Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xenocidic

Xenocidic

Voice your opinion (talk page) (59/5/2); Scheduled to end 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Xenocidic (talk · contribs) - This is one of the hardest RfA's that I've ever written, not because Xenocidic isn't deserving, but rather because I am being very hypocritical for writing it. You see, Xenocidic has not been actively editing for six months which is normally my criteria, but he's only a few weeks away from that magical six month mark. I thought about asking him to wait 2 weeks to run, that way I could say that he'd been active for six months, but I'm not sure what he might learn in two weeks that he doesn't already know. And it's not fair to him to force him to wait when he's ready now.

I even thought about serving as his admin coach---a program that I believe in---to get him past that six month mark. But to do so would be even more hypocritical than nominating him a few weeks early. Admin coaching, IMHO is not a means to polish one's resume, but rather a means to help somebody who needs some guidance. I've said elsewhere that I'd rather have a coachee that needs a lot of help, than the one who is all but ready to run. To me, coaching is a means to help guide a person to learn more about Wikipedia. It should not be something somebody does to get a check by their name---in fact, for some candidates coaching is, IMHO, a detriment. Xenocidic is one of those candidates.

I was going to coach Xenocidic because he approached me a few weeks ago about the possibility of coaching him. At the time I told him I was too busy, but I decided to take a look at his edits and comment on his editor review. My initial impression was very positive. This impression was heightened by others who echoed my sentiment. Several RfA regulars (Useight and Rudget) commented on his editor review that they thought he was about ready for adminship. I agree. As an Admin Coach, I honestly don't know what I could have him do that would be meaningful that he hasn't already done! I could run him through some busy work, but that isn’t fair to him or the process.

Xenocidic has been active on Wikipedia for about five and a half months. He is active in a number of "adminly" areas wherein he has participated in not only the wikispace, but also the wiki talk space. He participates in discussions on not only user talk, but also article talk. In short, this is one of the more well rounded candidates I've seen (well, if you exclude the fact that he only writes about video games!) I've spent about 12 hours scrutinizing this candidates edits trying to find some reason to justify forcing him to wait even two weeks, and I can't. 12 hours.... that's 3 times longer than any of my past candidates! I keep coming back to one thing, he's ready now.Balloonman (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept, and thank my would-be coach for his kind words. xenocidic (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: At first, I will likely stick to what I know best, blocking persistent vandals reported at AIV, protecting pages that are being routinely vandalized, and deleting pages that clearly meet CSD criteria. I would also be adding myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles as it is my opinion that contributors should be granted the ability to take their work elsewhere or improve upon it such that it meets inclusion criteria. After completing Admin school, I would branch out and help with administrative backlog. I would, of course, continue to assist other users with any questions they may have as well as do my best to defuse conflicts between users.

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

A: A lot of my work is somewhat behind the scenes and wiki-gnomish (copy-editing and such), but I think the most visible would be the major cleanups I completed on Realtime Worlds and WeMix.com (the latter still needs work but I saved it from a 'blatant advertising' CSD tag as the initial contributor had a conflict of interests, but I felt the article satisfied notability criteria). I also completed a major overhaul of Adopt-a-user, in particular helped to reduce the backlog of those seeking adoption from over 120 down to zero (this is starting to grow again, will have to do another adopter tree-shaking run). I do create articles whenever I'm the first on the scene with breaking news, as with Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.. I'm also particularly pleased with two of the templates I designed - {{Truestatus}} & {{Statustop}} - which are used to effectively customize StatusBot and visually display said status, and allow other users to easily do so as well (for the latter I must credit Chetblong for the visual design). An overview of my contributions can be found at User:Xenocidic#Contributions. Lastly, I feel the interactions between myself and my adoptees has been helpful - for my adoptees and myself - as it has prompted me to expand my horizons.

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: On the subject of stress, a user category I created was nominated and successfully deleted. During the discussion I became somewhat defensive. Looking back, I now see why it was not a worthwhile or useful category. I've been involved in a couple conflicts, but most of the time I try to resolve it with talk page resolutions, either directly with the editor, or on the talk page of the article. In the past, it may seem like I let my preference for the Xbox 360 somewhat colour my contributions as with the video game platform infobox order conflict. It was my opinion that the order listed by the press release should be used, others thought this was to preference the Xbox 360 (we've since reached a consensus to order the platforms by chronological-then-alphabetical order). Conflicts like this I've taken to the Video games WikiProject for a wider range of opinions. Lately I've been steering clear of these conflicts altogether because they often tend towards lameness anyway. I've since been approaching such issues with neutrality in mind. On the subject of lamest edit wars, I've tried my best here and here to try and act as a facilitator to resolve the "Niko's nationality" debate listed at lamest edit wars, as I am a disinterested party.

Optional question from InDeBiz1

4. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account? --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 10:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A: As a community centred around the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect, I feel that it should also be our duty to "forgive and forget" when appropriate. If someone receives a block, but later shows themself through their words and actions to have learned their lesson and matured (people can change, after all), then they should be allowed to continue contributing constructively to Wikipedia without restriction or oversight (or, any more oversight than every editor receives through peer editing). As far as a threshold of time - this would of course depend on the nature of the block, but several months of sustained quality editing without repeating the behaviour(s) that initially led to the block would be a good indicator that the user's attitudes have changed. Many valuable community members (including a few admins, I believe) have been blocked in the past and once they've proven themselves to be committed to the improvement of the encyclopedia, a prior block should not be a prejudice against them.

From what I understand of the banning policy, only "community" (i.e. de facto) bans can be commuted with a consensus of administrators, more formal bans must be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. In either case, if a ban is lifted, I feel that the "forgive and forget" mentality should still be observed, though the nature of the ban will effect the length of time before an editor would regain the "complete trust" of the community.

Just to add my two cents as nom, I think it is also important to remember that not-all blocks are created equal. Some are definitely warranted, but others aren't. A poorly administered block could be forgiven and forgotten immediately---I once gave an indef block for vandalism to a solid contributor because I was over eager to block a persistent vandal---E.g. I blocked the wrong account.Balloonman (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Filll

5. Please answer two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. Post a link to your answers here so that people can peruse them.

COMMENT: We've been down this road before and the AGF Challenge questions were not well received, I would suggest caution in answering these questions... and would not be opposed if the candidate refused to do so.Balloonman (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC) NOTE: These questions are being discussed on the WT:RFA page

A: I'll take a stab at them -

2.3 Shockingly

I might first point out to User:Sigh-Clone that the term "cyclone" is widely regarded as being derived from the Greek word "kyklôn" (revolving), the present participle of kykloûn (to revolve), the verb derivative of kýklos (cycle). As far as User:ZZ, I don't think that "driv[ing them] out [of Wikipedia]" would be the appropriate response - while his message was somewhat curt, his exasperation is understandable in light of the refusal by User:Sigh-Clone to heed the advice of editors with respect to Wikipedia's policies original research, reliable and verifiable sources and edit-warring (which he would've likely been blocked for prior to ZZ making the shockingly comment). From a multiple choice standpoint the answer Wikipedia aspires to be a respected reference work, so the sigh-clone etymology must be left out until sources are provided seems closest to what I believe here. If this is an isolated incident of (so-called) incivility by ZZ, no action should be taken.

2.5 How long is yours?

If all reliable sources state the length of the DVD is 75 minutes, that is the length that Wikipedia must publish. If there is a different reliable source that supports the 51 minute claim, the discrepancy should be noted. If not, then the editor's assertion cannot be inserted into the article due to no original research. To be respected, Wikipedia's guideline on verifiability must be observed. Ignore all rules cannot be used as a trump card to force the 51 minute claim into the article. Another issue at play here is whether Amazon and other "similar sites" (online retailers) can be considered reliable sources when it comes to running lengths. A quick review of the archives at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard had some brief discussions on this, but I did not find a concrete consensus one way or the other. I would do my best to search for more reliable sources for either claim.

Optional question from John

6.What does your user name mean?--John (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A: xenocidic - pronounced "zenn oh sid ick" (though "zeen oh sid ick" is also acceptable) is a derivative word - an adjective of the word "xenocide" which was coined by Orson Scott Card in the Ender's Game series of novels. Xenocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of an alien species. thus, one who is "xenocidic" has the capacity to bring about such destruction, though does not necessarily exercise this ability unless it is deemed absolutely necessary. It is not intended to make any value-judgment about the practice of xenocide (or genocide, for that matter), though it was quite appropriate when used as the name for my orc warrior who fought for the Horde in World of Warcraft. This has been my online identity since 2002.

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support. Xenocidic is an excellent editor with plenty of experience and has an excellent handle on policy. A fair number of his recent edits in the mainspace have been automated, but he has plenty of manual edits improving articles. Excellent communication skills and always civil; he's always willing to help other editors. My interactions with him have always been positive. Over 80 reports to AIV. I think he'll do a great job as an admin. Useight (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Note: about 2 weeks ago he discovered huggle (or twinkle)... prior to that all of his edits were manual.Balloonman (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, it's not a problem. I've used Huggle for a couple hundred edits myself and I don't mind an RFA candidate using automated tools, as long as they don't rely on it too much (see User:Useight/RFA Standards). Not a problem with Xenocidic. Useight (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yep - I've been testing out huggle the past week or so to see what all the fuss was about per the recent discussion at WT:RFA. Extremely powerful and robust tool, kudos to Gurch (though I'm not sure yet if I'll continue using it). xenocidic (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

2. per nom Dlohcierekim 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I'm not so high on the social networking aspects of StatusBot, but I will not let that influence my decision making process her.e I find the candidates' article building contributions sufficient, well rounded with contributions in other gnomish areas. He seems to be a good communicator, a solid base of policy knowledge and has a squeaky clean record deserving of community trust. MrPrada (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Candidate has enough experience. Slightly unusual answers, e.g. the category in Q1, show individuality and awareness of how the system works. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong Support - Can only benefit Wikipedia with the tools. User is persistently gnomish (which I consider a good thing), civil and helpful. The work at WP:ADOPT is great. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Beat the nom support - this is the RfA I've been waiting for, because it's the first one for an editor I've seen around and thought should be an admin, with no need to check. I've been watching xenocidic for a couple of months now already.  Frank  |  talk  02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - Seems a solid editor despite short history. See no reason to oppose. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I've had nothing but positive encounters here, and I'm more than happy to support. After all, you prettied up my Status Indicator for me. ;-) --Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. Vishnava _talk 03:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Seeing the right stuff MBisanz ^talk 06:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - Per WP:WTHN.  Asenine  07:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - good candidate. — Athaenara ✉ 08:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
13. No qualms. Rudget (Help?) 09:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. Trustworthy and competent; the length of time for which the candidate has been active isn't a problem for me, in this case. Experience trumps time. Anthøny 09:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Clearly clueful. Whilst I take note of the comments regarding the duration of the account, I see no reason why we should do ourselves a disfavour by not giving the tools now, rather than waiting an arbitary couple of months. M♠ssing Ace 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Űber Support My Criteria: Can the user be trusted? (answer = yes) and Will the user benifit from admin tools? (answer = yes) 110% :-) Prom3th3an (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - Good candidate, a great deal achieved in a relatively short period of time. Keep up the good work. Lradrama 11:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong support per great experiences in the past. You wouldn't be able to tell he's been here for less than half a year, which is a very good thing. Good luck. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Support A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong support This editor is a genuine asset. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. Per reference to WP:LAME; along with the nom support and a clear possession of all faculties. Tan | 39 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Well-rounded candidate who, as an administrator, will more than likely dabble in a little bit of everything depending on where administrative help is needed. It's the kind of candidate I'm always willing to support. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Looks good, this guy's got clue. GlassCobra 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Support I encountered him a few weeks ago and he left a good impression on me, as in encounter, I was spying on him. ;) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 14:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
25. Support reliable user. Speed CG ^Talk 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Well, I did offer to nominate you... - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
27. Support. I trust the nominator's decision, and my one interaction with you was positive. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Strong candidate with a genuine want to help the Wikipedia community (adoption). The answers to your questions show that you have a clear understanding of policy and I am confident that you will fulfill this role perfectly. Cheers, Razorflame 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Support All of my enocunters with this individual give me no reason to believe they would abuse the tools. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - good candidate! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
31. Support - Solid editor who gets it. Net Positive. Danthecan (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
32. Strongest possible Support At the risk of sounding ridiculous, that is what I think. I met xenocidic back in late January when I was helping get Wikiproject Xbox starting and I was immediately struck by his character and just all-around good work. Over the last few months, I've seen him become more and more involved with more areas of Wikipedia than I can count. I have absolutely no question that he will be one of the best admins we've ever had and he's always willing to lend a helping hand to everyone. No reservations whatsoever. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
33. Support per candidate's answer to my question above, as well as a closer examination of their contributions. Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
34. Support With nothing new to add to the above. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Seen him around, especially while patrolling vandalism. No problems here. J.delanoy^gabsanalyse 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. An editor who will stick to what he knows for now and branch out later shows the right attitude to be an admin. Kevin (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
38. Name rings a bell from a WikiProject. But I forget which one. Xenocidic, help me out here? :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Highly active users, or maybe Video games (I've been known to edit VG articles from time to time ;>) xenocidic (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yep, VG it is. I should hang around them more and RfA less. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

39. Support. I think Wisdom was right. Prima Facist (Go Clots) 10:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Good AIV reports, good user. Spencer^T♦C 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
41. Support Yes I agree with (an excellent) nomination. I also believe this user is ready - 2 weeks to go or not.--VS ^talk 12:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
42. Support I see no red flags to point me to leave a comment below. This user has been very supportive of other editors, and has taken care of me while I was on a slightly enforced Wikibreak. I think he'll make an excellent admin. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 12:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
43. Support -- Per my good experience with the user: Xenocidic was really patient when I asked his help, even when I had to ask about 5 times before fully comprehending! Thanks again and good luck! --Cameron (T|C) 13:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
44. Weak support- weak because I would like to see some slightly better mainspace contributions, but everything else looks great. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
45. Strong Supportxenocidic always has the answers to my questions, or when he doesn't, find them for me.Everytime I make a mistake he fixes it and explains why so that I don't do it again.He still has plenty to learn, but for a non-admin, e sure knows alot. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
46. dorftrottel (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Trustworthy? For sure. VanTucky 02:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
48. Support. This support is a little weak for the following reasons: I'm a little dubious about the blog-like activity ("hello world") on the user page; indeed, edits to his or her own user page far outnumber edits to any other; hence Xenocidic shows a tendency towards using WP as a social network; see also the category creation and deletion discussion to which the user refers above (under "stress"). But basically a solid editor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
49. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
50. Support --SkyWalker (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
51. Support per WeMix.com. An irresponsible new pages patroller will simply leave his tag as is and go back to monitoring. But this editor can change his mind and actually assist a new editor in improving the article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
52. support per Dorftrottel's eloquent reasoning. And because this is a good editor. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    I love it! ;-) Balloonman (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

53. Support. Nominator convinced me; contributions look good. I would advise the candidate to consider Moonriddengirl's reservations below. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Completely trustworthy editor with strong contributions. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Support: Solid. Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)\
57. Totally!-- Barkjon  17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
58. 'SUPPORT g'day mate, i totally support you in your election thingyB jacob (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
59. Support- I like the way this user can keep his calm and works well with at-times-difficult users. Good luck, man! L'Aquatique[talk] 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per Q2; WeMix.com is tagged for cleanup at this time and Realtime Worlds is not much different to what it was before. (edit, realised that was a little short...) What I mean to say is that I can't support admin candidates who don't have a good background in mainspace work unless they are really, really useful in other areas. When your best contributions to mainspace are cleanups I go :/ a bit, not because those contributions are worthless (obviously not), but because I think it's really important for someone who wants to adminstrate an encyclopedia project to have experience with writing one first. To take a random analogy, in retail one usually spends some time working at the counter before being promoted to manager, etc, etc. naerii - talk 03:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   Er, Xen is the person who originally tagged the article for deletion and then applied the clean up tab to WeMix.com before substantially improving it. The fact that he didn't remove a tag that he applied shouldn't be used against him. In fact, I think he deserves credit for trying to salvage an article he initially taged for speedy deletion! As for Realtime Worlds did you look at the entire history? His first series of 22 edits made significant changes. The second series of 15 edits didn't make as many changes. The difference between what he started with and ended with is vastly different with very minor edits from other people!Balloonman (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   To clarify, I left the rewrite tag I added on the article after I rewrote it because I felt it could use a second set of eyes. As far as work from the ground-up, most of the articles I created are for as-yet-unreleased games so they're really not that substantial at present, but I do plan to flesh them out when the time comes. xenocidic (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   I read the history of both articles, yes, and whilst the work was useful it's not what I'd like to see as an example of someone's "best" contributions to Wikipedia. naerii - talk 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose, in the answer to question 3, xenocidic refers to these 2 threads[1][2] (oldids[3][4]) where he tried to "act as a facilitator to resolve" a debate. From his comments there, it appears to me that xenocidic doesn't understand our NPOV policy. which aims to represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Here[5] he barges into the thread and declares "case closed", saying "can we put this one to rest." When someone disagrees he states "Please refer to the consensus/compromised already reached."[6]. A week later he's reverting[7][8] editors and telling them[9] on their talk pages that consensus had been reached (there wasn't any). If this editor thinks the way to resolve debates where one source says one thing and another source says another is to sweep in and say it's settled, I question their overall judgement when it comes to content disputes. Balloonman said xenocidic "only writes about video games" and that's also a concern of mine. --Pixelface (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   The consensus I was referring to is actually at the Talk:GTA IV (a majority of editors seemed to agree with the "unspecific Eastern European" compromise - Eastern Europe includes Serbia). However, I do agree that Pixel's suggestion here would be another way to resolve this particular dispute. xenocidic (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose — Individual fails to recognize that people can change their minds over time. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

   umm... what? Would you elaborate somewhat please? Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   I think he means [10]. - Bobet 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, he's referring to the time I brought up his (admittedly ancient) self-nom after he opposed Guest9999's self-nom. xenocidic (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Seems more like a personal beef ridden oppose than anything else. Sorry, I don't want to ABF. While I'm glad that, recently, Kurt has been elaborating more regarding his opposes, I wish it didn't have to smack of a potentially perceived slight or dig. That's the last I'll comment about this. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Let's not dwell on this one too much, kurt's entitled to his opinion. To be honest, I would've been slighty hurt if I didn't get an oppose from him. xenocidic (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Why? Prima Facist 13:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   eh, just wouldn't want to feel neglected =). xenocidic (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

   Heh. I admit I felt a little disappointed that Kurt didn't feel fit to oppose my nomination, either. :( --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Well, this is quite an interesting feeling. I agree with Kmweber. The RfA community is well versed in the reasons for Kmweber's opposes, and the relevant history. Bringing up his years-old self-nom RfA in that manner was probably supposed to be funny, but it comes off to me as petty and immature, and it did not add anything to the conversation. This is more of an intangible thing, but that comment really doesn't sit well with me. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Seresin and for choosing a potentially divisive user name. The former is the stronger of my two concerns; the latter is easily addressed but may indicate a deeper problem. --John (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose on account of the careless CSD tagging in the section below. Knowing how to do this right is a basic admin responsibility. In this case we don;'t have to guess whether he'll use the buttons properly--we can see that he does not yet know how to do it. I urge the people voting support above to have another look at that. DGG (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

   I've explained below that these tags stemmed from a misinterpretation of WP:CSD#A1, which provides only a brief explanation. While the ends do not justify the means, I respectfully point out that all these tagged articles are now red-linked. As Friday wisely pointed out, the pages were in fact obviously inappropriate by an understanding of the general goals and principles of the project. As Moonriddengirl has since explained the situations in which A1 would apply, I do not foresee making the same mistake in the future. xenocidic (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose per DGG. Once speedies are deleted, very little can be done. These are all very recent and basic mistakes. Not ready yet, whatever his other good qualities. Johnbod (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I like quite a lot of what I'm seeing here, but I'm really uncomfortable with some of the CSD tagging, and this is explicitly an area in which the candidate intends to operate. I'm concerned about the speed with which he tags articles for WP:CSD#A1 and also that many of his A1 tags seem (blatantly, to me) not to qualify, as A1 is explicitly for articles for which the subject cannot be understood (see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Explanations#Articles for more). If they are actually being tagged for other concerns (as some of them might legitimately be), the tags should be specific to the problem so that the contributors are instructed on the real issues and not led to believe that incompletion was the only concern. But even if these were valid candidates for A1, hasty tagging of articles for deletion for length concerns when they may be reasonably being constructed is discouraged by WP:CSD, and I believe that doing so is a bit bitey. I feel administrators addressing speedy deletions must keep in mind that the ultimate goal of all Wikipedians is to improve the project—and while this often means clearing out material that does not meet inclusion guidelines, it is best to do it in such a way that instructs volunteers on how best to contribute and does not discourage good faith contribution.

   Most of what I'm seeing was deleted for other reasons. Admins will be able to see the history of these articles for themselves, but I will try to provide sufficient information here for those who are not.

   • Ageofconannewbguide, tagged A1 on May 21st, 2 minutes after creation. A game guide that included three paragraphs of introductory text amply identifying the subject: (excerpt: "Age of Conan is a MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer On-line Roll-playing Game) or in other words an on-line computer game where 1000's of people play together in a persistent world....This guide is intended to be for people just starting out with AoC or even for people just considering it." User:Domenachi, attributing for GFDL concerns.) The article was unencyclopedic, but it was by no means an A1 candidate. As the candidate left a note on the user's talk page explaining that Wikipedia is not for game guides, it seems that he didn't have trouble identifying the subject.
   • Alifcomputer. Created May 14, tagged 1 minute after creation. (Entire contents: "Alif Computer Education provides professional training in Software and Hardware on very effective price range fees." User:Sadiqd Again, the subject is clear.
   • Bulletball. Created May 8, tagged the same minute it was created. ("BulletBall is a table game developed by Marc Griffin and marketed by BulletBall Games. BulletBall is described as a gender and age neutral high caliber game for the 21st century lifestyle. The object of the game is to get the ball past your opponent using your forearms and hands. The Bulletball table is a round table with a set of side guards used for banking shots." User:Thoomasseason) It actually could have been a G4. Can't blame the candidate for not knowing that, but it's still not an A1. The subject is clear.)
   • Chemicals made from dirt Tagged 1 minute after creation on May 8th. (Entire contents: "Chemicals made from dirt is rock band in westchester county new york." User:Reck345) An A7, but not an A1.
   • Achim Albrecht. Tagged the same minute it was created on May 7th. (Entire contents: "Achim Albrecht -former wrestler." User:InfoFan) I would presume that the subject was a former wrestler named Achim Albrecht...probably this one. Does this guy meet BIO? Not involved in sports, myself, but I'd be inclined to think maybe. The article didn't assert, to be sure. Would this creator have expanded this article so that it did? I don't know. (Ordinarily I would assume so given that level of incompletion, but there's a history of these kind of articles under the deleted contributions at User:Info Fan.) Regardless, we're meant to give them a chance.
   • Golf in middle earth. The entire contents of this article, tagged within 2 minutes of creation as A1, was "Golf was invented in the Shire in the year 2747 by Bandobras "Bullroarer" Took, a hobbit so large he could ride a regular horse. It happened when Golfimbul, a goblin chief tried to invade the Shire. The hobbits and orcs met in the Battle of Greenfields and fought fiercely. Bullroarer struck Golfimbul in the head with a club, causing it to come off and fly a good distance before going down a rabbit hole. Thus, the battle was won and golf was invented simultaneously." (contributed by User:Cekschainj on May 7) The candidate removed his tag when he saw that it had already (probably simultaneously) been tagged for "nonsense". It was deleted by that criterion. (If it's nonsense, blame it on Tolkien. I can't put my hands on my copy of the book right now, but see sparknotes reference.)

   There are more A1 tags that concern me, but this is enough. (And I should note that I've only looked at May of 2008.) I am also concerned about the May 21st tagging of Eric Castelli as A7, when the article's lead sentence was "Eric Castelli is notable for inventing the technology that the email marketing industry and the Federal Trade Commission use to enforce the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003." (contributed by User:Cbirkner) The article was subsequently successfully PRODded, but this seems clearly not an A7 candidate. (The creator's first attempt, deleted at Eric castelli, was.)

   Honestly, with most contributors, the concerns about preparedness to handle CSD raised by the above would lead me to oppose as I tend to believe that somebody making these tags needs more familiarity before being unleashed with the tools. I've almost opposed here. But the balance of the editor's contributions, the level-headedness that seems to characterize his conversations and his answer to question 4 (which I quite like: both question & answer) are enough to lead me to remain neutral at this point. I am concerned enough to feel I must register my concerns. I hope that if the candidate does receive the tools, he will be very careful with his deletion of articles to ensure that they meet the criteria and will also remember the negative impact that hasty deletions for expandable content concerns can have on new contributors. It's not worth biting good faith contributors to clear out an incomplete article more quickly.

   And I know this is quite long-winded. Sorry. It's just that I would really so much rather support, and I want to be very clear why I don't think I can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for your comments and taking the time to write this up. Perhaps I have misinterpreted A1, I took it to mean that the article simply did not provide enough context to explain what was being discussed. For example, the band article - when did they form, who are the members, what type of rock do they play, do they have any albums, or do they just jam in the garage? admittedly, A7 would've been more appropriate here. The same reasoning was applied to the wrestler article (what type of wrestler? olympic, professional, backyard?). The computer training article - where does this company operate? what kinds of computers (MACs, PCs), what type of software? Intricate details like this I had hoped to cover in admin coaching. Please accept my sincere assurance that if this RFA is successful, before I actually start deleting articles that do not clearly meet CSD criteria, I will become well-versed in these intricacies and approach my duties with the utmost caution. xenocidic (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for your reply. I do find it reassuring as, again, I find your overall contributions impressive. :) There are two concerns I have with regards to A1 tagging here: speed and content. As WP:CSD indicates, "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." I realize that you have only tagged, not deleted, but your tags are the only way we have to assess your approach to deletion. In terms of content, while I do understand that there is always room for interpretative differences in the criteria (not supposed to be, but it's natural and inevitable), I don't see how Ageofconannewbguide, Bulletball and Golf in middle earth fit into the criterion even by your description here. That said, I do believe you mean to proceed with caution and expect that you will, as it looks very likely that your RfA will pass. I have nothing but confidence in your good intentions, even though I am inclined to believe that more experience in this area may be helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   If I may cut in for a second, a possible reason as to the quick addition of the CSD tags is due to the speed at which Special:Newpages goes. If the article isn't tagged within the first few minutes, it starts getting buried under many other newly-created articles. This is likely the cause of many articles being tagged hurriedly. To counter-act this, when I'm going through CAT:CSD, I try to make sure that I don't delete articles that were created only minutes ago (unless it's obvious that giving it more time won't help, such as pure vandalism or attack pages), and I hope Xenocidic will also use this measure. Useight (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   That's excellent advice Useight! Half of the onus is on the tagger, the other half is on the admin clearing out CAT:CSD to work not only with the article/article creator, but also with the tagger. Good taggers make rush tags, good admins make rush deletions. All can be fixed, and all can be amended with a sincere apology on the talkpage of the article creator. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Given the difficulty new contributors seem to have even figuring out how to properly place {{hangon}} to articles, I'm not sure that improperly deleted articles are as easily rectified as all that. (There is an ongoing conversation spanning several sections at talk:CSD about how to more effectively educate creators on following up on articles that have been speedily deleted.) I certainly do know from notes left on my talk page that contributors who feel their articles have been improperly tagged or speedied feel bitten, even experienced ones. I also agree that reviewing admins share responsibility for reviewing & working with the taggers, but it may be hard for them to do so if they evidently do not understand the recommended approach themselves. I tend to feel that though regrettable deletion errors will happen, they should be carefully avoided and taken as seriously as regrettable blocking errors, for which reason I really like evidence that they aren't likely to happen before supporting a candidate, even one who seems as otherwise on the ball as this one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Excellent points, I agree with that. Useight (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   To answer your question about how those others met my understanding of little or no context - the golf article would've required at least a cursory introduction of the Tolkien universe. BulletBall didn't say where it was invented or played, how many copies were sold, etc. as far as the Ageofconannewbguide, it's clear it wasn't encyclopedic, but perhaps A1 was not the right tag because as you point out it did seem to describe the context. I did work with the new user to retrieve his page (with Useight's help) such that he could take it elsewhere. I agree that the CSD process needs some tweaking, I'm going to head over to WT:CSD later today and see what I can add to the discussion. xenocidic (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   This would rather seem to confirm my fears that you've misunderstood A1. While articles may be deleted for context concerns, this is only appropriate when there is "not enough information about what the article is about for someone to expand it or learn about the subject. Does BulletBall really need a note on where it was invented or where it is played or how many copies were sold for somebody to expand it or learn about the subject? The Tolkien article may have benefited from a {{context}} tag, but certainly provided enough information for expansion. WP:CSD notes that "[b]efore nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." If all that's required to save an article from deletion by A1 is the addition of the words "in The Hobbit, by author J.R.R. Tolkien", then it is clearly not a valid speedy candidate, particularly when the link to hobbit should make that relatively clear. I'm finding your defense of the tags in these cases a little unnerving. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   I admit I misunderstood A1 (thank you for clearing up my confusion). I'm not defending the tags as appropriate - just explaining why I applied them in the context of said misunderstanding. One of the reasons I sought admin coaching is because I'm not a fan of deletion, and as you can see, don't know the speedy deletion criterion inside-out. My statement above under Q1 that I would delete pages that "clearly meet criteria" means at first I would stick to deleting pages that meet criteria such as G1, G2, G3, G6 (i.e. UBM), G7, G10 (especially - I feel these should be removed as soon as possible) beyond a shadow of a doubt. xenocidic (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for clarifying. :) And just in case my otherwise overwhelming approval of you should be lost in the length of this discussion, let me again note that I am otherwise very impressed with your contributions, your level-headedness and your approach to Wikipedia as exemplified in question 4. If you do proceed cautiously while getting the hang of CSDs, I suspect you'll be an excellent admin. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   Just to play devil's advocate... I'd much rather see admins deleting whatever is obviously inappropriate by an understanding of the general goals and principles of the project, instead of by memorizing whatever the WP:CSD page says this week. If something is inappropriate, go ahead and delete it and explain why in plain English. This alphabet-soup collection of CSDs is not particularly useful. The criteria as explained on the page may change a bit over time; what is and is not actually usable content mostly stays the same. Not all speediable things obviously fit into an established category. Friday (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

   All right, I'll take the angels' side. :) I'm all for clearing out unencyclopedic content; speedy deletions are a major part of what I do here. I don't agree with everything at CSD; if it reflected my opinions, non-notable garage band albums could be deleted at the same time as their non-notable garage bands. But CSD reflects the consensus of the community as to what constitutes an uncomplicated deletion decision, and admins are only here to implement that consensus. If we work outside of the policy, we're unilaterally imposing inclusion guidelines, which I believe is misuse of the tools. After all, admins have no more authority than any other editor to determine content, and other editors do not have the power to unilaterally delete articles. Outside of those deliberately narrow criteria, we have recourse to PROD and AfD just like everyone else. If the community wants admins to have additional discretion for speedy deletion, it should add an additional criterion: WP:CSD#G13: An admin said so. :) I don't think we've necessarily wandered too far afield of the topic here, which is the validity of my concerns about this candidate's use of CSD tags. After all, if you think my expectation that he stay on criteria is too exacting, that's worth discussing. :) But if we do want to wander much further into larger points of CSD policy, we should probably do it over drinks at your page or mine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

2. I am reluctant to support candidates who are only involved in narrow areas of WP, and for such a short while. While this candidate appears unlikely to abuse the tools, I don't see the breadth of experience of interacting with the wider community that makes me confident to entrust them with the mop. At the time of writing it appears that this request is succeeding (which is cool), but I would like the candidate to get involved with other areas of WP before considering using the sysop bit there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I was inclined to support based on the record but, dang it, that username really could provoke some people. At the very least, it sets a bad example. More experience would help, but that's not my biggest problem. Doczilla _STOMP! 10:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)