Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joe Roe

Joe Roe

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (69/1/7); Scheduled to end 16:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Joe Roe (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to put forward Joe as a candidate. He's made substantial contributions in both article and project space, has a good working knowledge of policy, and has an excellent temperament and communication style. I first came across him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artifacts in Philippine history where he put forward some good arguments, to the extent that I decided to move the article into his userspace so it could be cleaned up, instead of deleting it. I've looked at some of his other AfDs, and again I've been impressed at the level of communication on discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Douglas P. Hill, where he put forward useful insights, even though consensus didn't go his way. That's not to say Joe doesn't match consensus at AfD a lot; on the contrary, he frequently does, such as Pahargarh caves, where he rewrote the article from a one-line stub to stop it being deleted.

Elsewhere, Joe regularly answers questions at the Teahouse and drops in from time to time on the Articles for creation help desk where he handles questions well such as this response which agreed that a failed submission should have passed. He's done a fair bit of writing for the project too, particularly getting Margaret Ursula Jones to Good Article status. He ticks all my boxes for what I want to see in an administrator, and I wholeheartedly endorse this request for the tools. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Conomination by TonyBallioni

It is my great pleasure to present Joe Roe to the community for consideration to become an administrator. Joe has been around in some capacity since 2005, and has become particularly active again since April 2016. His content work tends to focus on archeology, and he has created 60 new articles and helped to expand many more.

My interactions with Joe have primarily came from working at NPP and AfD: Joe is consistently one of the most level-headed voices in these areas, contributing not only in working on the front lines, but also to meta conversations about how to improve processes and moving Wikipedia forward. His comments in AfD discussions are always well thought out, policy-based, and insightful. Something that I also found very impressive while looking over his AfD Statistics was how high his accuracy was, especially considering that he has a relatively high percentage of keep votes, when most AfD's have historically trended delete.

While all of this is important, the thing that I care about most in an administrator is temperament, and I think Joe has it in spades. Having seen him interact with new editors and experienced editors in any number of contentious environments, I have never seen him act anyway other than kind, and I think this combined with his levelheaded demeanor and knowledge of policy will make him a true asset to the admin corps. I hope you will agree with me and join me in supporting his RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Gratefully accepted. Many thanks to Tony and Ritchie for their encouragement, guidance, and kind words. – Joe (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would like to use the admin tools to extend my work in two areas: AfD and NPP. I think that I've spent enough time at AfD to be able to close discussions reliably, particularly on the academics and educators and history deletion sorting lists. I usually try to focus my work at NPP on improving articles rather than deleting them, but I am confident that I have a strong enough understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines to handle CSD and PROD requests. The tools will also help with things like complicated moves and history merges which not infrequently come up at NPP and AfC.

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

A: I am most proud of my content creation work. In particular, last year I started a task force for improving our coverage of women in archaeology, which we've been making steady progress on. My work on that has included creating Margaret Ursula Jones, the first article I've brought up to GA, Crystal Bennett and Tatiana Warsher. Other than that, I would say my most substantial contributions have been to Akuntsu, indigenous territory, Sintashta culture, Vinča culture, hard and soft science, Vera Karelina, and Riwat.

The reason I got involved in behind-the-scenes areas like AfD and AfC was the opportunity to encourage new editors and branch out to topics I wouldn't otherwise have edited. I found Barbara Robb at AfC, for example, and worked with its creator to bring it up to a solid B-class, and submit it to DYK. In terms of articles "rescued" from AfD, I'd point to Industry (archaeology), Inspector Gadget (blogger), Ralph de Warenne, and Cheste hoard as successful examples.

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: With content disputes, my approach is to keep the discussion focused on what policy and the sources say, regardless of any personal disagreements or conduct issues that might be present. I find this helps me shift my own perspective on a discussion away from "conflict" and towards problem-solving, and it often nudges others to do the same. For example, at Talk:Southern Levant, I offered a third opinion which I believe helped bring a long-running dispute to a consensus. When I have felt it necessary to comment on other editors' conduct (and I do think that needs to happen from time to time), I try to do so in as direct, polite, and non-judgemental a way possible. An example of that would be this ANI I recently filed.

---

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 Beyond My Ken

4. Have you been paid for any editing you have done?

A: No. I feel strongly that paid editing is damaging to the encyclopaedia and not consistent with the ethos of the project. – Joe (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from IP user

5. In your personal opinion, who does more disruptive editing to wiki? The IPs or the socks/sleepers? Note: I am a regular IP editor with dynamic IPs. I will ask one more question after you answer this one. 117.200.195.57 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A: As sock-puppetry is by definition a deliberate attempt to deceive, I would say that it tends to be far more disruptive than people who simply choose not to log in. My interactions with IP editors have usually been positive. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Power~enwiki

6. In what situations would you close an AfD discussion as soft delete?

A: Per the guidelines at WP:NOQUORUM, if nobody except the nominator had participated, or perhaps if there had been one or two other delete !votes that were unsubstantial 'pile ons', I would evaluate it as a PROD. That is, I'd check that the nomination was reasonable and uncontroversial, make sure nobody had previously objected to deletion (either in the AfD, by declining a PROD, or on the article's talk page), and if so close it as "soft delete, WP:REFUND applies". Otherwise, I would relist or close it as no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Lourdes

7. Hello Joe. As you would know, the A7 criteria "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance". If you were an administrator who has to decide on this A7 candidate, how would you have proceeded? Thanks.

A: The body text does not contain a claim of significance, but the title of the source cited does: the subject was "honored with [a] historical marker". I would therefore decline the A7. Following up on the reference, it outlines a decent case for notability, and Google and GBooks searches turn up a number of solid sources. So I would probably also expand the article a little and add additional sources to make that clearer. – Joe (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Vanamonde93

8. Greetings, Joe, and thanks for offering to serve as an administrator. In reviewing your contributions I came across Novoarkhanhelsk, for which you created the article by translating the page from Ukrainian Wikipedia. Are you satisfied with the last version you edited? Would you go about this differently if you created the page today, and if so, how? Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A: I'm not entirely satisfied with it, no. I would have liked to have chased down the references and made sure everything was inline-cited, as I would if I were writing an article from scratch. Unfortunately I don't think my access to the sources or my ability to read Ukrainian is good enough to do that myself. However, the Ukrainian article was at least partially referenced, and none of the sections that didn't have inline citations struck me as controversial or likely to be challenged. In leaving it there my thinking was that the translation was a better starting point for improvement than a bare stub, but I take the criticism that contributing inadequately referenced material is not good practice whatever the source/content. Novoarkhanhelsk was my first attempt at translating an article and the choice of topic was rather idiosyncratic (I've spent quite a lot of time there). In future I'd look for higher-quality (better referenced) source articles to translate, as I did in my next attempt, Vera Karelina. – Joe (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Feminist

9. All else being equal, should an article be treated any differently (e.g. when considering deletion, protection, peer review, etc.) if it were substantially edited directly by a paid editor? Assume that the editor has made a declaration on her user page that satisfies the WMF Terms of Use, and the article is of comparable quality to a GA.

A: I think that contributions by paid editors need to be treated with extra scrutiny in any venue. Their COI creates an inescapable tendency to bias. This means that shortcuts that come from assuming the good faith of an editor (e.g. accepting that offline sources say what they say they do) can no longer be relied upon. In particular, in my experience, paid-for articles must be thoroughly checked for notability, promotionalism, and NPOV. There seems to be a tendency for paid editors to reference bomb their articles to try and establish notability, especially if it has come through AfC (as new articles by paid editors should), therefore a detailed, source-by-source assessment of the level of coverage is needed. You also need to check that the sources are accurately represented—that the paid editor hasn't advertently or inadvertently put a "positive spin" on them―and do a thorough search for sources to make sure that positive and negative views of the subject are being given due weight. However, if as you say it's a GA-quality article with none of these problems, the outcome of the process shouldn't be different just because it was paid for.

That is at least how I would treat them under the current consensus on paid editing. If you are asking how I think they ought be treated, I personally would like to see policy tightened up in that regard. I'm keenly aware that the extra scrutiny I outlined above effectively means that volunteers are subsidising paid editors by checking and improving their work for them. Currently, editors can try to counter that by opting out of doing that kind of work. For example, I choose not to review AfC submissions by paid editors, regardless of their quality, simply because I'm not interested in donating my time to someone else's commercial venture. I wouldn't peer review them either. But that approach isn't effective in deletion venues. Proposing/declining an article for CSD or PROD, or participating in an AfD, always entails some work, and sometimes quite a lot of work, in reviewing the article. So in order to maintain the encyclopaedia, volunteers end up being forced to spend their time either helping or cleaning up after paid editors. My view is that paid editing is an increasingly significant systemic bias in Wikipedia, and we need policy that can address it systemically. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Joe Roe: Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Joe Roe 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 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support as conominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support - I'm finding what I look for in an administrator dropping rapidly from "high hopes" to "please just be an okay person". In this case though, my opinion of Joe Roe rockets past "okay" and settles around "deeply impressed". I'm impressed at their content, their clue and their civility. An obvious candidate from two experienced nominators -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Some very nice writing done at Margaret Ursula Jones. Mkdw ^talk 17:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support - Adequate tenure and contributions, decent shape of the pie chart, clean block log, no indications of assholian tendencies. Seeking tools for AfD closing is a +1 for me, there are too many non-administrative closes. So how is that win-loss rate opining at AfD, that's the big question, isn't it? Voting Keep or Speedy Keep, he is 98 wins and 1 loss, voting Delete he is 123-10 (omitting Merge and Redirect results, which can be random). That's pretty fucking good work, pardon my French, especially doing that well with Keep votes in a Deletion-oriented venue. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Count corrected: Carrite (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support - Generally, for what I said at his ORCP. This is an editor who has experience dealing with content and provides in-depth and reflective comments at AFD -- even if it is not always keeping pace with the rest of the herd.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
7. Support Collegial, able, measured candidate, who gives no cause for concern. Neil S. Walker (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
8. Support: Ability to maintain one of the best temperaments consistently in contentious situations is beyond impressive. Alex Shih (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
9. Support - no concerns. I am also very unconcerned with finding 3 cases of bad AfD votes or nominations out of 366. Can we please stop focusing on tiny mistakes, and evaluate the editor as a whole? For everyone one of those AfD errors, there are over 100 good contributions. Admins should be held to a high standard, but not perfection. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
10. Support Has been around since 2005 and well versed in policy has created over 80 articles and 93.5% of AfD's were matches as of now.Clear Netpositive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
11. Support While we haven't always agreed, and while opinionated, Joe is willing to compromise. A great record at AfD, and with a reasonably red (if sparse) CSD log. CSD and PROD aren't as necessary as they were in the days before ACTRIAL, but AfD could always use more help. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
12. Support Moderate person, that can "administrate" himself. Maybe, will be a good enough as an administrator for another--Noel baran (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
13. Support Why the hell not?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
14. Support- No reason to oppose the candidate, and every reason to support the candidate. Cocohead781 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
15. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
16. Support, I do not see any issues at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
17. Support - Would be a fine administrator. Hummerrocket (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
18. Support per nom, and because he has created a reasonable number of articles and some OK content. Dysklyver 21:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
19. Support - I've worked with Joe a number of times and think he would do great. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
20. Support based on the reputations of the co-nominators and the nominee's answer to my question. His percentage of edits to mainspace could be higher, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
21. Support on the strength of the nominatorswho I have great confidence in. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
22. Support - (edit conflict) Wishing the best for Joe Roe. I do not see any issues on WP and AfD. —BLIR ^Gobble _Gobble 🦃 ^Sign 22:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
23. Support - no red flags, has good qualifications. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 23:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
24. Support -- good contributions and suitable temperament; would be a value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
25. Support- experienced editor and will be a good addition to the group of admins. FITINDIA 01:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
26. Yes. Polite, helpful, and an asset to the project. To create and take Margaret Ursula Jones to GA in less than a month is pretty good going. SilkTork (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
27. Support per nom. --Joshualouie711^talk 03:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
28. Support, looks fine to me. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
29. Support- likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
30. Support Useful contributor to the project, will do well with the tools. Spencer^T♦C 03:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
31. Support I think I have never interacted with Joe before. But I have seen his work regularly, mostly through NPP/R. Joe has a clear understanding of the policies, and guidelines. He is polite, and level headed. I see no issues. Some would say is CSD log short (one editor in neutral section has raised this doubt), but Joe has shown his understanding of deletion policies through other contributions. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
32. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 10:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
33. Support Don't know the lad, but what has been written and answered seems promising. A couple of silly mistakes at AfD but I think they have been pointed out; he can take note and learn from those complaints. My name is not dave (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
34. Support. Don't think I've worked with him directly, but I've seen him around. His Answers and nominations give a good indication that he is fit for the role. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
35. Support - I see no issues. Seems to be a highly qualified candidate. Best of luck. Patient Zero^talk 11:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
36. Support Not a username I'm familiar with, but having done a bit of research, that's to my shame. Looks like an excellent candidate, I have no hesitation in supporting. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
37. Support - No issues here, looks pretty qualified for the job! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
38. Support - I like his article contributions, and reading through the previous comments I'm glad to see there are no glaring issues with his work in the past. If there's only one issue we can find in all the years he's had editing here (that one AfD which imo he is justified for) I take that as a positive sign that he's an all around good editor. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
39. Support A cursory look at their editing history did not turn up anything that would give me pause (or worse). JR looks qualified and I trust the judgement of the nominators. No red flags + Clue = net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
40. Support: I don't see any issues and can be a highly trusted editor. Good luck with the mop. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
41. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
42. Support Any concerns I had have been taken care of by the candidate's answer to my question. Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
43. Support! (edit conflict)About a week ago I was looking at something you said, and happened to hoverlink your name, where I was surprised to see you weren't an admin. I appreciate your work at the teahouse and help desk, where I believe you have helped me a couple of times. While I have no problem with you planning to stick to AFD and NPP, I do wish you would get a bit more experience in counter vandalism (the first, last, and only time you reported someone to AIV was in 2011). Enjoy mopping, L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC).
44. Support First came across him here. Although he expressed rather impassioned view, it shows he has the 'integrity of the project' at heart, and that's good quality of an admin in my view.  — Ammarpad (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
45. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
46. Support Strong candidate. The nominations (and the nominators) are persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
47. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 18:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
48. Support Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
49. Support - I'm not sure if I've ever encountered Joe before, but I get the sense that he can be trusted with the responsibilities that come with being an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
50. Support Good answers to questions, no concerns. South Nashua (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
51. Support: Although some editors have found concerns, they are not enough for me to not support this. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 20:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
52. Support Sensible deportment, balanced experience, logical answers. Lourdes 20:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
53. Support. Seems level-headed from my interactions with them, and appears to have a good handle on assessing consensus and deletion rationale at AfD. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
54. Support. I have a very high opinion of both of the nominators, and everything I see here makes me trust the candidate. I take particular note of the fact that, when presented with criticism of his positions at (just a few) AfDs, he accepted that he had made mistakes and did not try to dig in his heels. I never expect admins (or anyone else) to never make mistakes, but I expect them to be open to changing their minds. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
55. Support. On a cursory look through contributions, I see lots of good work, plus the ability to admit mistakes. —Kusma (t·c) 22:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
56. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
57. Support. I have never interacted with "Joe", however his answers to the questions submitted are very good and gives me the feeling that "Joe" is very sincere. "Joe" may have committed some minor mistakes while editing in the past, so what? haven't we all? We learn through our mistakes and learning is a continuous life process. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
58. Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
59. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
60. Support I spent some time looking through his AFD input, his talk page archive, and his contributions early, middle, and recently in his editing career. I looked at some of the ninety-something articles he created. I was impressed with his writing, his wiki-gnoming, and his knowledge of archaeology. I found two instances where another editor was angry about some edit he had done,(and done appropriately) and he responded to their angry screeds by cited the policies and reasoning behind his edits, explaining clearly why his edit was called for, and worked to calm the other person down. I think he will be a valuable addition to the ranks of administrators. Edison (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
61. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
62. Support. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
63. Support eminently qualified content creator who will be a clear net positive with the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
64. Support two bad AfD votes (out of over 300) in the past year is not a reason to oppose, in fact that accuracy level is a reason to support. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
65. Support Professionalism is critical for adminship, and Joe Roe has a record of civility. Natureium (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
66. Support Great editor! Lockerson (talk · contribs) 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
67. Support Excellent content work. A couple of blips dug up below, but they don't worry me too much (per Carrite & others above). Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
68. Strong support - Excellent word, both in content creation and admin related things. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
69. Support will do good work as an admin. Net positive. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The candidate's behavior just a very few months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Devaney (2nd nomination) is embarrassing to say the least. A speedy delete when the outcome was always an obvious keep might be explained by some misunderstanding, but we are offered no such explanation. Can it be explained by inexperience? Apparently not -- this is a 2017 vote. The candidate would like to work in NPP and AfD areas, so such a huge blind spot is a problem. The candidate's strongest contribution is listed as Margaret Ursula Jones, which contains the classic text "in 1956 they began working as a freelance archaeologist for the Ministry of Works". There is no explanation of why M.U. Jones is credited with this work, but the contribution from her husband was submerged beneath a mere "they". Tom Jones -- the husband -- remains a redlink. This sort of behavior seems, to me, to be odd. The candidate may be able to explain it. MPS1992 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

   He suggested speedy delete based on G4: the article had been previously deleted and it appeared to be moved to mainspace to avoid the review of AfC reviewers. As a non-admin, Joe didn't have access to Special:Undelete, so he wouldn't have been able to see if the content was substantially different. I would have declined the G4 comparing the two articles, but I also have the advantage of being able to look at the deleted revisions. I don't really think it fair to oppose Joe based on information he had no access to. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

   I have to disagree on that. By !voting G4, he expressed an opinion that the previous consensus (from 2014) still applies to the new article. The new article however contained information the 2014 article could not have contained (see my !vote below) which anyone, not only an admin, could and should have seen. Maybe we should refrain from all commenting on a single !vote and let the candidate reply to it iff they think it wise to clarify their !vote back then? Regards SoWhy 08:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

   I've followed up on this in response to SoWhy's comment in the neutral section below. – Joe (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

   I note that Ms Devaney’s article is a BLP containing accusations of kidnapping; erring on the side of deletion for stuff like that is a reasonable stance to take. Since the article was kept at AfD, it has seen several content disputes and SPAs edit warring on it, so keeping it might be considered a bit of a phyrric victory. Just my 2c. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

   I concur with the above comments as leaning on the side of caution in the situation of G4 possibility and possible defamatory content is more than a reasonable stance to make on that AfD. Also, forgetting to check MUSICBIO over 10 months ago is definitely not half a ground to oppose in my opinion. Further, others including admin Primefac had as well. Anyway he would have almost certainly changed his !vote had he checked back on that. J947 ^{(c · m)} 05:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

   Oh, Primefac just missed that chart. Other points are still valid though. J947 ^{(c · m)} 05:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni the G4 is ten months ago, I won't oppose over such an old mistake unless there were more recent examples showing it to be an ongoing problem. But I don't accept that this was a mistake that only an admin could have avoided. The previous AFD was in 2014, at the time of the 2017 AFD the article referred to a "first major release" in 2015 that "went platinum" in 2016. That info was available to non admins, suggesting G4 on an article whose major assertion of notability is dated more recently than the previous AFD debate is sloppy, the sort of mistake that should deter an aspirant for adminship from running for several months. ϢereSpielChequers 08:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

   I !voted "keep" in that AfD, but it was a marginal case and on a different day I might have !voted "delete". Here's why. If I do a Google News search for "Charlotte Devaney", and filter on hits that would normally meet WP:BLPSOURCES and existed in January, I get : "Lapdancers cleared of kidnapping club boss who refused to pay them" (The Daily Telegraph), "Cheltenham lapdancers cleared of kidnapping" (BBC News), "Cheltenham lapdancing club boss 'lied' about kidnap" (BBC News), "Three lapdancers kidnapped boss after he refused to pay them, court hears" (The Guardian), "Nightclub boss 'lied about being kidnapped'" (Birmingham Mail), "Out of control’ lap dancers ignored no-stripping rule, says club boss" (Daily Telegraph), "Lapdancers kidnapping of Cheltenham club boss 'pure fantasy'" (BBC News), "Cheltenham lapdancers' 'heavy' Alex Morris jailed" (BBC News). So this talk about meeting WP:MUSBIO or the film appearance is kind of missing the elephant in the room about the kidnapping, which is the only thing the major national broadsheet news sources talk about. Certainly, not everyone likes the kidnapping and some have tried to remove it or replace the citations with "better" ones like the Daily Star. ([1], [2]), ([3]), plus the principal contributor to the article was blocked for sockpuppetry. I smell a paid editor, or at the very least someone with a massive conflict of interest. Bringing us bang up to date, there's been a run of edits adding that Devaney is Renee Short's granddaughter, without sources, naturally; fortunately none of them brought up this Daily Mail hit piece that also talks about her drug addiction. To cut a long story short, this article is a complete train-wreck, and deleting it per G4 (and by extension, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:TNT) is well within the bounds of administrator discretion, in my view. (See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Charlotte Devaney). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

   Such a deletion may be perfectly justified, but please label it correctly. "Per WP:BLP and WP:TNT" is a deletion rationale I can accept any day under WP:IAR. Pretending something is a G4 that isn't a G4 is absolutely not okay. Admins have to be accountable to the community, and clearly labelling your deletions is an important part of preserving that accountability. If a new article about the same person isn't a repost, but there clearly is substantial new content, do not delete it "per G4". —Kusma (t·c) 10:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I can think of several admins who would have deleted this via G4 even with the ability to view the deleted version and likely had their call upheld at DRV because of the reasons Ritchie explained: the interpretation where sourcing and information that post-dates an XfD disqualifies an article from G4 is one commonly held position but it is certainly not the only one. I do hold that interpretation personally, but it’s also something I’m likely not going to notice unless I’m comparing the versions side-by-side and checking the articles against each other. The ability to see the deleted text is helpful here and I can’t really fault non-admins for viewing it as G4 without that ability, especially given the history of attempts to create. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

   Joe !voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Devaney (2nd nomination) on 3 January 2017. I !voted in the Afd giving multiple links to keep on 11 January 2017. The Afd was closed on 18 January 2017. Joe neither reviewed his position in the 15 intervening days, nor commented to justify his continuing G4 !vote. If the argument is that Joe doesn't review !votes after leaving them in Afds (and that's why couldn't review the !vote), I wouldn't accept that because in my review of his contributions, he is a model editor reviewing all his discussions till they close. Ergo, I am led to believe that this is simply a gross misunderstanding by Joe, which he continued to believe in for a fortnight despite significant logic to the contrary. Joe himself accepts below: "I overlooked the discrepancy between the 2016 information and the original deletion in 2014, which I agree merited a fresh consideration of the subject's notability." Some of our current admins commit errors – deleting/declining speedies under mistaken criteria, relisting Afds without considering the reengineered softdelete option, etc – but the important part is, they accept these errors when pointed out, correct them and we all move on happily. We should leave this at simply that. Joe made a mistake, accepts it, and wouldn't probably repeat this in the future. And even if he does, I expect Joe to be absolutely amenable to course correction when and if pointed out. Lourdes 11:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now (leaning support). Seeing Ritchie and Tony banding together to nominate someone seemed like a clear sign to support but a first look at some of the AFD participation makes me hesitate. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Devaney (2nd nomination), the candidate argued that an article met G4 when the article for discussion contained noteworthy information that could not have been in the previously deleted version from 2014 (namely receiving Gold certification in 2016). He also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Penna for failing WP:NSPORT which smacks of ignoring WP:BEFORE since a short Google search confirms he played in Lega Basket Serie A (WP:NBASKETBALL). And at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Heywood he argued for deletion based on failing WP:PROF without considering other guidelines that were mentioned. I'll sit here for now until I had some time to check more of his contributions but if that's all I can find, I expect I'll move to support. Regards SoWhy 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

   @SoWhy: You asked if I would respond above, and I'm happy to do so. In retrospect, I would say both Charlotte Devaney and Lorenzo Penna were mistakes on my part. In Charlotte Devaney, my thought process was that it was a create-protected page, had been deleted four times (three under G4), declined at AfC nine times, and finally moved out of draftspace out-of-process (circumventing the create protection). In that context, although I couldn't be sure, I thought it was likely that it was another attempt to recreate the same article. However, I overlooked the discrepancy between the 2016 information and the original deletion in 2014, which I agree merited a fresh consideration of the subject's notability. Similarly, with Lorenzo Penna, I overlooked that he'd played in Serie A – I remember slapping my forehead when Rikster2 pointed it out! They were both learning experiences for me. Since then I've tried to be more cautious about nominations in SNG-covered topics that I don't know a lot about (especially sport). – Joe (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

2. (edit conflict) Neutral (leaning support): The CSD log is much shorter than I'd like for someone who wants to do NPP work, which raises concerns for how good Joe's grasp of A7 is (as well as the more obscure CSD criteria). I'm also not thrilled with the Q3 response, which just deals with dispute resolution experience rather than situations which may have caused Joe stress. I find poor responses like that to be a strong yellow flag for RfA candidates in my book because I see RfAs as analogous to job interviews; attention to detail and the like should be at their highest they ever will be. That said, I don't have serious concerns, and I am hopeful that responses to subsequent questions will cause me to move to support. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

   I think that this stems more from caution than anything else. Joe tends to take stuff to AfD if it is marginal or borderline. I'd also like to point out that with ACTRIAL, CSDable articles are actually rather rare now. Have a look at my CSD log and you'll see a marked decrease after we cleared the NPP backlog of autoconfirmed submissions. Joe wasn't super involved with CSD before ACTRIAL, that is true, but it is nearly impossible to rack up the numbers that you used to anyway. We need to lower the bar a bit in terms of CSD now that they are more rare IMO. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

3. Leaning support, but not thoroughly impressed with the content work. Q3 response is also a little weak in my opinion. ceranthor 19:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Neutral - like SoWhy, I shall probably end up supporting, because there are no major skeletons in evidence, and having the support of veteran good guys like Ritchie and Tony is a good indicator of competence. I do agree with the sentiment expressed above that the "speedy delete" on the Charlotte Devaney nomination was ill advised. Although process, policy and guidelines are great to keep our project well oiled, it strikes me as a little lazy to use a failure to follow process as a sole reason to vote delete in an AfD, and speedy at that, without apparently looking at the present status of the article and assessing it on its own merits. That said, we all make mistakes, there are differences of opinion, and all of us are in a learning curve, so based on the WP:NETPOSITIVE principle I don't yet see a problem with giving them the bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Neutral Nice balance at AfD (a positive) but creating huge numbers of stubs rather than full articles, and showing spurts of activity over the years is not impressive. Leaving me on the wall. Collect (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

   I saw the spurts as well, but figured that 5 solid years (3 and 2) was still good. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

   Wikipedia needs editors (and administrators) of all shapes and sizes. Some people have different focuses than others, that doesn't mean they're any less valuable or knowledgeable. South Nashua (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

6. Neutral for the mean time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahveotm (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I'm very concerned when someone wants to work in CSD requests, NPP, and AfD, when they don't seem to fully understand CSD (as noted for example re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Devaney (2nd nomination) even if he now admits his error), have a very brief CSD log [4], and have less than 15,000 edits to their name (my cut-off is at least 20,000 for an admin candidate). I'm very concerned that valuable but incomplete/malformed/etc. good-faith articles may get deleted by this user and that he may not perform the necessary investigations and have the necessary circumspection and sufficient CSD knowledge. If this RfA passes, if there is even a shred of any doubt in a CSD or AfD case, Joe should pass the case by and instead present it to a highly experienced CSD/AfD admin. Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)