Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang

Steven Zhang

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (40/5/0); Scheduled to end 12:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs)

Co-nomination from Pedro (talk · contribs). All, I'm delighted to offer a nomination for Steven. Firstly briefly some history. As Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) Steven made a, bluntly, catastrophic error of judgement by accessing the acounts of others (admin accounts) as well as alowing those admins to (briefly) use his account. Details are found here. This resulted in a ban from this project. Steven compounded his error by also accesing, albeit briefly, the account of another editor on simple wikipedia.

• It is important to note that all of this took place over two years ago.

I'm not going to gloss over these errors, and to his credit Steven has been open and honest about them. Whether it was immaturity, a lack of understanding of the ramifications - what's done is done. As I noted at his first RFA however [1] he didn't quit or RTV - he held his hands up and admitted his errors. So, moving on, I'm not convinced it's a question of "what's changed" since 2009 although clearly things have. It's a question of;

1. Has Steven done enough in two years to rebuild trust?
2. If we trust him would he benefit from the admin tools?

In answer I believe in two years of editing he has regained trust. Whilst Steven was not overly active in 2010 (around 500 edits) since May of this year he has fully re-engaged with the project.

Steven is very active at WP:SPI, WP:DRN and WP:AFD (including non admin closures) - clearly areas where the admin bits are handy. I think the overall account history (pre and post ban) also indicates plenty of content work, albeit much of it tidying and fixing - which are always worthwhile undertakings. Steven himself has elaborated more on his article and article support work in Q2 below. Admins will note his speedy deletion tagging is accurate and regular. Steven is cautious and acts with due dilligence - prime requirements with the admin tool set.

At the end of the day Steven would benefit from the tools and Wikipedia would benefit from him having them. I personally believe there is no risk of misuse or abuse of the tools, and only positives can come from granting him +sysop. Pedro :  Chat  10:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Doug (talk · contribs).

I ran into Steve in June when I was about to block a user and found that he was trying to work with the user as a mentor. I found Steve's patience and style refreshing and, although the mentee was incorrigible, Steve worked very hard to help the user conform to proper Wiki behavior.

I have since seen Steve work with other mentees, quite successfully. Besides patience, Steve has a very detailed and rigorous plan which he adapted from the plan he had gone through when he first joined.

I've also watched as Steve has revamped the WP:MEDCAB board and single-handedly (as much as anything on a wiki is single-handed) created WP:DRN and made it into a relevant process for discussion of content disputes. Content disputes are very difficult, unlike WQA issues where the result is usually a matter of blocking someone or trying to get two users to stop talking, content requires two opposing sides to come together on issues that they really do disagree on. Steve has worked these issues so diligently that the Foundation is now talking to him about developing broader concepts and mediation mentorships.

The Steve of 2011 avoids controversial editing and drama, to the maximum extent possible, while at the same time eagerly taking on some of the toughest mediation cases.

Steve's work on DR and all the NACs[2] and CSD denials[3] he does (and showed me how to track!), show that he understands policy and has an obvious need for the tools.

I trust Steve as a Wikipedian and I trust him to properly use the tools of an admin enough to stake my own reputation on him. He is a great wikipedian and has proved himself coordinating the toughest DR issues and handling much of the grunt work of hte project. He would make a great admin.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I want to thank Pedro and Doug for their nominations as well as other users who have encouraged me to run for a few months, and for their trust and confidence in me. I will endeavor to answer all questions in a timely manner. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:20, 5 November 2011 (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: The main reason for me running for adminship is to try and help clear some of the work that piles up in the admin backlog. Initially I'd see myself working in the areas I'm the most confident in, being AIV, RFPP and SPI. I'd also work on closing debates at AFD and would ease myself into CSD. Over time I could see myself expanding to other admin areas such as requested moves, UAA, other areas of XFD and arbitration enforcement.

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

A: In mainspace the work I'm most pleased with is related to the TV series, 24, which I managed to get the main article to GA this year, and Martha Logan back in 2008. I also expanded Amanda Fraser to meet DYK status. Although it's not so prestigious, I'm also pleased with the wikignoming I've done as a patroller, removing poor information, adding cites, fixing spelling, all boring but I feel they're still important as they impact on readers and on the credibility of the project to our audience.

In projectspace a lot of my focus has been on dispute resolution and helping newcomers. In particular I'm pleased with the adoption of the the dispute resolution noticeboard, while still a relatively new process I feel it has been somewhat successful in its goals. I also feel the adoption program that I've used has taught new users a bit about how Wikipedia works, an example being Cloveapple (talk · contribs). Finally I've been involved in informal mediation and helping users in disputes at the Mediation Cabal, a few recent cases that I've been active in are Abortion, Holodomor, and Games for Windows.

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 have been involved in one major incident that caused me a lot of stress. As my 2009 RFA shows, back in 2008 I made a mammoth mistake of judgment, ironically it happened because I wanted to help as a newcomer and got caught up in my own misjudgment, and just didn't think about the issue of the community's trust I was breaking. A full disclosure is here.

The investigation found I had tried to use the admin access properly, but my return while banned to post even one IP vandalism revert and my willingness to make an edit for another user on Simple Wikipedia who emailed me their account details to do so, just showed that I hadn't learned the lesson back then. While my 2009 RFA gained a sizeable majority of support (around 70%), I felt I had to withdraw since the opposes showed I had not yet made good and was not yet trusted as an admin should be. I took some time to reflect and returned to full editing in May 2011, determined to make a fresh start and to try and do it right, and I hope the community will accept my apology for the past events of 2008. If I could change them I would.

After the stress of the 2008 events and the lessons I have learned from them, I feel it's unlikely I will have anything so hard again in terms of stress, perhaps the aftermath of these events have shown I try to accept criticism and accept responsibility for my actions. I can't think of other major disputes where I was personally involved as a party. Occasionally I may disagree with users, and I often have to deal with angry users in conflict when I am active in dispute resolution. I imagine if I entered into a conflict with another user I'd apply the same principles and techniques I use when trying to resolve other people's conflicts.

Additional question from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

4. Are you open to recall?

A: In short, yes: I would be open to recall if an RfC on my actions closed with the opinion I had misused the tools. I agree that administrators should be held accountable for their actions, however don't think that making myself subject to a complex and arbitrary recall criteria is the way to do it. I have full confidence in our dispute resolution system, so if an RFC was opened which was closed with the opinion that I had misused my admin tools, I would resign. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Ebe123

5. What's your opinion on WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA?

A: To be completely honest, I have no strong opinion on either page, and that is mainly because I am somewhat unfamiliar with them. I do however think that WP:LTA has the potential to be somewhat counter productive. While it does help document the editing habits of the user and can be a useful point of reference for editors and administrators, it does at the same time does appear to go against the idea of denying recognition. Giving a serial troublemaker a page all about them in my opinion may encourage them to continue the behaviour, as opposed to the effect that just blocking them and undoing their edits would have. It also has the potential for allowing the user to change their mode of operation. If we have a page that says, "User:X creates 10 socks, with each they will edit 10 articles related to Pokemon to become auto confirmed and then start changing the dates in articles without references" then it's likely they will change how they do things to become less detectable. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Divide et Impera

6. Creating WP:DRN is per se a notable achievement, but I would like to know more: whose idea was it and how active you were in implementing it. Also I would like to know if it was mainly implemented to relieve work in WP:ANI and WP:AE or if there were other reasons. Thanks!

A: The creation of DRN was my idea, though what it has become is the result of bright ideas from many editors. I first had a vague idea of a noticeboard after commenting at an RFC on dispute resolution (See my comment there), and after that worked up a proposal for the Village Pump (that discussion is here). Initially, it was more designed to be a board that would solve very small disputes and direct other larger issues to other forums, such as MedCab, a third opinion, or an RFC. It was also initially designed to direct content disputes away from ANI, and it was proposed to also close WQA and the content noticeboard (it was decided to keep WQA open, CNB was closed later). After discussion, which resulted in a consensus to try out the board, it went active (I had already drafted the page). I am quite happy with how it has turned out, even though it is in it's still a relatively new process.

As for the second part of your question, the main reason for me implementing DRN was to better organise content dispute resolution. Having worked at MedCab for quite some time, I noticed a lot of disputes that were filed there did not really suit MedCab, they were either very small disputes, conduct issues, or misunderstandings of policy. The lack of visibility was also an issue I saw, MedCab cases would often sit on the new cases list and rot. DRN has been designed to create a "starting point" for the resolution of content disputes, as well as a way to get many eyes on a dispute to aid in quick resolution. I also feel that because of the creation of DRN, it has had an effect on ANI, while I haven't checked, I would imagine less content disputes get listed there, and they would be sent to DRN if they are. I hope this answers your question to your satisfaction. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Steve Crossin

• Links for Steven Zhang: Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Steven Zhang can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Support - and in doing so, I'll quote what I said in the Abortion case: "Steven Zhang should be commended. He was, in my opinion, presented with an extremely difficult MedCab case to work with. He came up with a novel solution... I believe he did this in the belief that it would be an acceptable compromise for both sides.". I fully support Steven's nomination in the spirit of good faith - he's matured into a useful, adult and trustworthy user. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Support per this statement once said by Graeme Bartlett "Steve is hard worker, and we could use his skills in the admin area." I feel that this statement reflects on how much work he has done within the past couple of years. Minima© (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Support. I think Steven is one of the most patient and civil editors I have ever come across. I'm not very knowledgeable about the qualifications for being an admin, but I know Steven has the character. HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Support we need more admin clerks at WP:SPI, among other reasons. Alexandria (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
6. Support Per below. Buggie111 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Support As joint nominator. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Give him a chance --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. I've worked with Steven over at SPI for awhile, and he seems to have a good head on his shoulders there. And just for the record, I believe he's atoned enough for what happened back in '08. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
11. Support. I have been working together with Steve at the dispute resolution noticeboard and at the Mediation Cabal, and he has shown himself to be extremely knowledgeable about dispute resolution, as well as being a very pleasant editor to work with. I am confident that he will do great work as an admin, and I think that he will be an asset to the community. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
12. Support I've yet to come across someone who's done more good with a second chance than Steve has. Tremendously useful, and a force for good in numerous otherwise high tension areas, such as SPI and MEDCAB. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
13. support opposing people dont be mean 2008 was like 3 years ago! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
14. Support A great editor, definitely deserves nothing less than a promotion. --Bryce Wilson | talk 14:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
15. Support 2008 is a while ago, and Steven has clearly rebuilt his trust from the community. No problems afaik. HurricaneFan25 14:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
16. Support 3 years is a long time, and frankly the harm from the incident was to himself and the other two people involved, not to the community at large. In light of what happened, I think 3 years is long enough for a second chance. The supports above are more convincing then the nominators at most RFCs. I see no reason to withhold support. Monty₈₄₅ 14:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
17. Support. It is important to note that I voted to ban Steve after the incident that happened with the administrator accounts (and was actually the arbitrator that posted a notice from ArbCom about the behaviour). Also, as noted in Steve's disclosure, he violated my trust and posted chat logs of private chats I had engaged in with him. Despite this, I think over the time that has passed he has demonstrated he can be trusted with the administrator tools. Indeed, the administrators who gave him their password credentials have had their rights restored since, so I do not see why Steve should be not considered under the same regard. I trust he can use the administrator tools appropriately. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
18. Support, Steven Zhang has demonstrated that he can be trusted, and shows a useful ability to think outside the box. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
19. Support: Nobody should be judged exclusively on the worst/daftest thing they've done. As difficult as that might be in some cases, I think it's absolutely fundamental. As Deskana states, all the previous admins involved have had their rights restored (and one of them is now a Steward), so I also do not see why Steve shouldn't be given consideration for turning things around. Plus, as HuskyHuskie says, it must have taken a large amount of grit in keeping everything to his name at the table, and it is only to his credit that he has done so. On a practical level, Steve does good work. For example, where a load of socks have been put in the laundry basket at SPI and Steve is around in IRC, I have, a couple of times, typed out if he'd like to tag and block them, only to realise my mistake and backspace it out. Basically, Wikipedia will benefit with him as a sysop. WilliamH (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
20. Support Uncontested. ResMar 16:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
21. Support', yes please. Why did you wait so long? mabdul 16:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - I've been working with Steve for a short time at the DRN recently. Watching how he has both managed disputes between users and helped to develop Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and get other editors on board shows the discernment, maturity and leadership which we really need from administrators at the moment. There were problems in the past, but Steve's recent contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate that Steve has not only learnt from the experience, but gone on to be an incredibly valuable editor. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
23. Support for the reasons given by the nominators, which I agree with.Ajbpearce (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
24. Support Yes, the 2008 incident was a very bad mistake, but it was 2008, I've seen this user in my seven months with the CU flag be clueful, capable, and on top of things at SPI and in the MedCab. I didn't know him in 2008, and quite frankly, I don't care; I've seen enough quality work from the candidate to say firmly that he is ready for this, mistakes from three years ago notwithstanding. Courcelles 17:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
25. Support. Steven is, to my mind, the textbook example of how to recover from the type of monumental fuckup that would send most of us running for the hills. I've interacted with him a fair amount since his return, and I have seen a stable, coolheaded, incredibly well-intentioned and cautious editor who is aware that he has much to make up for and intends to make up for every iota of that. His disclosure is frank, explicit, and owns up to his past immaturity and errors, and his behavior on-wiki since his return has been nothing but helpful and wise. WP:DRN is pretty much his singlehanded creation, and anyone who steps up to mediate an abortion dispute and does it as well as Steven did has more patience and wisdom in their little finger than most of us have in our whole bodies. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
26. Strong Support I had only recently offered to nominate this user for the tools, but Pedro beat me to it. I have interacted with Steven on several occasions, and I have only the highest regard for his skill, comittment and dedication to the project. I would recommend him for the tools in the strongest possible measure. What happened three years ago is, IMHO, wholly irrelevant. He will be an excellent admin now. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
27. Always seemed to know his stuff when I've seen him around. I'm actually quite surprised to learn about the whole banning story, but this looks like a pretty textbook return to good grace. In cases where I've some doubt I look to the opposes to see what I might be missing, and at this time they're basically of the "I will never forgive you" (and its little brother, "I will forgive you in X months") rather than adding anything of particular note to assessing the candidate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
28. Support good editor, I've seen him around a lot, he knows what he's doing, and who honestly cares about one stupid mistake in 2008? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
29. He isn't defined by one incident, just as no one is. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
30. I once ate a worm, aged about five. I'm glad I'm not judged on that. — Joseph Fox 19:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

    How did you know how old the worm was? Peridon (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

31. Support: Excellent work with MedCab. --LauraHale (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
32. Secret ^account 19:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
33. Support I've seen him around in various places - and seen nothing but good. I would think the incidents of 2008 will prevent him doing anything silly here again - because a load of people will be watching him like shitehawks (until they get bored and go off to watch some paint dry instead). Peridon (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
34. Support - I could not care less that he took part in account sharing three years ago. This is just a freakin' website— time to get over it. Swarm ^X11|11|11 19:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
35. To err is human. He has certainly learned from it, and earned back the community's trust. Support. - Mailer Diablo 19:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
36. Support per most of the above. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
37. Support - qualified beneficial contributor with a pretty dated single issue which clearly he wouldn't repeat. If he continues to contribute in the same manner , a clear net asset. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
38. Support per Swarm above, who couldn't possibly have said it any better. I understand that he did something bad but it's been three years. Seriously. Put the stick down. He's unlikely to be anything but a net-positive. Trusilver 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
39. Support: I think Steve will be a great addition to the areas where he intends to work. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
40. Because it seems we may be getting three administrators for the price of one. But in all seriousness, Steve is obviously qualified. Of course if he'd socked around the previous incident he'd have passed RfA two years ago. That he's taken his medicine over three years and there have, as far as I'm aware, been no like conduct issues since, suggests that it should now be left in the past. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - while a great contributor to the project, I cannot ignore what happened in 2008. I would like to see a longer history of positive contributions, and not just a few months. The answer to question 3. is also not very reassuring. Pantherskin (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   Respectfuly, Pantherskin, if I may say so, it appears from what I (have just now) read of Steven's earlier behaviour, that he has not just a few months, but years of history of positive contributions. In fact, as far as his actual contributions to the encyclopedia are concerned, there is no question that his contributions have been consistently positive. He committed an egregious violation of trust, but he did not use that access to commit any negative contribution to the encyclopedia itself (unless I'm misreading it). His actual contributions are almost universally heralded, the good faith of his intentions is recognized by almost everyone, it was only his judgement that was questioned, and that for good reason. But he has had a few years to mature and develop better judgement. Even more amazing to me is that one editor who supported him suggested he should vanish and return later to do his good work another another name. But in a tremendously brave (and mature) decision, he opted to remain with his misdeeds open to all to see. Now that's character.14:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC) HuskyHuskie (talk)

2. Agreed - oppose for now. Maybe in another year? DS (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose. No personal animosity toward the user, who is a very nice person and who I always had good interactions with, but for me, what happened, whatever long ago, makes me still very uncomfortable with the thought of this particular user being granted sysop tools. Second chances are a good thing, but certain things cannot be washed away for me. Maybe that's just me being stuck in an old mindset and not adapting to changing circumstances, I cannot tell for sure. The breach of trust in '08 and the subsequent handling are still too much on my mind, Dragonfly above me wrote "Maybe in another year?", maybe. No offense to the user, whose valuable contributions, hard work and dedication we all know. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   I'll note that both of the admins that handed in their tools ("under a cloud") as a result of this incident have since regained the mop through RfAs. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   Indeed. I am aware of that, but thanks for stating so for other users who may not be. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   For the record, one is now a Steward, too and the other did not stand for RfA for restoration of his tools, ArbCom gave them back. Both got their tools back in 2009. Though I don't consider either of them relevant to this nom except to the extent they show that a user can change and rebuild their trust. Steve stands on his own. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

4. Risks outweigh benefits. Townlake (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   You could say the exact same thing about eating chocolate cake. Could you expand on this a little bit please? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

5. No - My objection is along the lines of Snowolf - I cannot ignore the 2008 account sharing incident and regardless of the position of others in the community having been regranted these perms (which they should not have been - misusing the permissions which have been trusted to them once should mean you don't get them back) - It is not possible for me to say in all certainty that I'd trust this user to have this position again. Sorry.  BarkingFish  21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   I'm confused. Your whole oppose seems based on abuse of previously granted permissions -"(position again)"- and not wanting to give them out again; However Steven has never been an admin. Can you clarify? Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   I agree - he had an unofficial taste of mopping, but no mop of his own. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   Of course I'll clarify it. I don't trust him to have the position, period.  BarkingFish  21:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)