Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NinjaRobotPirate

NinjaRobotPirate

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (68/1/1); Scheduled to end 16:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) – Come one, come all, and take some time out of your busy Wikipedia editing schedule to consider NinjaRobotPirate for access to the administrator toolset. Since becoming an active editor almost four years ago, he has become a valuable contributor to the project, and could do even more great work if handed a mop.

With over 18,000 edits to article space - 60% of his total 30,000 - including more than 250 article creations and three Good Articles (Cult film, Leprechaun (film), Keyser Söze), NinjaRobotPirate has an excellent track record of content creation; a quick glance at any of his articles will find it well written and well referenced. He also has a solid history at AfD, with a great mix of well reasoned votes and a very high match percentage, and lots of participation at SPI (e.g. 1, 2, 3), alongside experience in a variety of other relevant areas.

Perhaps most importantly, NinjaRobotPirate is a civil and friendly editor, happy to both help new editors (I was especially impressed by the responses here and in the sections below) as well as engage in productive discussions with experienced ones. Overall, I am confident that NinjaRobotPirate will make an excellent administrator. Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2016 (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: My primary use for the tools would be blocking long-term abuse vandals and obvious socks. I have experience with reporting these to ANI and SPI, and I would keep an eye on these noticeboards. The less sensational discussions at ANI sometimes scroll off without any admin attention as everyone rushes to comment in more exciting threads. I have little interest in speedy deletion, but I enjoy participating at AfD. I prefer to contribute to deletion discussions, but I would be willing to work on the AfD backlog. I contribute occasionally to the help desk and tea house, and without being able to see deleted pages, one is sometimes limited to giving generic advice.

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

A: Cult film was a complete mess when I found it. It took me months of work, locating sources and completely rewriting the article section-by-section, to finally bring it to GA. My experience with finding sources and working on poorly-written articles led me to AfD. Although usually called a deletionist, I'm proud of the articles that I've saved, many of which I subsequently expanded or rewrote. Compassion in World Farming is an example of an article that I worked on to remove promotion and add third-party sources after it was nominated for deletion (before, after).

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: There will always be content disputes. Recently, I was involved in one over whether "in popular culture" items needed to be sourced. I contended they did, and another editor disagreed. During a centralized discussion on the topic, consensus was they do need secondary sourcing, and an uninvolved editor provided the citations. Discussion provided both consensus for future disputes and citations for the content. When I disagree with the direction consensus has taken in an article, I move on to another one. Sometimes I find I don't care so much about the dispute after some time has passed.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad

4. You've expressed interest in blocking socks. How do you conduct behavioral analysis to determine whether an account is, indeed, a sock? What sort of factors do you consider?

A: In my mind, there two kinds of socks. The first type has a clear mission. Identifying the mission makes identifying the socks a lot easier. For example, Rafa Figueiredo wants to promote his favorite actress, Elisha Cuthbert. Like many other socks with a mission, his edits are ritualistic. He changes the headers, adds poorly-sourced puffery in broken English, and sprinkles copyvio images throughout the article. If he edited articles on Brazilian football stars, I'd never find his latest sock, but he's never going to do that. He's got a very specific mission, and he's going to keep socking to continue his edit wars. Anyone who adds Elisha Cuthbert to their watchlist could probably pick up on who the latest Rafa sock is. Then there's the variety who sock because they can. These are trickier because you can't necessarily rely on one sock to continue the previous one's edit war. For someone like Diamese, you have to look at the bigger picture. Diamese leaves nonsense messages on admins' talk pages, like "hi i want to be admin please" or "i will be bureaucrat one day". He'll pick a random endangered animal and vandalize the article, then add some kind of bizarre hoax to a children's cartoon. He sometimes taunts me and McGeddon in edit summaries, like "ninja is not allowed to revert this edit". Once you know who Diamese is, it's easy enough to spot him. But you'll struggle to connect the accounts if you don't know his history. I suppose you could say that Diamese's mission is mayhem. In both kinds of socks, comparing the accounts often involves scrutinizing grammar quirks, word choice, English proficiency, idiom usage, political biases, and temperament. Nezi1111 obsessively used the phrase "refers to" in several different leads across several sock accounts. Most sockmasters know exactly how I identify them, but they continue making those behaviors and choosing those words. It's why they're here.

Additional question from The Quixotic Potato

5. Your oldest edits indicate to me that you already had some experience editing Wikipedia, and your userpage contains the sentence: "After initially being quite unimpressed with Wikipedia, I finally joined in 2007". If I am correct, which IP's/usernames have you used other than NinjaRobotPirate?

A: Really? You looked at my oldest edits and thought I had experience? I look at them and shudder. No, I never had any prior accounts. That's kind of the point of the statement: prior to 2007, I was uninterested in editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia was not as focused on verifiability in the early days, and I thought it was a serious issue.

Additional question from The Quixotic Potato

6. I am scratching my head looking at some old diffs like this one. It was reverted by 24.210.207.42 after more than 24 hours (I assume that that IP is a different person (maybe I am incorrect)). It doesn't seem to have been an isolated incident, see this diff where you did something similar several months later, but this time it stayed in the article for about a month. Can you please explain the circumstances surrounding those diffs and your reasons for making those edits? I don't get it. Many of the best contributors to Wikipedia are on the autism spectrum. I also noticed the bipolar type 2 userbox added here and deleted here (together with an expert mathematician userbox) so I assume you have experience with people on the spectrum/with mental health issues.

A: Yes, I'm sensitive to issues of neurodiversity. I thought, perhaps unwisely, that the autism spectrum was a related topic to issues of geek pride and science fiction fandom. It seemed like a reasonably logical jump at the time, drawn mostly from my experiences with people who were pretty outspoken about their autism. There isn't anything to it beyond that. There's no connotation, insinuation, or commentary – just someone with not a whole lot of experience in editing Wikipedia.

Additional question from Tlhslobus

7. At first glance, you seem like an excellent candidate with lots of support. My one concern is your choice of name - NinjaRobotPirate. Ninjas and Pirates are criminals; many find Robots sinister. Your chosen name rightly or wrongly suggests to the user who first encounters you that you tend to identify with such groups. Admins are in many ways our cops, and as a citizen, I would not feel comfortable being questioned by a cop sporting a skull and crossbones (the traditional symbol of pirates, and also a symbol of the Nazi SS). Wikipedia already has major difficulties with retaining editors. Given your seemingly unfortunate choice of name (at least for an admin), might your appointment as an admin not just make those difficulties worse, how might you try to prevent or at least mitigate this, and would you consider taking a second less contentious name (linked to your original name on what would then be your two userpages, as per WP:VALIDALT) when laying down the law to actual or alleged miscreants?

A: Ninja and pirates can also be good guys. Doctor McNinja, Dread Pirate Roberts, and Captain Jack Sparrow are perhaps a bit more roguish than someone like Luke Skywalker, but didn't everyone prefer Han Solo anyway? Robots, well, who can hate robots? I think I'd be more worried that people wouldn't take me seriously with such a silly username. On the plus side, I think having a silly username has kept me from taking myself deadly seriously. If there are users who are legitimately intimidated by my username, I would hope they'd lose that once they talked to me. As far as an alt, the drama that constantly surrounded DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves left me thinking it was too confusing for admins to use multiple accounts like that.

Additional question from SNUGGUMS

8. Given your intentions to watch SPI noticeboards as an admin, do you perhaps plan on also applying for CheckUser?

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support as nominator. Sam Walton (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support- excellent candidate. Reyk _YO! 16:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - another great candidate with both content creation experience and a clear need for the tools! I'm always very excited to see editors who have a clear track record of helping our newer members -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Support WP:YAPITWAA (yet anoter person I thought was an administror). Many positive interactions and observations.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Good candidate. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 16:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Support without hesitation. I've run into this editor many times, in particular in their work tracking LTA cases, and found them to be thoughtful, helpful, and resourceful. All the qualities one would want in an admin. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
7. Support. A great candidate with a great resume, will make a great admin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
8. Support. I've seen this name around. Candidate has a clear understanding of policies and community. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
9. Support NinjaRobotPirate has a fantastic resume and I am persuaded that he would be a net-positive with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
10. Support Ninja was one of the editors who helped me in my first few articles. If I had known he was standing, would have rushed to nominate him. One of the absolutely committed editors here, and one whose assistance I will never forget. This is not a quid pro quo for that help you gave to me Ninja. This is a quid pro quo for all the assistance you give to editors all around Wikipedia. It's great to know you'll be the first administrator of the new year. Wishes for the new year and lots of love. Lourdes 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
11. Support per WP:NETPOSITIVE. As far as any "need" for adminship goes, no particular individual needs adminship, but Wikipedia needs admins. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
12. Support – The objection based on lack of a "clear need" is unconvincing—it has been the view recently (not sure what the numbers are exactly) that more administrators are leaving the project than getting the tools, so it may be the case that Wikipedia needs more qualified candidates than the candidates themselves absolutely need the tools (and that's not to say the Ninja doesn't need the tools!). Ninja is a regular at AfD, and he has had an excellent, excellent track record there—I have always appreciated the insight he brings. AfD and the deletion process in general could definitely use more administrators to help with the chronic backlog. Ninja's temperament and friendly nature—especially when dealing with newcomers, whether it's on his talk page, the Teahouse, or anywhere else on Wikipedia—should serve as a model for all of our users to come. Overall, this is a fully qualified candidate and there is no evidence at this time to suggest that he will be anything but a net positive to the project with a little more buttons at his disposal. Mz7 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
13. Support One of those that I thought already had it, always been a positive editor when I've bumped into him. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
14. The candidate's comments at AfD are invariably well-reasoned and supported by relevant policies and guidelines (see [1], [2]). I have every reason to believe he'll display that same level of diligence in his admin work. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
15. Support Digging into the candidate's contributions, I see high activity and participation, responsiveness on talk pages, civility with new and existing editors, and positive involvement in important administrative functions (e.g., AN/I, AIV, and RS/N). I am especially impressed by their initiative in tracking long-term vandals, like the animation and martial arts vandals. This is exactly the type of editor that could put the mop to good use. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
16. Support as a net positive for the encyclopedia. After digging into the contributions, participation levels and the user talk page, it is evident that this editor would be an asset to have as an admin. -- Dane ^talk 17:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
17. Good attitude. Good knowledge of policy. Solid content creation. An excellent candidate. Cbl62 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
18. Support. Fully qualified candidate. (The complex username will raise issues of categorization for purposes of this page, but I'm sure a resolution can be found.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
19. Support -Great Candidate, no issues whatsoever. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
20. Support net positive candidate. Would make good use of the mop. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
21. Support I've had positive interactions with NRP before and think he has the right temperament for an admin. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
22. Support - hardworking, knows and applies policy, creates content. Will do fine. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
23. Support - No brainer! NRP is a superbly knowledgeable editor, is friendly, communicative, patient and helpful. Absolutely the kind of person we want in an admin. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
24. Support - Yup. While I don't always agree with NRP, I agree with the vast majority of opinions expressed above: from willingness and temperament, to article creation and knowledge. Overall net positive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
25. Support (edit conflict) Experienced candidate, no outstanding issues. Joshualouie711^talk 19:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
26. Support Really liked answer to question 4. Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 19:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
27. Support -- A lot of focus on content creation; civility; no red flags or nonsense that I can see. Regarding the concerns about the need for the bit: a specific need has clearly been expressed. I don't see that a candidate should make a grand up front pronouncement that they'll participate in every facet of the admin role in all its "subtlety". That "final click" is pretty important. That's the difference between things getting done and not. Put from another perspective, that's the difference between a regular edit and one stuck in pending-changes, that final click that actually does something. Maybe he'll grow into other areas later on. Maybe he won't. And that will be just fine, either way. Overall, I've a good feeling about this one. Net positive and all that. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
28. Support - Should be fine. I just have one very important question: is NinjaRobotPirate half ninja and half robot-pirate, or half ninja-robot and half pirate? Kurtis ^(talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

    I was under the impression he is an equal mix of all three: a robotic piratical ninja. Mz7 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

    So he's half ninja, half robot, and half pirate? In that case, I support him 150%! Kurtis ^(talk) 03:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

29. Absofuckinglutely. Yet another case of "thought he was already". —ATS 🖖 talk 20:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
30. Support – Looks like a perfectly qualified candidate to me. Users who become admins don't necessarily have to drop everything and take up janitorial duties full time. Rather, they can continue their editing habits and help out here and there or just with things pertaining to their certain area of editing. United States Man (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
31. Support In my dealings with NRP and in those I have observed with others I have found this editor to knowledgeable and cooperative. The mop and pail will increase NRP's usefulness to the project. tell us how you really feel ATS :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

    —ATS 🖖 talk 21:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

32. Support. Easy decision - he has a good head on his shoulders and will make use of the tools. Daß Wölf 21:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
33. Support . I have never come across NRP which can also be as positive as as a user who is seen everywhere all the time. NRJ just gets on with the job of providing content and cleaning up the mess left by others, and would have had countless occasions to use the admin tools if he had them, particularly in the clearly described areas in his answer to Q1. With 355 votes at AfD at an extraordinary accuracy of 93.7%, NRJ demonstrates perfect confidence to be closing them as an admin, and these are not a hat collector's ‘go-with-the-flow’ votes. Polite and friendly discourse on their talk page which also demonstrates an in-depth knowledge of MoS, policies, and guidelines and enthusiasm to help others. We need more candidates like NRJ. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

    Just a minor note that the AfD tool defaults to analysing a user's last 500 AfD edits, of which ~350 of NRP's could be discerned to be a vote. Per the "Vote totals" section of the tool, he's actually edited 2327 AfDs, meaning significantly more votes (probably more like ~1500!). This is something I only realised recently, and just thought I'd clarify. Sam Walton (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

34. Support: No reason not to support and he's ready for the admin tools. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
35. Support - Seems more than qualified. No concerns here.- MrX 21:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
36. Support - I wondered where I had seen NRP around as the name looked familiar, and it turns out it's because I've seen him banging a few heads together at ANI to make the atmosphere more civil and collegiate. Combine that with the article work and great AfD score, and I think this one's a no-brainer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
37. Support - good candidate, no skeletons in the closet. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 22:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
38. Support - I believe NRP and I have butted heads in the past, perhaps more than once, but there's nothing I can see in my examination that would prevent me from supporting their RfA. My sincere wish of good luck to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
39. Support, with the cliche'd "editor I thought was already an admin" thing. I've never seen a single case where NRP's contributions were not helpful (which is not to say that there aren't, I just haven't seen them if there are). ansh666 22:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
40. Support Maddeningly civil and thorough. I wish I could be that calm sometimes. Excellent candidate. :-) Katie^talk 22:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
41. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
42. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
43. Support Excellent all-rounder, with a good skill-set ranging from a firm grasp of policies and guidelines to a friendly, approachable nature who displays emotional intelligence. All the requirements of a good admin. Good luck NRP Irondome (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
44. Support haven't interacted with NRP all that much, but I have seen them around and been impressed by their work. Also, Damn, Samwalton9. Back at it again with nominations. (sorry). Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
45. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
46. Support, another excellent "you mean he/she's not already?" candidate. --Drmargi (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

    Support per Irondome. I have no issue with the candidate !voting delete on a single list. Joshualouie711^talk 00:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

    You already got a support in. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 03:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

47. Absolutely no qualms. — foxj 00:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
48. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
49. Support - Fantastic editor, a WP:NETPOSITIVE. J947 01:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
50. Support - Solid editor deserves a solid !support. Enjoy the mop! GAB^gab 01:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
51. Support another net positive admin candidate. Ostrichyearning (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
52. Support as an excellent candidate. Content creation and AfD look really good. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
53. support to nomination, good editor.Kayser Ahmad (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
54. Support, very strong candidate. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
55. Support - looks like a good candidate, with enough experience and a clear use for the bit. The Andrew D. oppose du jour is unconvincing as usual. People can have whatever opinion they want on deletion requests - it doesn't mean that they will go rampant deleting articles when they become an admin. Looking over the candidate's speedy deletion tagging, it doesn't look like there are an abnormal number of declined requests, so I'd say that they can be trusted to not delete the encyclopedia while nobody is looking. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
56. Support clueful and helpful, good content creation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
57. Support - unmoved by any issues. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 03:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
58. Support per nom and answers to questions. Seems like a great candidate for admin. ~Awilley (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
59. Support Qualified and experienced editor with no apparent red flags. The deletionism doesn't strike me as problematic (and I consider myself an inclusionist). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
60. Support Solid editor that cares about the project. --Frmorrison (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
61. Absolutely. I've multiple interactions with this editor, and I believe they have the necessary experience in several important areas (such as dealing with sockers). We could also use more Admins with backgrounds in WP:FILM an WP:FILMBIO. So, definitely, yes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
62. Support Clueful, competent, good candidate. I assume question #7 and oppose #1 are in some kind of surrealism competition. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
63. Support unquestionably a net positive to Wikipedia. I've seen so much good from this user that it really surprises me he isn't already an admin. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
64. Support - Easily. Falls under "wait, you're not already...?". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
65. Support Nothing concerns me. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
66. Support - absolutely, trustworthy and experienced - 'about time'! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
67. Support - I've worked with the editor in the past, and those past interactions lead me to believe that he'd be an excellent Admin. Sergecross73 msg me 06:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
68. Support My questions have been answered. 5: Their first edit created their userpage and their second edit mentions NPOV in the editsummary; many new accounts discover our policies much later (usually because others (have to) point them out). 6: I work in IT, pretty much everyone who is better at my job than I am is on the spectrum. There is currently only one oppose vote, and (like others have pointed out) it is silly. I am satisfied with the answers, so I support but in case of an AI takeover I will demand a desysop!. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too deletionist. As a topical example, consider List of films relating to Christmas which the candidate helped to delete. This was a spinoff from List of theatrical Christmas films and the consequence is that we don't now have a Christmas list with It's a Wonderful Life in. That's the damage that such casual deletionism does. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   If you like, I can userfy that article so everyone else can make up their minds whether the deletion was valid or not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   Please do. The only person who !voted keep on that article is an individual with under 100 edits. As it currently stands, I see no reason to believe deletion was the wrong outcome. Andrew Davidson himself did not participate in the discussion, so I question how he can have enough information about the deleted article to use it as a basis for opposition. Lepricavark (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   Okay, I have restored the article in the state in which it was deleted at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NinjaRobotPirate/List of films relating to Christmas Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   And exactly where is It's a Wonderful Life on this list? Nowhere, that's where. This oppose should be stricken. Ridiculous. Katie^talk 22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   I can't view the deleted page, but the candidate merely voiced his opinion in an AfD where 5 other people (everyone except the creator) agreed to delete. It's highly unlikely that the page was wrongly deleted. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   Let's stick with this example, now that we have more evidence. My impression is that all these list versions are much the same -- just a slight variation of title or concept -- List of films relating to Christmas; List of theatrical Christmas films; List of Christmas films (the current title). They all seem equally good or bad; there isn't much to choose between them. What they are really lacking are some solid sources. But it's not like these don't exist. With just a quick search one can soon find sources like: The Christmas Movie Book; Have Yourself a Movie Little Christmas; Christmas at the Movies; Movies of Christmas; &c. In the AFD in question, the candidate doesn't exert himself to check out the topic like this. He just offers his personal opinion and that's not good enough. These discussions are not supposed to be votes. They are supposed to be reasoned arguments based upon evidence. Andrew D. (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   You say yourself that we had three or more lists on more or less exactly the same topic, Andrew Davidson. List of Christmas films is still there, and does the job we're looking for. I agree it's not well sourced, but the solution to that is not to have three or four original research articles, but to source the one we have properly and make it as comprehensive as we can. It's a Wonderful Life should certainly be on there. Films set in December (which was apparently the criteria for inclusion in the deleted list, and was the reason for NinjaRobotPirate's delete !vote) is not a sensible definition of Christmas related films by any standard.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   Andrew, you !voted oppose because of the NRB's deletionism. In support of your position, you cited one AfD. You stated that the outcome of that AfD, for which NJP is partly responsible, resulted in the film It's a Wonderful Life not being included in any Christmas lists. However, that film had not been included in the deleted list and there is a perfectly valid list in which you easily include it now. Do you still oppose the candidate and, if so, on what grounds? Lepricavark (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   IIRC, I have encountered the candidate in many AfDs. In reviewing them just now, I first noticed Grok which the candidate wanted to get rid of too. But then I noticed the Christmas film list and thought this would make a good topical example as we are all especially familiar with the genre at this time of year. The candidate's handling of that one still seems inadequate to me. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   To say that I am unmoved would be to put it mildly. The candidate's conduct at that RfA cannot be reasonably construed as a reason to oppose his candidacy, and you have damaged the credibility of your !vote by making lazy assumptions that are not supported by hard evidence. Lepricavark (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   Lepricavark: The candidate's conduct at that RfA cannot be reasonably construed: you meant AfD, I assume? (Note: I don't see a problem with that AfD either). — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 01:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   Facepalm. That's what happens when I rewrite a comment and fail to proofread the revision. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I find the answer to Q1 rather weak; as it stands right now, too weak in fact. This is the question which presents the opportunity to grandly lay out a stall, and present a clear need for the tools. This answer does not (yet) do this. Atm, it is some (if I may say, rather vague) promises to continue doing what they already do- and what most editors do- and, short of that final mouse-click, what most editors would do instinctively. I am not completely convinced of a clear need for the tools as yet, and, concomitantly, I see nothing in this reply that indicates an understanding of the greater nuances of the administrator role. Still, on a lighter note, I am willing to be convinced. Cheers, and good luck NinjaRobotPirate. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   Hey FIM, hope you're doing well. I feel somewhat obliged to reply here as I mentioned the candidate had a clear need in my support rationale. I believe NRP has shown this need through their mention of SPI and `sock blocking` - they are rather active at SPI and hopefully their answer to question four will bolster my statement. I admit more could have been mentioned in that answer, but for me it's enough to say "yup, they know what they want to do and it's something which needs doing" -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   Fortuna, NRP does not need to demonstrate a need for the tools. Anyone who has an edit history like theirs will already have come across countless occasions where the admin tool set would have been useful. Basing a vague neutral vote (tht clearly leans towards 'oppose') simply on what is in fact a detailed and perfectly innocuous answer to one of the set questions without doing any in depth research neither bodes well for the candidate nor for RfA as a process which requires a pragmatic approach. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   @Kudpung: You've been around a while; I thank you for your input. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• Process question. Is Q5 a valid request? I'm aware of the obligation to disclose fresh starts to ArbCom, but to the community at large? Forgive me if there's an answer to this I'm overlooking--I tried to look quickly through the instruction pages and RfA archives to get a firm answer, but not coming up with an immediate answer, I thought better to flag this so someone better versed can weigh in before NinjaRobotPirate necessarily felt obliged to forfeit privacy in this way if they're not obliged. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I am no expert, but as far as I know we are allowed to ask, and they are allowed to ignore questions. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

By digging up 10 year old diffs, The Quixotic Potato's participation in this RfA gives me pause. Candidates are not under any obligation to answer any user questions and IMO these are of the kind that could safely be ignored. As part of an extensive study into analysing the negative environment at RfA, a detailed, in-depth research was made into the questions feature of RfA at Question profiles and the discussion on the associated talk page. The comprehensive data may now be considered by some to be old but it is certainly not outdated - since then, there have been many more examples of silly, inappropriate, and/or disingenuous questions of the type in the long list linked to by the research. The entire 'optional' user question system is a feature of RfA that should come under serious review if we expect to attract more candidates of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Once people realize that they would like to become an admin they change their behaviour, because the stakes become higher. They act more socially acceptable. If you really want to learn what someone is like you have to look at how they treat more vulnerable people in situations where they feel they can do what they want without consequences. I have looked at the earliest contributions of every single candidate I voted on. This is actually a well-known lifehack, see for example here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense in some other contexts, but do you think this candidate has really been planning his RfA, and tailoring his behavior accordingly, for eight or ten years? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not, that is why this technique is effective. Google: "how you treat servers reveals your personality" for many more pages that describe this lifehack. Of course servers in restaurants depend on tips in many cases, and they aren't always able to express their true feelings about a customer for fear of losing their job/tip. Many people treat them quite badly. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure unearthing the "true feelings" and inner turmoils of RfA candidates falls within the purview of the process. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The "true feelings" quote is about the servers, they usually aren't able to deal with a rude customer the way they would if they were unemployed or multimillionaires. In some places the servers have to rely on tips to pay their bills, and the job market for servers in restaurants isn't very fun (if what people tell me is true, I have no experience being a server in a restaurant but I know a handful). There are many similar lifehacks, for example this quote: "Before you marry a person you should first make them use a computer with slow internet to see who they really are". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you use the word "lifehack" in a serious, non-ironic sense tells me all I need to know - this entire mess can be safely ignored. ansh666 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker. On the internet, where I live, people call those things lifehacks. I agree that the word lifehack is silly, but I am not sure what the alternatives are. If you have an alternative term that conveys the same meaning then I would like to hear it. There are words that are far worse than lifehack, like "pro-life" (which means "anti-abortion"). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You are starting to get rather far afield from the topic. Please don't drag polarizing political issues into this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: I think you're bringing this discussion rather off-topic. The original comment dealt with probing into the candidate's previous possible IP or alternate account editing history, not the abortion controversy and the meaning of "lifehack". There is no need to forumize this RfA. Joshualouie711^talk 00:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the above. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(Rfa question stalker) I think I should point out that none of the diffs here are younger than 3 years old, with most being over 5, also I'm personally puzzled how on earth any answer to this is going to help me decide which way to vote. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I moved your comment here to the appropriate section, the question has been answered above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Quixotic Potato, As many people run successfully for adminship after only 12 or 15 months (quite recently too), any history much older than that, unless totally full of egregious incidents and sanctions, is (for me at any rate) of little consequence. Not for the first time does your participation at RfA give me pause. BTW, can you also explain why you needed to make 41 edits to this RfA (36.94% of the total edits made to the page) ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Quote from the vote counter: This user's vote matched the end result of the RfA 14 times, or 100.0% of the time. I hope that some day I will learn to post a comment in a single edit. I often spend a lot of time trying to improve my own comments, and usually I find that there are many ways to improve what I initially wrote. English isn't my native language, and for example the word order is different in some cases. I strongly dislike typos, and I have fixed thousands of them, but sometimes I am clumsy and make them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)