly defended at WP:AfD, sourced and expanded many articles that would have had very little hope for survival without my intervention. When a topic doesn't meet our inclusion standards for a stand alone, I ask myself "is there some other way to save this content." Often this can be accomplished by merging the information into another, more notable subject. For example, moving song information to an album page or moving school information to a school district page.

Ideally, my desire to save information includes BLPs. (Unsourced or poorly sourced negative information should either be properly sourced or deleted on sight, though.) I think there are better ways to protect the subjects of these articles then by deleting the articles. For example, I am strongly in favor of implementing Flagged revisions for BLPs to insure all information that gets added is approved before shown to the public. Another way to reduce the problem is for individual editors to step up and personally take responsibility for watching a bunch of articles. In that regard, I do add every single article I dePROD to my watch list. As such, I m able to catch nearly all problematic edits to these articles and revert said edits promptly. Another recent proposal was to create an automatically generated list of poorly watched articles. Something like that could certainly help dedicated editors find BLPs that need more eyes.

There is a long standing precedent that marginally notable individuals can have articles about themselves removed upon request. This is a good idea and I would support it becoming official policy.

Now, as far as what I would do as an admin goes, I would enforce all existing consensuses regardless of my personal opinion. An admin has no special authority to set policy, but instead is appointed to (among other things) correctly weigh strength of arguments. I would delete anything that there is a consensus to delete and keep anything there is a consensus to keep.

I personally have opinions about notability that defer from official guidelines on a few subjects. I would ignore such personal opinion as much as humanly possibly when making a keep or delete decision.

Of course, being an admin doesn't mean I can't use my editorial authority to save material. For example let's say XYZ Corp. is nominated for speedy deletion. The article consists of one sentence: "XYZ Corp. is a computer software company located in Texas." By policy this is a clear A7 delete, but if I decide to do a Google search and find XYZ Corp is actually notable I can fix the article to state its importance and remove the speedy tag. (Any editor can do this, not just an admin.)

As an admin, I would not hesitate to delete attack pages under CSD G10 regardless of the notability of the subject. I do agree entirely with that guideline when it states "This includes ... biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." We simply cannot have such potentially harmful information lying around waiting to be improved; speedy deletion can and should be used to remove it as soon as possible.

I hope all that clears things up somewhat. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd's oppose

Discussion moved from RFA page

1. It would just be "sorry to be contrary". Can I ask why you are opposing? Ironholds (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   For a reason that is very important to me but trivial to others; this RfA is going to pass and don't see a need to say why. Pzrmd (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what you mean by "just be 'sorry to be contrary'" but if you are "correcting" me, contrarian is an adjective as well. Pzrmd (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but note that RfA is not a vote, it is a discussion. If you fail to provide a rationale the closing 'crat will simply discount your oppose, making your rather WP:POINTy !vote here rather moot. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   One of the most annoying things a Wikipedian can possibly do is accuse everyone who does anything the least unusual or something he/she doesn't like of a POINT violation. It is very provocative. You didn't need to lecture me about votes and discussions and I really don't care if a bureaucrat discounts my lonely oppose vote when there are 70+ support votes. Pzrmd (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   "I'm opposing even though I know it doesn't matter. I am doing so because of something I feel very strongly about that nobody else cares about, and I'm not going to say what it is because I don't have to, and I don't care if this comment gets discounted" - making comments (or points) that you acknowledge nobody gives half a dried fig about, and doing so in such a way that it can't possibly be constructive is essentially a pointy waste of time. I'd be quite interested to hear the oppose rationale, now, since it's obviously either very interesting or entirely irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sick of petty fights like this. I wanted to voice my opinion without being disruptive. Is that such an impossible feat at Wikipedia? Pzrmd (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   err... yes when your opinion is voiced in such a way that it can't be anything but disruptive. Ironholds (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)Not to mention it weakens your reputation around here. If you one day request for adminship, how would you like if Thaddeus showed up and "opposed" you without citing any reason whatsoever? Unless you do have a reason? If so, please enlighten us. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 11:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   I have no interest whatsoever in becoming an administrator. Pzrmd (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   Actually that's kind of irrelevant, reading what you said. Pzrmd (talk)

   There is nothing wrong with opposing without giving a reason. Pzrmd (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   Yes there is, as I've said above. RfA is a debate and a discussion, not a vote. An oppose on its own is completely worthless. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   It's done all the time; I guess you're going to say it doesn't excuse me? Pzrmd (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   When you strongly oppose an RfA for no given reason whatsoever, it's bound to hurt your reputation at Wikipedia, and it's unnecessarily disruptive, plain and simple. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 11:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   I never expected to get into this much of a fight over it, or I would have said just "oppose." This is tiresome; no more from me. Pzrmd (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I smell socks......Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that, Pzrmd has over 3000 edits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I didn't get the impression he was referring to Pzrmd. Actually not sure now but Pzrmd had an isolated view here so can't actually fit the definition of a sock. Biofase ^flame| stalk  15:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. There was an IP with no previous edits harassing me yesterday, so the comment is probably more related to that than this thread. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can there be anything more childish as making a big deal about 1 or 2 oppose among 80+ support. Just got the sour taste again of why I dislike the cabals so much. Biofase ^flame| stalk  14:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cabal? As far as I know, there isn't a cabal at work here. I can't recall ever working with CIS, or even seeing him before this discussion. Multiple people telling one person they're wrong might be a cabal... or that person might be wrong. In this case it's the latter. Ironholds (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate that my supporters want to defend me, it really is not necessary. Assuming good faith, Pzrmd has some valid reason to oppose and simply doesn't wish to make it public. I do not believe he is motivated by revenge or similar as I have had few, if any, interactions with him in the past. I have contacted Pzrmd and offered him the chance to explain his oppose in private, or to remain silent. Nothing further needs to be said here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

wow, i didn't mean to ignite a shit storm here. I had thought it was possible that the user was associated with a pesky IP, if this is not the case my bad. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I made quite a mistake. ThaddeusB's behavior here has been extremely impressive. Although I did have a legitimate reason, this completely overrides that. One of the best candidates possible and I actually opposed. Thank you so much, Pzrmd (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be good to have a refresher on what being POINTy actually is. It is making a point to deliberately cause disruption - like nominating MfD at MfD. However, people tend to forget that making a point on Wikipedia is not forbidden. I see far too many people interpreting WP:POINT as meaning that nobody should make one. The only violation I see here is trying to coerce a participant into validating their oppose with a rationale, thus taking up this entire talk page. If anyone is disruptive here, it's not Pzrmd. I find it amazing how difficult it would have been to ignore his vote, had one not found it satisfactory. If a vote without a rationale is disruptive, then a knock at the door must have some people falling in agony. I really thought I'd seen the lot of it, but when silence is the cause of disruption, I stand amazed, once again. Law _{type! snype?} 13:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#WT:Requests_for_adminship.2FThaddeusB.23Pzrmd.27s_oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)