Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Czar 76 3 3 96 18:23, 29 November 2014 2 days, 8 hours no report
Samwalton9 94 0 2 100 15:30, 28 November 2014 1 days, 5 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 09:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Latest RfXs update
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N
Northamerica1000 2 RfA Successful 21 November 2014 108 38 17
Thomas.W RfA Withdrawn 21 November 2014 54 28 4
I JethroBT RfA Successful 16 November 2014 156 0 3
Jackmcbarn RfA Successful 5 November 2014 137 25 3
GamerPro64 RfA No consensus 11 October 2014 68 38 12
Vladimirrizov2 RfA WP:NOTNOW 4 October 2014 0 2 0
Jacobfeliciano1 RfA WP:NOTNOW 20 September 2014 1 2 0
Dodger67 RfA Withdrawn 24 August 2014 42 28 4

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia are low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages.
Expressing opinions
While every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Every Wikipedian—including those who do not have an account, or are not logged in ("anons")—is welcome to write in the comments section and the questions sections. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most, requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially 'oppose' comments with uncommon rationales or which may feel like "baiting"), consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you would reply. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
Typically, a nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats; and, in exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found here.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.


Current nominations for adminship

Czar

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (76/3/3); Scheduled to end 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Czar (talk · contribs) – I am glad to nominate one of our strongest available candidates for an administrative position in Czar. A Yale University alumnus, currently at Wisconsin, Czar has been in the project since 2005 and extremely active since October 2012. He is active in writing content, especially with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games with four featured articles, over 40 good articles and dozens of did you know, finishing fourth overall in the 2014 WikiCup. He is active in WP:AFD, where he usually closes non-admin discussions, and also been involved in move requests. As we need more content oriented administrators, I feel that Czar will make an excellent admin. Thanks Secret account 22:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from TParis

I'd like to nominate Czar for the admin bit. Before I even start, I'd like to impress everyone with Czar's featured content work which speaks volumes to their talent and character. Please make particular note of this editor's reviews and mentoring at the bottom of the page as well. Czar is helpful and clueful in every way. Besides valued content work, they also spend a lot of time performing maintenance and deletion sorting at WP:AFD. And while the candidate doesn't have a wealth of experience in CSD, they have shown to be competent in both article and file space criteria. Besides maintenance work, Czar also had dozens of DYKs and although they haven't mentioned an intention to work that area, I hope they may see the need and eventually approach the DYK project to lend a helping hand. Here, we have an editor with competence with both content and maintenance and an even temper. I've read through his 2013 archives and I find him to be polite in all of his discussions and I even see current admins complimenting him on his non-admin closures. We've got a great admin right here, folks.--v/r - TP 08:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Dennis Brown

For me, Czar is a familiar name, but I still had to do some digging. The reason being is that I see him doing sensible things all over the place, intelligent work at AFD that kind of thing, but we've never edited together, and he tends to not be all that flashy. I probably have paid a bit more attention to his opinions because they always insightful rather than bland hyperbole, so they were worth noticing. All and all, I assumed he was just a better than average editor. So I dig, and find 33k edits, experience with new editors, many Good Articles, and so on, and so forth..... Pretty soon, you ask yourself, "Why isn't he an admin already?" He has the skills, he has the demeanor, the experience; he simply lacks the tools. That is why we're here, to ask the community to grant the tools to someone who can not only use them, but use them wisely, and to the benefit of us all. Dennis - 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I greatly appreciate your confidence, and accept with gratitude czar  18:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: AFD closures, technical moves, and history merges. I'm satisfied between writing articles and my AfD participation, in which I think I've shown sufficient discretion, understanding, and clue, and would like to return the favor for the help I've received. If I were to branch out, I would do so cautiously.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm proudest of my collection of video game assets released as free use and WP advocacy (teaching a WP class at a high school, running edit-a-thons, helping dispel educators' misunderstandings about how WP works) because I think they have the broadest reach. However, I am primarily here to write and I presume the more popular answer would be the number of "recognized" articles I've produced. Though I prefer not to keep stats, I accept that some find counting a reassuring act. For a list of my DYKs and recognized content, please see the talk page. I'm particularly happy with my work on Menacer, Fez, and the "education" topic sector of the encyclopedia.
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: Nothing particularly remarkable or more than to be expected. No disagreements that have flared up into a full-blown "conflict". I prefer to handle situations with a strategy of deescalation. This either means to align and work it out together, or to dispassionately extricate myself by bowing out. For two recent AfD dispute examples, see The First Book of Napoleon and Shemford (1, 2). In any event, I've never gone to war or even to a noticeboard, largely because I'm uninterested in letting it get to that point.

Optional question from Townlake

4. Why doesn't your signature include a link to your talk page? Do you think that makes it easier for inexperienced users to communicate with you?
A: Can't recall that ever being an issue, but I would certainly accommodate if I had any actual indication to that effect. I think it's nicer to be routed through a calming user page so that other editors may better understand where I'm coming from before leaving a reply. I'm not inflexible on this, but I imagine it's more of a talk page conversation.

Question from Kunalrks

5. You are seen to be mainly active in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Would you like to remain active, similarly, for other Wiki projects as well, after you gain Adminship?
A: While most of my vetted content is certainly in the games space, I think it's important to remember that I have spent a great amount of time on non-games articles: dozens of DYKs and a half-dozen GAs in education, women's history, art, music, and other subjects (and that's not including the bulk of my contributions that, like most editors, I haven't brought to vetting processes). As for the WikiProject side of things, I only post more often at WT:VG than at other WikiProjects (education, visual arts, feminism) because there is much less activity at the latter. (I think this says more about the state of WikiProjects and the communal culture of certain WP editor constituencies than about my own interests.) I spend most of my non-wiki life reading and writing about the history and philosophy of education, and it was fully my intent to stick to art and education (two very underserved areas), but I have gradually found that the video games space has more activity and thus better editor resources (more capacity for quality peer reviews, better communal guidelines and support), so I spend more time and am grateful for the camaraderie there, as it has made my time here most enjoyable. I still edit in other areas, and my draftspace is full of difficult drafts from non-games topics that I look forward to finishing.

Question from Dirtlawyer1

6. Hi, Czar. This is the first time I have ever asked a candidate question during an RfA, and these are not intended to be trick questions, but a straightforward exploration of your present understanding of the Wikipedia notability and reliable source guidelines per WP:N and WP:RS, respectively. I'm looking for a two to three-sentence answer to each subpart that alleviates the concerns raised by Mkativerta below. So, ----
(a) Please explain the relationship of Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" to Wikipedia's concept of "notability."
(b) Please explain the relationship of Wikipedia's concept of an "independent source" to Wikipedia's concept of "reliable source."
(c) Please explain the relationship of Wikipedia's concept of an "independent source" to Wikipedia's concept of "notability."
(d) Please explain when you believe that it is appropriate to treat a non-independent source as a reliable source, and what additional precautions you might use or steps you might take when treating a non-independent source as a reliable source.
(e) Please discuss what you may have learned about notability, independent sources and reliable sources from the AfDs cited by Mkativerata below (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemford, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade In Detectives, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directed Studies at Yale University.
Again, this multi-parter is not intended to be deceptive or "tricky," but to be an opportunity for you to address the concerns raised and to demonstrate that you fully grasp these important concepts related to AfD and other deletion work. Cheers.
Additional question from SNUGGUMS
7. Admins are often known to edit a broad variety of articles. It has been noted that you most often edit those relating to video games. If you had to branch out further, what types of articles could you imagine yourself working in?
A: I mentioned this in Q5, but I already do work on plenty of non-game content. I've written GAs on an experimental 1920s college program, a famous English professor, the historiography of slave children, a math professor and his number theory program for gifted children, a basketball statistician, a Czech senator, and a Chilean anonymous grave. And dozens of non-game DYKs (education, history, art, music, etc.) And I have dozens more in drafts. If you were to remove all of my games-related contributions, all of this would still remain. I edit in games mainly for the community, elaborated in Q5.
I should've been more specific; what types of non-video game articles would you work on more often if needed?
Additional question from Salvidrim!
8. Is there any specific area or topic within Wikipedia that you plan on intentionally staying away from? For example, I avoid all race/religion/politics topics, and generally avoid working in administrative areas related to images, proxies and the Education namespace (due to lack of familiarity).
A: While I'm grateful for those who handle ANI, it interests me least of all admin functions. Otherwise, I see myself more limited by interest and time than by content/area boundaries. I believe I've shown my ability to branch out thoughtfully when so moved, e.g., I never thought I'd do hardcore template editing before {{GAN link}}. (Though I'll repeat that I'm not particularly interested in admin areas outside what I scoped in Q1.) Between my demeanor and my preference for the quieter areas (on Wikipedia, at least), I'm not predisposed for getting into contentious debates. I'd sooner do anything else.


General comments

  • Links for Czar: Czar (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Czar can be found here.
  • List of recognized content (DYK/GA/FA/other featured) available on talk page
  • Background in art (sculpture), doc student in history and philosophy of education
  • No preferred pronoun (he/she/they/Spivak okay), though you'd probably use "he" in person
  • I usurped this username (hold your czar puns) in 2012, and I have another account for semi-automated (AWB) edits. I haven't made a non-minor edit as an IP since making this account. No other accounts.
  • No blocks, ugly disputes, Arb actions, or otherwise
  • To preempt the question about standing for recall, I think a consensus from a well formed and public RFC (RFC/U, if it hasn't been abolished) would be sufficient, and that this goes without any RfA candidate needing to say so.
  • Post-April 2014 Twinkle CSD log, PROD log, discussion closure log
czar  01:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support He wasn't an admin already?! What?! --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. As nominator Secret account 18:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Strongest possible support - And, on top of everything that will make him an amazing admin, Czar is amongst the best content contributors I have had the pleasure of admiring. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support without hesitation (though not without a little investigation). Significant and effective contributor, demonstrates maturity. -- Scray (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support as co-nom.--v/r - TP 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support I think I was the first person to suggest to Czar, a year and a half ago, that he should consider adminship. I was impressed by his diligence and high degree of clue at AfD. He also has a ton of DYKs and a lot of Good and Featured material (which he is apparently too modest to list anywhere). (My mistake - the list is on the talk page of this RfA. That's still unusually modest; most of us keep a tally in our userspace.) He has good judgment and is clearly here to build an encyclopedia; he will make a great administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Hail C-zar! The nomination statements and a look at this users history tells me we have another good admin on the way. Chillum 19:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support I'm happy that you decided to run. → Call me Hahc21 19:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support. czar has something depressingly few admins do: civility, with an ability to admit when he's wrong (or at least outnumbered in consensus) and move on without theatrics. While I don't personally concern myself with AfD, he takes an unusually active role there and appears to be generally well versed in all Wikipedia policies. Here's hoping the job doesn't ruin him, Tezero (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support I stumbled on prep for this RfA a week ago. Started digging through talk pages (archives at 2012, 2013 and 2014) and contribs early. I found many reasons to support and no reason to oppose. Clear, concise, helpful, enthusiastic and lots more show he will do excellent janitorial work. Please do put a link to your talk page in your sig (and not the tiny dot that was difficult to get a cursor over in an older sig). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support Absolutely. With more people like czar, there's a good chance admins will have a good name! Jaguar 19:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  12. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support No concerns. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  14. Happily Support - Numerous reasons to support! Quite experienced editor! - Kunalrks (talk), 07:56, 22nd November, 2014 (UTC).
  15. Support Looks chill, smart, accessible, and drama-free. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  16. Support Meticulous, experienced, civil, and has strong article contributions—I'm confident Czar would be a great admin. Altamel (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  17. Support but please do provide a link to your talk page in your sig. It's a courtesy to make it convenient to talk to you, without having to go through your user page every time. --Stfg (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  18. Support very diligent editor who has made fine contributions and who I have no doubt will use the mop well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  19. Support No concerns. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  20. Strong support clueful editor who probably won't be afraid to make unpopular decisions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  21. Support one of the best non-admins on the 'pedia today --Guerillero | My Talk 23:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  22. Support Hafspajen (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  23. Support. Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  24. Support with no qualms. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  25. Support my interactions with him were positive. Qualified candidate. ///EuroCarGT 02:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  26. Support Jianhui67 TC 03:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  27. Support – Well qualified. But I support User:Stfg's request that Czar should provide a link to his user talk page from his signature. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  28. Support Wait, your not already an admin? In all seriousness though, I support this user. I’ve seen Czar performing NACs and relisting quite frequently, and in my experience his judgment is sound. Some concern has been risen that Czar is too focused on video game articles, but I'm not worried about this since it demonstrates that he has had extensive editing and content creation experience. Plus, he’s written several good articles on topics with no relation to video games (some of which are listed here (mainly at the top of the list), so I don’t think its accurate to state that he has a “lack of broader experience”. As for the AfDs in the oppose section, Czar may have debatably made a mistake or two. But if you look at his total AfD record, you’ll see that he has voted in over 100 AfDs and that his vote matched the result over 85% of the time. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  29. Support. The lone oppose (at the moment) is reasonable, but I think Dirtlawyer has given a good reply. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  30. Support I see no reason to oppose. Some issues about experience have been raised below, but learning never ends for anyone on Wikipedia and I believe the candidate is fully aware of this fact. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  31. Support Latest AfD log shows clue. Has the necessary content experience and no issues found with communication.  Philg88 talk 09:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  32. Support Experienced user no reason to oppose.... All good! Good luck with this RFA! George.Edward.CTalkContributions 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  33. Support - I have encountered Czar in a number of places, but most prominently on Sega Genesis related articles, partly in helping the subject reach featured topic status, but also in helping to control the never-ending POV pushing on the name, including a revised edit notice. I realise that video games is not considered a "highbrow" subject worthy of traditional encyclopedias, but WikiProject Video Games seem like a sensible group all working towards a common goal with a good understanding of policy, and from my experience with Talk:Sega Genesis/GA2 are willing to listen to and welcome outsiders like me (although Czar wasn't directly involved in that GA review). And as he said, he has done work outside of his chosen field of expertise; such as taking University of Wisconsin Experimental College to GA status. In all situtations his conduct has been civil and polite; I can't think of any flare-ups beyond maybe the odd blunt "go to the FAQ" for Sega Genesis / Megadrive wars. Provided he knows when to defer to an expert (I sporadically ask DGG for advice on academic-related articles myself) I don't forsee any obvious problems. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  34. Fantastic editor. I knew he wasn't already an administrator, but I always felt that he should be one. Kurtis (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  35. Support per my statement above. Dennis - 14:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  36. Support, echoing Stfg's suggestion to link to your talkpage in your signature. Miniapolis 16:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  37. Support - no concerns whatsoever. GiantSnowman 17:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  38. Support per perfectly reasonable and reassuring answers given to multi-part Question 6. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  39. Support, largely based on long observations of the overall quality of this editor's participation at AfD. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  40. Support Seen Czar around at AFD and they always seem to hit the spot. No concerns. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  41. Support The contributions to AfDs made by Czar that I've seen (relistings and non-admin closures) suggests he has a clue, so see no reason he can't handle the tools. Number 57 23:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  42. Support - I've had first-hand experience of his excellent work at AFD and I trust all three of the nominators. Stlwart111 23:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  43. Support I see no indication, in fact the quite the opposite, that this editor wouldn't be able to comprehend and adjust his position based upon policy in situations where they are informed about the standing status quo. That puts me solidly on this side of the fence. Mkdwtalk 00:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  44. Stephen 00:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  45. Support per noms and answers to questions. Appears to be willing and able to learn in areas where knowledge is less than... encyclopedic. Not seeing any red flags indicating anything other than net positive. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  46. Support - This editor received good nominations from strong nominators and answered the additional questions well. I encountered Czar in several circumstances, including at AFD and in other parts of article writing and promotion, such as DYK. I've often been impressed by this editor's writing talent, diligence and tenacity. This editor seems like a clueful and cool-headed person and should make a strong addition to the admin corps. I hope the candidate continues his trend of good content production if this process provides him with the admin bit. - tucoxn\talk 05:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  47. Support Seen around even though we work in different areas most of the time. Never seen any problems. Like answers. Peridon (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  48. Support --No concerns here..--The Herald 12:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  49. Support Thanks for volunteering. benmoore 14:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  50. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  51. Support another editor whom I already thought was an admin :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  52. Support Sure. Eurodyne (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  53. Support per noms, should make an excellent addition. Yamaguchi先生 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  54. Support—Yep. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  55. Support Rzuwig 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  56. A blessing for Czar? Of course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  57. Support. It's always nice to see someone who is not only level headed but is humorous is debates: "I read the sources (wasn't worth it, don't recommend it)"[1] "Pepper" @ 01:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  58. Support I am pleased to support another excellent candidate. I appreciate the thorough answers regarding sources and notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  59. Support - I worked with him a bunch over the years, and I think he'd make a great admin. In my experience, even when we've disagreed on things here and there, his viewpoints have been valid and he has acted reasonably. I've never had any interactions with him that would make me think he'd misuse the tools. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  60. At least two people here have invoked the term "badgering", so the candidate is certainly worthy. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  61. Mesa back Czar Czar for admin...--Stemoc 02:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Stemoc: Hahaha, I think that's the best thing I've ever seen at RfA! Face-grin.svg --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    ???? Peridon (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    An oblique reference to a cultural low point in the Star Wars saga. -- Scray (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  62. Support. I don't always agree with Czar at AfD, but he's batting a pretty good average. Given the concerns expressed here over his performance at AfD, I think he's also demonstrated patience and a willingness to explain himself. These are good qualities to have in an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  63. Support. I had very pleasant interactions with the candidate at Template:Did you know nominations/Depression Quest and Template:Did you know nominations/Crawl (video game), and I don't see any causes for concern. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  64. Support - I see nothing that concerns me, and the answers to the questions are all satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  65. Strongly support He does deserve to be a admin. Wikipedian 2 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  66. Looks OK. Solid, hard-working and keen. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  67. Support. A great contributor. Faizan 13:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  68. Pleased to support this trustworthy candidate. Thank you for altering your signature to make it easier for inexperienced users to reach your talk page. Note to your nominators: It's always more impressive to let your candidate's record speak for itself than it is for you to jump in and start wall-of-text battles over oppose rationales. That said, good luck to Czar, and thank you for volunteering for this role. Townlake (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  69. Support, per nom, and per the fact that nothing in the oppose or neutral sections concerns me enough to oppose this solid candidate. LHMask me a question 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  70. Support Trusted user; no issues. Wifione Message 18:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  71. Support - Really deserves the tools, I don't see any issues with this candidate. StevenD99 21:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  72. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or postition.--MONGO 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  73. Support A lot of great work at AFD. Could do with a lot more like you.--5 albert square (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  74. Support Fine AfD justifications, trusted co-nominators, reasonable behavior here. --GRuban (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  75. Support Good fit. — MusikAnimal talk 07:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  76. Support - NQ (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Sorry. I recognise I'll be a bit of a loner here but I've seen too many red flags in terms of the candidate's lack of understanding of reliable sourcing and lack of recognition of promotional material. I recognise the candidate has a significant amount of audited content. But it is in a very narrow area: video games. The lack of broader experience shows when the candidate has ventured into other areas. First, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemford, the candidate throws up a range of hits from ProQuest and LexisNexis to support keeping an article about an educational institution. I've seen a few of them through my own access. The candidate says "some are a little press release-y", which is an understatement. Kudpung and DGG rightly school the candidate about it here, which is an illuminating discussion. It seems the candidate pretty much !voted keep for spam, and justified the !vote with spammy sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade In Detectives is another example where the candidate !voted to keep on an article that two far more experienced editors described as "a blatant spamvert" (Voceditenore) and "pure promotionalism" (DGG). And at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directed Studies at Yale University, the candidate plumps for a university alumni magazine article as a reliable source about an academic programme run by the university itself. I think this is part of a general trend for the candidate to be far to ready to use sources without checking their reliability or their capacity to be used in context. An article space example, not about reliable sourcing but editorial judgment: Teaching Assistants Association is an interesting article, written by the candidate. The candidate seems to have had principally one book available to use for the article: "University of Wisconsin: Renewal to Revolution, 1945-1971". So the article gives us a very detailed history of the Teaching Assistants Association, up until 1971. And pretty much nothing after that. More discernment is needed in how the sourcing was used in this case, because the article is completely unbalanced. Did the TAA do very little after 1971? That's the impression the reader gets, but I suspect it's not true. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    First, I don't say this to undercut your argument, which is obviously in good faith and is well thought out and researched, but I DO notice a common theme: schools. We had a policy initiative on schools fail, and there are opinions all over the place, making this one of the least clear cut areas of notability on Wikipedia. One I'm intimately familiar with as an AFD regular for years. It is quite common to see many people, including admins, have vastly different ideas on what makes or breaks notability on schools. While some of the sources were lacking, many others were not. Pushing the limits of WP:RS, but doing so in plain sight at AFD where it is subject to review is not the same thing as being ignorant of the policy, in my opinion. This doesn't invalidate your concerns, but it is true that schools have always been a fuzzy problem at AFD for all editors and admin. Dennis - 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    My concerns about these AfDs have nothing to with the notability of schools. Whatever you think about the notability of schools, (a) we don't accept unreliable sources, and (b) we don't accept spam. Also, the Trade in Detectives AfD had nothing to do with schools. Other examples are about tertiary education institutions. So "schools" is not a "common theme" of my oppose, and notability has nothing to with it. Please don't mischaracterise and narrow the scope of my oppose; it does not look good coming from a nominator. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    I couldn't have been more respectful in tone, nor did I mischaracterize. I'm saying that RS, N and Schools have always been a contentious and ill defined area in spite of many efforts to clarify, and this seems to demonstrate that. Dennis - 21:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Your comment was very respectful. But both your comments suggest my concerns are about the notability of schools. They are not. My rationale is very clear: it is about the "lack of understanding of reliable sourcing and lack of recognition of promotional material". There's far less room for community disagreement on those matters. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Dennis, I don't think the issue is the notability of the universities or colleges; Yale University and the University of Wisconsin clearly are notable. However, when alumni magazines are used as sources for alumni bios, academic programs of far less notability than the universities, or, in Mkat's example, the UW TAs' association, then such sources must be used with far greater caution, and should not be used to establish the notability of the subjects because the magazines are not independent of the subjects of the Wikipedia article. I'm not ready to oppose on these grounds because I recognize that an RfA can be a valuable learning experience for the candidate. In any event, I think Mkat's concerns deserve clarification from the candidate -- don't you? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Mkativerata: I would generally accept a professionally written alumni magazine from a major university as a reliable source per WP:RS. I receive regularly published alumni magazines from four major universities as well as several additional alumni magazines from their respective constituent colleges and academic departments, and I would generally assert that their factual accuracy is equal to or greater than that of most daily newspapers. That having been said, if you are suggesting that such magazines are not independent of their subject matter for purposes of establishing the notability of the subjects covered per WP:N, I agree wholeheartedly. I would also agree that it is not appropriate to source an article mostly from references that are not independent for exactly the reasons you cite above. (I do support the use of such sources for basic facts and gap-filling, however, separate and apart from establishing the notability of the subject.) If there are issues regarding the candidate's understanding of these distinctions, I would suggest that you raise such issues directly in the questions section above. If you don't, I would be happy to seek clarification from the candidate. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think the fact that something is professionally written has anything do with the reliability of the source. Reliability comes from a combination of professionalism and independence. An alum magazine might get its facts right. But will it present all the facts? In context? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." That's why we require multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability, and why multiple articles from the same publication still count as a single source. I would also suggest, in an abundance of caution and in support of your proposition above, that non-independent sources should almost never be the sole source regarding anything of a controversial nature or that is factually disputed. That being said, non-independent sources may be treated as reliable sources in accordance with the guidelines, but not as independent sources for purposes of establishing notability. Hence my request for clarification regarding your concern above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Alumni magazines vary widely. And the different components in them vary even mioe widely. The class notes section, for example, of any alumni magazine is thoroly untrustworthy for notability, and borderline even for the facts of the person's life. Editorially written bios of really prominent people can be another matter. Articles by notable alumni which they publish or reprint are as good as anything else that person has written. History of the school can be usable also. Components of the school, much less so--such a magazine is expected to describe everything ,and whether it's quality is more than a pure press release, depends on the magazine. For the one I know best Princeton University Alumni Bulletin, I would accept as a RS even for BLP everything except the class notes and class-secretary-written obituaries. Even here, since others may not realize the quality of the publication, I would avoid using it if better sources are available. It does not help an article to add more sources if the additional ones are of lower quality. Essentially, I'm saying the same thing as Dirtlawyer1 does in the paragraph above., and pretty much the same thing as Mkaiverata. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose – candidate basically gamed the system in order to reach this year's WikiCup finals. Although he had been active all summer, he only updated his submissions page a week before the semifinals ended, effectively hiding his points from fellow competitors until the last possible moment and ensuring there would be no way for them to overtake the new 685 point deficit. He did this even after the WikiCup newsletter reminded everyone in the comp to "update submission pages promptly". Even if his actions were done in so-called "good faith", this demonstrates extremely poor judgment from the candidate – most certainly not the kind of admin material WP is looking for. If he can't be trusted in small matters, how can he be trusted with important responsibilities like the mop? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Interesting - can you prove that Czar really did do this mainly for the WikiCup, or is there a possibility he was working on content elsewhere and just didn't get round to it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the badgering – was kinda expecting it from his personal brigade. The candidate actually admitted here that he "thought it wouldn't be a problem to just do it at once so I didn't miss anything", another poignant example of poor judgment. His hidden submissions are content creations, so stop trying to make up a sob story for him claiming that his work is unrelated to the Cup. He got into the final (unfairly) because he was working on content, not in spite of it. Sorry to burst your bubble fanboys – truth hurts, doesn't it? —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Characterizing a single response to your oppose as "badgering" from the candidate's "fanboy" "brigade" speaks more about you than it does about them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 14:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Not at all. I supported Samwalton9's RFA bid and no one gave two f**ks about that, let alone reply to my vote. But the instant anyone opposes and dares to reveal any true but damning evidence, fanboys like you and Ritchie come jumping all over me. Thanks for proving that double standard! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Woah, hang on - I just wanted more information. I'm not a big fan of cups and contests myself, although I've had a go at some minor ones, ultimately I feel they get in the way of straightforward content work that is done purely for personal satisfaction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    "I just wanted more information" – um, no. I already provided two diffs in my initial oppose statement that detailed exactly what the candidate did, and yet you persisted in challenging my statement with [C]an you prove that Czar really did do this…? That's kinda like telling me, "You're a liar, I don't trust what you're saying. And you're lying and untrustworthy because you oppose Czar. Not because of anything else." And FreeRangeFrog, thanks for predicting that this discussion would be "a single response". Afraid not…badgering it is indeed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Bloom6132: Calm down. Asking for proof is not an accusation of you being untrustworthy. You had to twist things around. You, like many others, are too quick to accuse people of "badgering". Stop making this situation more than it really is, which should be just a few people having a civilized discussion. This is another example of why RfA is failing. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    @AmaryllisGardener – Asking me to prove that Czar really did do this – after I had already said he did and backed up my claim with diffs – is operating on the presumption that I'm lying. What do you expect me to respond to Ritchie with – "No, he didn't really do this. I made the whole thing up. I'm a untrustworthy liar?" Really? And you now accuse me of "twist[ing] things around." Victim blaming at its finest. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Bloom6132: Here's a scenario: let's say we have a user that says that someone violated WP:3RR, but doesn't give diffs. Now the administrator that responds to this needs proof that this happened in order to take action against the violator. If the admin asks the user that reported it for diffs, is the admin doubting and accusing the reporter of lying? --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    @AmaryllisGardener – Your hypothetical scenario doesn't apply here, because I already provided diffs in my initial oppose vote. Two, to be exact. Keep relying on fallacious arguments now to shoot the messenger. This is another example of why RfA is failing. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Bloom6132: I only made a scenario that seemed relevant to counter your arguments. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Bloom, when I look at Talk:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Hong Kong)/GA1 and Talk:Holy Rosary Cathedral (Vancouver)/GA1, I get the impression I'm talking to a productive editor who really wants to improve the enyclopedia with an emphasis on quality. So why are you getting cross here? I don't get it, sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Ritchie333 – I get crossed when people impugn my integrity (implicitly or explicitly). I'm especially disappointed how I am treated differently based on how I vote. As I had mentioned above, when I supported Samwalton9's RFA bid, no one replied or even challenged my comment that he's a "net positive to the project". But the moment I oppose the candiate's bid with a legitimate concern supported with diffs, I'm immediately presumed to be lying and later victim-blamed by AmaryllisGardener. And the users badgering me above aren't neutral third parties – they're supporters of the candidate. They don't seem to understand how just because I don't agree with their viewpoint doesn't make me a liar. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Bloom6132: you know I respect you in this project, but your oppose vote is a grudge against the candidate because of the wikicup. If anything both of us should agree that it was Godot13 who was likely "gamed the system" to win, not Czar. Just stay civil, stop accusing bad faith (as you clearly are), and just drop the manner. It's over. Secret account 16:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah I think that Bloom has been after Czar on that Wikicup thing for a while now. Like here in August. GamerPro64 16:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm opposing Czar based on his poor judgment, not bad faith. I think we can all agree that admins need good judgment, and I feel he hasn't demonstrated that to the standard required of an admin. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Folks, if Bloom6132 considers himself a victim on a Wikipedia RfA page over some questions, then I think that's all we need to know.--v/r - TP 16:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    TParis – thanks for trivializing the matter TP. Really appreciate it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think this should be dropped. Bloom6132 is entitled to their opinion and no amount of discussion is going to change it. Continuing the discussion will accomplish nothing. -- GB fan 17:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Can I raise a toast to that? I don't happen to think one oversight like this, especially related to what amounts to a whizzing-contest among editors rather than content, is enough to deny czar an administrative position, but I don't see the point in letting this discussion further devolve into name-calling and unsupported assumptions. Tezero (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Bloom6132. Poor judgement doesn't bode well for adminship. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    The oppose rationale Bloom bought up was a grudge against the editor with no difs that shows it was "poor judgement". And now we are stack opposing because of that. Editors like you are the reason why RFA is broken. Secret account 02:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Given that the RfA is at 61 to 3, I don't think the phrase "stack opposing" needs to be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    "Stack opposing"? That's going too far (but I still agree with what you're saying), but an unopposed RfA is just rare these days... --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    I removed "stack" as it was one oppose vote and not multiple but my comment stands. Secret account 03:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Secret – I actually already provided a diff demonstrating the candidate's poor judgment above in my first reply to Ritchie – I'll assume it got buried so deep in the discussion that it wasn't noticeable to you or anyone else. The candidate admitted here that he "thought it wouldn't be a problem to just do it at once so I didn't miss anything", and that he "wouldn't have done it that way had [he] thought it would bother anyone". The notice to update promptly was placed in the newsletter sent out to the competitors, so even when assuming good faith, this severe lapse of judgment that is a poignant example of imprudence. As much as I respect you as well in this project, Secret, please do not dismiss this as merely a "grudge". Otherwise, it would be no different from the contempt and disrespect I've received above for voicing my views and legitimate concerns. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Bloom6132: You provided a diff, it just didn't show anything IMO. "Thought it wouldn't be a problem to just do it at once so I didn't miss anything" seems reasonable to me. Now let's drop this for good instead of repeating what all happened above with your !vote. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Wow, you're either unable to detect poor judgment, or you're just very dense. The fact that you continue to defend the candidate blindly by saying that it "seems reasonable" is another example of poor judgment. Then again, I'm not surprised – the candidate must have something in common with his core brigade of supporters. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Bloom6132: My support of Czar is not a personal one, I hardly have any association with him. I know I don't have poor judgement in this case, and seeing that the RfA is currently 67/3, I find it amusing that you think I'm an idiot for supporting him. The supporters above have not been influenced very well by your oppose, as you can see. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    AmaryllisGardener – Of course no one would dare to oppose. They'll see how you and others in the candidate's tag team brigade badger those who do oppose. You guys have dished the same treatment to Mkativerata and Chris troutman, so rather than not being influenced by my opposition, voters would be influenced more by the desire not to be abused in a similar manner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Bloom6132: "Abuse", "tag team brigade", I'm trying not to laugh at this hyperbole. I'm not in any kind of "tag team brigade" because I haven't had many dealings with Czar. Also, This oppose !vote discussion is mostly directed at you, not Chris. I wasn't even involved in Mkativerata's oppose discussion, because I didn't see anything ridiculous right off. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    "I'm not in any kind of "tag team brigade" because I haven't had many dealings with Czar". Then why are you defending him so vehemently then and slighting anyone who dares to oppose him? Dealings or no dealings, your constant unjustified barrage is abuse, and none of this would have escalated had you and the rest of his defence brigade been so keen in interrogating me and any other opposers. If there's anyone who needs to "drop this for good", it's you guys. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Bloom6132: I wasn't going to say anymore, but Secret replied to this !vote, I agreed but said that "stack" was going too far, then you start it all up again. Don't want to leave it, then fine, as long as you want to argue, I'll be here. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm flattered that Secret thinks I'm "the reason why RFA is broken". I always figured I was a late-comer nobody on this project. Not that my opinion matters, but I think arguing with "oppose"rs is in poor form at best. Is the candidate so weak that their supporters can't ignore dissent? With the !vote count so heavily in support you'd think the opposition was making legal charges. After having seen so many RfAs go well I'm stumped everytime I see experienced Wikipedians screw the pooch. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Yet another example in an ever increasing trend of over anxious nominators and supporters piling on to "correct", "respectfully" the genuine, documented concerns of an editor who dares to oppose their last protege. If the other 2 nominators have the sense they will steer well clear of O#1 - although I have serious doubts whether at least one of them will be able to restrain himself. As for the candidate, they are clearly broadly acknowledged and respected for their work. Clearly not the greatest content contributor of all time or whatever hyperbole was used to describe them somewhere above, but nevertheless more than competent. Sitting here until a few more sensible contributions are offered outside of the histrionic "I thought he was an admin already" standard typical of early voting. Leaky Caldron 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. I do not think the candidate yet understands the details of reliable sourcing in the field of education; it takes experience here, for one can only properly learn over time what is accepted here by observing multiple discussions. And other fields are different: I don't understand the details of what is or is not accepted for video games, and rather than make foolish errors, I'd never close a discussion in that area or delete an article in that area, unless it was utterly obvious. As nobody can know everything within the scope of WP, people need to tread very carefully where they are unsure, and take careful note of opposing comment, rather than assume that what they already knows is applicable everywhere. I don't want to oppose, because I think the candidate can learn this, but I would not have nominated at this point. But of course when one does nominate one is expected to defend one's candidate, so I wouldn't hold that against the nominators. The proper defense in a situation like this, is to say something like, yes, he doesn't know all this, but I trust him to learn. Fortunately, most people do. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    You have a terrible habit of being right. Dennis - 14:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Can I add that the thread currently in the oppose thread makes it look like any prospective opposer is in for an intimidating gauntlet of their own? I think it demonstrates that many editors other than the candidate have a good grasp of "sources that show notability vs sources that are good for content", but I don't think that sheds any insight on the candidate himself at this point. The candidate's answer in the questions is worth of ten supportive counter-arguments in any case. The thread opposing the opposer could now be politely hatted or moved the talk page couldn't it? It seems like distracting overkill now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Elaqueate: That would definitely be a misimpression -- at least regarding my follow-up comments to Mkativerata and Dennis Brown. My intention was to clarify Mkat's perfectly valid concerns and to provide the candidate with a reasonable opportunity to respond. I think we've accomplished both with Czar's answers to Q6. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I wasn't talking about intent; I can see everyone is trying to be helpful all around. But the thread is mostly about interpretations of policy not from the candidate. Interesting, mostly applicable if we were trying to determine where to go with policy, but mostly distracting if trying to evaluate the candidate. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - I would actually like to see some evidence of the candidate dealing with Dennis Brown and his incessant badgering of anybody daring to have a contrary opinion, before deciding where to finally cast my tedious comment/vote. Nick (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    It looks to me as if Dennis made one comment and one followup comment to one of the two "oppose"  !voters. And one "you may be right" comment to one of the "neutral" !voters. It's a little hard to see how that qualifies as "incessant badgering", or how exactly you are expecting Czar to "deal with" it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    I expect the candidate to be a calming influence, stopping discussions getting out of hand and generally keeping the peace on what is, after all, their RfA. Nick (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Samwalton9

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (94/0/2); Scheduled to end 15:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Dennis Brown

I'm pleased to present Samwalton9 (talk · contribs) (Sam Walton) for your consideration. I've spent a couple of weeks digging around, and what I found is an editor with well over half his edits on articles, reasonable experience at AFD, enough experience at the admin boards to see how things works (but few enough to tell he isn't a drama lover), over 50 articles created and a fair amount of GAs and DYKs (see his user page), showing he knows why we are here. Essentially, a content focused editor that understands how we do things around here. I did see a post at Reddit, (One complained [2], another called it no big deal) that was perhaps a misguided attempt to bring in more eyes, but I didn't see malice in the attempt as much as a bad choice that happened a year ago. BTW, I didn't catch this, he admitted this up front, and hindsight being what it is, he gets it. I can overlook it, and I'm betting most of the rest of us can, too. We have an experienced editor with over 2 years regular editing, more than 8,000 edits and a very good mix of activities here, such that I think he would be a cautious but clueful admin that would be very helpful here. I've been dragging this review out over a few weeks due to real life activities and simple diligence, and Sam hasn't been bugging me to "hurry up", which is typically a good sign he isn't too eager, and I felt that was worth noting. Dennis - 14:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Anna Frodesiak

I am very happy to co-nominate Samwalton9. After a thorough review, I have found that he is smart, has a great demeanor, is civil and polite (which is hugely important to me), level-headed and thoughtful, and will make a fine admin. He has lots of mainspace work including GA experience, plus good AfD participation and judgement calls (which is also very important to me because admins delete things before others get a chance to see if it was the right call). He also has plenty of involvement in many other areas. Browsing through his talkpage, you will find him being helpful and giving meaningful advice. One single issue is the reddit post. I think over-enthusiasm prompted this lapse in judgement, but it was in good faith. I know he is still kicking himself over it. So, the bottom line, can he be trusted with the mop? An overwhelming YES. He will certainly not abuse the tools and will be a force for good. Eight thousand of his actions show that I can trust and support him. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your nominations, I happily accept. Sam Walton (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would probably start in areas such as AfD, CSD and RPP where I feel confident with my current knowledge, starting with uncontroversial closes/deletions/protections. Having processed a few hundred requested accounts I could also see myself working at WP:UAA. I’m happy and enthusiastic to learn how to be useful in other admin areas, in particular those which are most backlogged, but wouldn't undertake any admin actions I wasn't yet comfortable in my understanding of. The admin tools would also help generally, such as in the help areas where users often ask about deleted pages or otherwise need an admin.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Most of my contributions here have been in content creation, with Proteus probably being the best article I’ve been a major contributor to, hopefully close to FA. I’m proud of most of the articles I've written or expanded (full list on my user page), but especially the articles I’ve written on scientists, in particular those on women scientists; a fairly under-represented topic. I also consider my time spent helping new editors at the Teahouse or on the IRC help channel to have been time well spent.
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: I don’t think I’ve been in any dispute which has caused me any particular stress but this dispute at University of Liverpool is probably the closest I’ve come to a ‘conflict’, after some reverting and talk page messages I took the issue to WP:3O and the dispute was resolved. The only other dispute of interest I can think of is at The Principle where I and other editors have disagreed over content on multiple occasions. My first messages at The Principle were somewhat aggressive and reading back I shouldn't have discouraged someone so heavily from making an edit, that's definitely an exchange I've improved since. Having only been actively editing for 7 months I didn't fully understand this issue at the time, but have since understood why the Reddit post was a less than great idea, even if done in good faith. During debates on Wikipedia I always try to explain myself, and where necessary Wikipedia policies, as well as I can and am more than happy to concede where I realise I'm in the wrong.
Additional questions from John Cline
4. Why do you want to be an admin?
A: As much as I could happily continue doing content creation and non-admin work for as long as Wikipedia is around, there have been many times recently when having the admin tools would have helped me and others around Wikipedia. Whether that be a user joining the IRC help channel and wondering exactly what was wrong with their deleted article, a page I come across requiring speedy deletion, or a troll-invaded page needing protection, I feel that I could make good use of the admin tools for the betterment of the encyclopedia and its editors. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
5. When did you realize that you wanted to become an admin?
A: I'm not sure I could say exactly but I guess it's been in the back of my head for a while through the sorts of situations I mentioned in Q4. I suppose I began to seriously see myself applying to be an admin a few months ago when there was talk of declining admin numbers and I started to think that I might be a suitable candidate. Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
6. When did you become confident in your ability to be an admin?
A: Around the time I first sent Dennis a message asking what he thought of my suitability. Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from FreeRangeFrog
7. You become aware of a situation where an IP with no prior contributions has repeatedly blanked the contents of a biography of a living person, and they have been reverted several times already by an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what to do other than to also keep reverting. Both are now over 3RR. The IP has three warnings in their talk page, and refuses to respond to questions about their behavior. They have not used summaries at all when blanking. You examine the contents of the article and see that it is largely unsourced, but does not contain any immediately apparent libelous, defamatory or otherwise problematic information. You are the one admin that needs to deal with this. What steps do you take to resolve the issue, and why?
A: Assuming that by blanking you mean blanking the entire page, I would start by blocking the IP for 24 hours due to their disruptive editing. I'd leave a detailed and hopefully informative message on their talk page explaining why blanking the article isn't the right way to go about fixing it and stating that they're welcome to help introduce reliably sourced information or discuss their issues on the talk page once their block has expired. Though WP:BLPEDIT advises against treating page blanking of BLPs as outright vandalism, this really only works if the editor is willing to engage in discussion to some degree. I would then post on the talk page of the inexperienced editor and offer advice as to where to report things like this in the future or links to venues like the Teahouse depending on their level of experience. Once that was taken care of I would then likely take a look at seeing if any of the unsourced content could be sourced or whether it should be removed. All that said, it's unlikely that in reality I would be the only admin available to deal with the situation, and so I would more likely ask for advice from another admin before proceeding with the above as I'm not yet extremely familiar with all areas of blocking policy with it being something I haven't needed to know well before now. Any blocking I do as a new admin would be clear cut cases until I felt confident in my ability. Sam Walton (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from Ritchie333
7a. I'm concerned about your above answer, and hopefully this question can put me at ease. Let's assume the situation is as above, but instead of an IP, one of the editors has 100,000 edits, many barnstars on their userpage, and you recognise their name from long, drawn out discussions at ANI. Assume also that only a portion of the article is blanked, rather than the whole page - again the content under dispute is not libellous or defamatory but is nevertheless unsourced. Would you do anything differently to above? If so, why?
A: I definitely wouldn't block the editor so readily if they were removing only a portion of the content, especially unsourced statements in a BLP. In this case I would leave the inexperienced editor a low level warning about edit warring and encourage both editors to stop reverting and to take their debate to the talk page. In this case I would also inform the inexperienced editor that starting a discussion at the talk page earlier would have been a good idea as it may have avoided the ensuing revert war, explaining that unsourced statements in BLPs are problematic and their removal isn't necessarily disruptive.
Additional question from Hawkeye7
8. You have an AfD about the flag of an alleged terrorist group. It is clear that both the flag and the group itself are disputed. One group of editors argues that the flag is depicted in reliable newspaper sources. The other argues that Wikipedia should not have articles on the flag of every group that happens to sew one up. Can you summarise the policies involved here?
A: If there have been multiple in depth reliable sources discussing different aspects of the flag, as we find in articles such as Flag of England, then there is some merit to the former group's argument. Content in the article could be proven to be true and it would be deemed a notable topic. If the coverage of the flag is more limited, or is usually found within discussions of the group, then the argument for deletion/merging/redirecting is stronger; notability is not inherited, and any source coverage of the flag should be used to write about it within the group's article. The argument that "Wikipedia should not have articles on the flag of every group that happens to sew one up" isn't entirely relevant; a subject's inclusion in the encyclopedia is based on their coverage in third party reliable sources, not whether it feels like a suitable topic.
Additional questions from Carrite.
11. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other registered account name or names? If so, what were these?
A. Yes. The only other account I've used is Samwalton9TWA (talk · contribs) which I created to test and give feedback on The Wikipedia Adventure from the perspective of a fresh account. I later used this account to also make one test edit to the account's sandbox in order to mark the page as patrolled from my main account; this was to check exactly which messages or emails new accounts receive when a page is patrolled so that I could make definite statements for a Village Pump proposal to clarify the messages.
12. How did you first become interested in Wikipedia? Why did you stay on and become a Wikipedian?
A. My first edits were changing tense in the article of a released game and other such small changes here and there for a few months. I then lost interest in editing for some time until I happened upon a link to an AfD in which I subsequently voted. This piqued my interest in editing once again, and shortly afterwards I found WikiProject Video Games, adding myself as a member, and started editing articles listed as needing improvement there. I really enjoyed contributing to such a great site, knowing that my contributions were helping people around the world learn about different topics, and it just went from there I guess.
13. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
A. I'm not sure I can think of something specific, but it would almost definitely be within the area of the site's accessibility to new editors. Wiki markup isn't exactly wonderful at encouraging new editors (On this note I think Visual Editor is going to do a lot of good when it's finished), many of the help and documentation pages are either very dense or hard to find, and I think we could have a better live help feature. I think improvements in any of these areas would be a good thing that would help bring in new editors, a goal that is really important to the encyclopedia's future.
Additional questions from DGG.
14. Why did you decline this draft as "subject appears to be a non-notable person ",(I'm not saying it did not have other problems at the time which would have prevented accepting it) ?
A. I don't recall my exact thought process for this draft but I'll try to elaborate on what I assume my thought process was. The edit summary is somewhat misleading because I didn't necessarily think the subject was inherently not notable, rather that - as the full message says - the article didn't adequately prove notability. That probably being because the only three references in the article were not independent of the subject. Looking back on the draft though I think it's less clear cut than that because the subject is Vice-President and Chancellor of a university, satisfying WP:NPROF#6, which I may not have been familiar with at the time. Long story short, I think I was wrong to decline that draft for the reason I did, and should have spent more time evaluating the subject's notability. If those news articles which are now in the article had shown up it would have been enough for me to accept the article and tidy up the less than great promotional and/or unsourced parts.
Comment I take it you mean WP:NACADEMICS #6, and not WP:NPROF #6. FYI: The latter is about non-profit orgs, not about notability of professors. I would expect better research and more thorough checking of what they write from an admin candidate. Kraxler (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Oops, indeed. I even had WP:PROF open when I wrote that, just mis-wrote the redirect. Sam Walton (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
And FWIW, it was also a copyvio. I missed this also--I have since stubbified it. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
15. When you found that this draft was a duplicate of this article, containing at that point no information which was already in the mainspace article, why did you not list it for deletion? It has now been relisted two times more; what is appropriate at this point?
A. When I declined the article as a duplicate, Henry Dunay looked like this. The draft article focused on the brand whereas the article focused on the person, but the content was still quite similar, so I declined as duplication but wanted to encourage the user to add any extra material (of which there is some) into the main article. I probably could have encouraged the user to do so more explicitly, but I don't think listing the article for deletion would have been very encouraging for them. Since then I'm glad to see that the user has expanded the main article using their draft, and they are much more similar, meaning the draft could probably be deleted as duplication, though I'd want to check with the user that they don't want it moved to a user subpage instead.
Additional question from Ritchie333
16. You have mentioned you would like to work in WP:UAA. Could you look at these usernames and tell me what action you would take (if any) against each one:
  • JimboMustDie
  • xxxCoolGirl1234xxx
  • douglascarswell
  • JackWashington
  • BringersOfDarkness
  • JeffAtWidgetsIncorporated
  • 34usdfgn4jk45grt___nnnguuyuuuyuyuyuyu233uu3
A:
  • JimboMustDie: Immediate block as a clear personal attack.
  • xxxCoolGirl1234xxx: I don't see anything wrong with this username and wouldn't take any action beyond welcoming the user if they had just joined.
  • douglascarswell: Douglas Carswell is a real person. This editor's behaviour would need to be monitored; if they made claims to be this person then they would need to submit proof of being him through OTRS; a {{Uw-ublock-famous}} would be appropriate in this case. If they didn't edit that article or make such claims then I would just leave them a message suggesting they state they aren't him on their user page, per WP:REALNAME.
  • JackWashington: No inherent problem, seems like a common enough name and Jack Washington is no longer alive so no credible claim could be made of being him.
  • BringersOfDarkness: The issue I see with this name is that to me the plural 'bringers' implies shared use. As such I would leave the user a message asking them for clarification on the issue.
  • JeffAtWidgetsIncorporated: This username is fine per WP:ISU, but I'd leave the user a few notes on WP:COI and declaration of paid editing.
  • 34usdfgn4jk45grt___nnnguuyuuuyuyuyuyu233uu3: There's nothing inherently wrong about this username but it is discouraged. I would leave the editor a note suggesting they might want to change their name.


General comments

  • Links for Samwalton9: Samwalton9 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Samwalton9 can be found here.
  • I object to the wordings of Q9/Q10 - While a valid interrogation may be buried in there, the questions seem incredibly loaded and I am not sure they are conductive to an answer that would really help voters. They sound very vindicative to me. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  00:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree completely and remind the candidate that answering questions like this is not obligatory at all. --Randykitty (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I wouldn't answer that either. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The way in which Q9 was phrased might look like it has a hidden agenda, but if you look at the editor's talk page and their contributions (this edit is definitely not vandalism in my view) then the underlying question is a fair one to ask. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If I were running for admin and posed the same question, I might answer "If even one person feels abused because of the treatment they received, this is unfortunate. My main focus as admin would be to patrol the AFD pages but occasionally I will look out for abusive cases. If so, I will try to be compassionate and fair to all parties." However, I see that this candidate has refused to answer. This is starting to look bad to me. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There are many types of Loaded questions, these are fine examples. Kind of like "When did you stop beating your wife?". Dennis - 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of the two questions being loaded. Question 9 asks what he would do if he sees another admin being bad, not if he is bad. You could ask that of a police academy student "if you saw a police officer executing a driver with an expired parking meter, what would you do?". Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
A bad answer to that would be to get mad and start shooting everyone in the room. A better answer would be to say that "I have had moments of anger, even to the point of shouting, even excessive shouting, but never have I struck my wife". Confession is difficult but all admins should have transparency and openness. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Q 9/10 removed per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#irrelevant NE Ent 23:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added a different question on what I think is the same underlying principle, but without any agenda. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Now we have another iffy question from Eating Glass Is Bad. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, that's not a terrible question -- I've avoided voting in this RFA in part because of my feelings about Wal-Mart. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Not terrible, but only posted after the user's oppose vote which is terrible. Just to note, Sam already answered the username question on his talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support. Frankly, the weight of a nomination from Dennis Brown is enough for me to support on its own. The Reddit thing was really not okay, but it was a year ago and Sam has acknowledged the grave error in judgement. Admins who can admit to their mistakes are not at all a bad thing. Sam is a very well-rounded candidate and I have no doubt the project will benefit from him having the mop. A hearty thumbs-up from me. Ivanvector (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support as nominator Dennis - 16:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. I don't see why not. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - over 50% of contributions in mainspace, numerous DYKs (which are getting increasingly harder to clear), and lots of experience in answering new user questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and additional ideas of how to improve the Live Help system. This gives me confidence that he will approach outside views and conflict with patience and diligence. Exactly the sort of person we need. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. Nominated by Anna and Dennis? That's a no-brainer to me. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support No issues. Jianhui67 TC 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Looks good to me based on edit balance, contribution history and a sensible approach to communication. Posting on Reddit in the percieved best interests of Wikipedia, although perhaps a little misguided, is not a hanging offence in my book—it was clearly an attempt to improve the article with no sinister overtones. Tip 'o the hat to the noms. Good luck Sam! Philg88 talk 17:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support No concerns. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support Thanks for volunteering. benmoore 17:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support Have to agree with what Dennis and Anna write. Quite a credible candidate. My support... Wifione Message 17:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  12. Support Overall a good candidate. I'm not particularly concerned with the Reddit post since the user did out of enthusiasm, not malice, and has learned from the experience. All in all a good content creator who I have no problem giving the mop to. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support. A few years ago I would have spent more time digging around in your history ... but we really need deletion and page-protection admins. No one is raising any red flags so far, and I trust both nominators. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  14. Support; I've worked with Sam before and I've always walked away with positive impressions. Everything I've seen leads me to believe that he would be a good admin, and wouldn't abuse the tools. The Reddit post from a year ago is nothing; everybody makes mistakes and we all learn from them. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  15. Support sane guy, trust both nominators. Secret account 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  16. Support Although I trust both Anna and Dennis I thought I should look at this editor's work before deciding. I have and it's excellent. Will be a great admin. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  17. Support. I'm vaguely familiar with the nominee's work, and from what I recall, I did not see any red flags that would cause me to oppose them being an administrator. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  18. Support A fine candidate sure to make a fine admin. Chillum 19:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  19. Support Diligent, courteous, level-headed. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  20. Support I notice that he started an article which I independently edited recently — Sunday Assembly. It's good to have a candidate that can create an article like that from scratch. Andrew D. (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  21. Support. I don't see any problems with this candidate. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  22. Support. no concerns HalfGig talk 20:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  23. Support - Well it's nice to see one RFA going smoothly! :) - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010(talk) 22:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  24. Support Looks like a solid and well rounded candidate. A cursory glance at the stats checks all the boxes on my "what I look for" list. Normally I would do a little random digging into Sam's edit history, but honestly with Dennis Brown as a co-nominator I'm pretty sure that I'd be wasting my time. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  25. Support - I've seen Sam around the Video Game WikiProject a couple of times. Even reviewed one of his articles at GAN. I think he can preform well with the tools in hand. GamerPro64 23:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  26. Thought he was already a sysop --L235-Talk Ping when replying 23:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  27. Yes, please. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Addendum: I'm not really happy with Q7/7A, but "so I would more likely ask for advice from another admin before proceeding with the above" completely saves it for me. Knowing when you're not really sure of something and calling in help is a much more important quality than being right more often, while not recognizing (or admitting to) the cases you might be wrong. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  28. Support No concerns about him being an admin. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  29. It's about time... [stwalkerster|talk] 01:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  30. I've seen this editor around quite a bit recently. At first I actually mistook him for another administrator — Sam (formerly "SamuelWantman"), to be more specific. I quickly checked to see if it was the same person, and made a mental note of the difference between Sam Wantman and Sam Walton. But I digress, the candidate has demonstrated excellent communication skills and a strong commitment to the project. Sam will make a good administrator. Kurtis (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  31. Support as co-nominator. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  32. Support. Nominations and comments by Dennis - and Anna Frodesiak (talk) are strong and a big plus. Nothing negative has turned up and I see no problems. The Reddit post obviously was intended to gather information and contributions for the Bitcoin article and does not seem biased in any way. I think the candidate had the best of intentions and almost certainly would not have even thought about the post being canvassing. Regardless, a single well-intentioned post, even if technically a mistake, is no reason to oppose. Donner60 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  33. I don't think the candidate has ever really thrown themselves in the deep end on this website. I don't mean to denigrate the candidate at all by saying the following: it's not hard to rack up a clear RfA pass if the primary focus of your article editing is video games and you don't engage in genuinely contentious areas. Proof of my point is the University of Liverpool answer to Q3, which outlines a very minor dispute. It follows that the candidate's lack of testing in the edgier side of Wikipedia gives me reason to pause, whereas for others above, that lack of testing might be one of the reasons (unrecognised) that they "see no problems". However, while it gives me reason to pause, it doesn't give me reason not to support. The candidate has said he will work in AfD, CSD and RPP. I'm sure he'll do very well there, based on the contribution reviews I've conducted, and I'm also sure that he's not going go suddenly dive into AE, AN3 or whatever and go feral. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  34. Support No reservations about it - great editor who will put the tools to good use. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  35. Support - per the strong co-nominations, history of editing contributions, and thoughtful answers to questions here. I thank the candidate for his willingness to serve Wikipedia as an administrator and wish him the best.—John Cline (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  36. ///EuroCarGT 04:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  37. Support No concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  38. Support Everything's looking good to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  39. Support seems like a well qualified candidate. Strikes me as cool-headed and helpful. Good content work and sufficiently solid understanding of policy makes me happy to support at an early stage. Even though there is an outstanding answer to a question, the original answer to Q7 strikes me as perfectly sensible. Bellerophon talk to me 09:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  40. Support Nice nomination Dennis. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  41. Support Sounds perfect — BranStark (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  42. Support based on the consensus of the community and the user's extreme commitment to clearing the Afd backlog. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  43. Nice one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  44. Support - Helpful user, would be a great addition to the admin team. I don't see any reason to oppose, and it seems like no-one else does either. Good luck, and I hope this RFA suceeds! Regards, George.Edward.CTalkContributions 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  45. Support - I'm very glad to see two WP:VG regulars and amazing content creators are at RfA -- we need admins who are well-versed in article improvement (unlike more janitor-like admins such as me), and Sam definitely fits the bill. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  46. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  47. Happily Support - Experienced Editor! Would like to see him as an Admin! - Kunalrks (talk), 07:22, 22nd November, 2014 (UTC).
  48. Support after a review of contributions. I believe granting this user mop access will benefit the project and the encyclopedia. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  49. Support – Likely to be a helpful admin, from what I can tell. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  50. Support per the two strong nominations. I'm also happy to see a nominee who has created several articles and made some attempts at GA and FA promotion (good luck with Proteus (video game). - tucoxn\talk 20:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  51. Support - puts effort into AFD, puts effort into content, puts effort into explaining his reasoning. Good editor that I trust not to take any rash actions. - Taketa (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  52. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 21:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  53. Support, puts quite some effort into helping others and shows good judgement. Huon (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  54. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  55. Support clueful candidate who will be a net positive. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  56. Support why not? --Guerillero | My Talk 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Support withdrawn. See neutral column for explanation..Sorry This can be changed back to support later. Original comments:Support seems like a good candidate but reserve the right to change my mind (probably won't) before the RFA ends. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  57. Support. Anyone who contributes to WikiProject VG or AfD will have had positive experiences with this candidate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  58. Support - not as good as Samwalton7 or Samwalton8 but an awesome guy who promised to give wikipedia free stuff from his company, Walmart if he wins Face-devil-grin.svg..--Stemoc 04:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  59. Support - While learning about the candidate, I saw a content creator who is active in many area. I'm willing to say experienced despite the lower than usual number of edits. A quick look at the user's talk page discussions shows the candidate is friendly and helpful to inexperienced users, gives simple and easy to understand explanations for their actions, and seems to honestly consider the opinions of others. If the Reddit thing is the biggest spot on record, that's not too shabby. I also like that in Q7 the candidate notes that they prefer to consult another admin and that they prefer to learn policy comfortably before diving into a new area. This shows to me the type of caution in candidates that prevents future troubles. I'll continue to look around over the next for days but I'm convinced the editor is trustworthy and that would make a great admin. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Nicely put, my friend. Nicely put. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  60. Support Why they get my support should be evident all over this page. Couldn't improve on it or put it in a nutshell. Will certainly be a great asset to Wikipedia. Also thanks to the noms for supporting / locating such a fine candidate. Best. OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  61. Support -Yes, please. Have seen him around doing good work. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  62. Support - can learn on the job - should be net pos Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  63. Support This editor meets my RFA standards and I have yet to see anything that would cause me to oppose. Mkdwtalk 21:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  64. Support: Shows clue, good noms, content creator to boot. No concerns. Thanks and good luck! BethNaught (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  65. Stephen 00:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  66. Support Why not, no big deal, net positive, y'know... all that stuff. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  67. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, sufficient tenure, and a Dennis Brown nomination. That should suffice. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  68. Support --No concerns here..--The Herald 12:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  69. Support Can't see any issues. I'm glad that he contributed heavily to taking an article I started and taking it to GA (although that was the first I knew of it!). The Reddit post about Bitcoin is fine IMHO: though I'm wary about inviting hordes of POV warriors into articles, I don't see anything wrong with attempting to reach out to groups of people who are knowledgable about a subject and using them as a resource for finding reliable sources and suggestions to improve articles—in fact, it is something we should try to do more often rather than less. Candidate seems relatively clueful, productive and unlikely to do anything too stupid. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  70. Support - Sam has lighter AfD and other deletion experience than I usually like to see in an RfA candidate, but his other work, demeanor, and demonstrated policy knowledge looks pretty solid. Thumb's up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  71. Support Sure. Eurodyne (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  72. Support Rzuwig 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  73. Support. Fully qualified candidate (who should, and I expect will, take into account the feedback on his answers). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  74. Support - lots of experience over a range of areas, quite helpful and pleasant conversationalist. As an editor who doesn't go looking for trouble, it's good to see there isn't much of it finding him. Looks good! "Pepper" @ 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  75. Support An excellent candidate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  76. Support. — sparklism hey! 05:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  77. Support – Great candidate who is experienced and a net positive to the project. No issues or concerns. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  78. Support Per noms and a clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  79. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 17:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  80. Support per noms with zero concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  81. Support - I've seen him around WP:VG, and never noticed any bad traits. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  82. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions have been satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  83. Support I don't see any reason that he shouldn't be a admin. Wikipedian 2 (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  84. Support - Great contributions. Faizan 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  85. Support – Great candidate as corroborated by his contributions; clean block log and concise answers to questions. Good luck Sam! —MelbourneStartalk 14:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  86. Support, entirely per nom. LHMask me a question 17:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  87. Support. Qualified candidate. I don't see any real relevence in the claims made in the neutral section regarding Q7 & 8.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  88. Support - Great candidate and everything looks good to me! StevenD99 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  89. Support No problems found, good luck with the mop! --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  90. Support st170etalk 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  91. Support Found nothing but reasons to support after digging through old contribs and talk pages. Confident Sam will be an excellent janitor. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 00:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  92. Support - No qualms here, someone order a mop ! Mlpearc (open channel) 01:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  93. Don't see any problems here, good luck. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  94. Supprt Look forward to working with you :) — MusikAnimal talk 07:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
  1. I'm not going to oppose a content creator, because content creators need the tools. But your answers to Questions 7 and 8 leave a great deal to be desired. I strongly urge that you not employ the block button until you have the nuances of Question 7 worked out. (And two thumbs up on Question 8, but don't close any AfDs before you work it out.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, with rationale As Hawkeye7 says above, I too have some reservations about your answers to Q7 and 8. Your use of the term "disruptive editing" concerns me, as the question was really intended to measure how well you would react in a situation that possibly involves BLP concerns that requires a softer touch. Not that the block would be uncalled for, but it's the assumption behind it that counts in this case. However, your RFA is definitely going to pass, and I'm fine with that. You are an excellent candidate and content creator, and I believe you will be a valuable addition to the admin corps. But I'm going neutral just to call this to your attention. I hope that if you ever find yourself in such a situation you'll consider more than just the apparent disruption, or seek help from an admin with more experience handling serious BLP issues, and keep in mind that sometimes it pays to point people to OTRS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    That's a bogus criticism given FRF specifically stipulated in the question You are the one admin that needs to deal with this. NE Ent 00:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Well that's true, but my point was that he is the one that has to immediately deal with the problem. It doesn't mean he has to follow through to completion. There's nothing wrong with asking for help and punting a problem, especially in those types of touchy situations. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
Shortcut:

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also change usernames for most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages - this is generally not seen as canvassing.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.


Current nominations for bureaucratship


There are no current nominations.

Related pages