Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang

Steven Zhang

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (97/19/1); 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. I have no real strong opinion on Abuse response, it looks like a specialised board for a specialised task, and isn't handled elsewhere. Continuous vandalism from an IP has to be dealt with somehow, blocks work too but at times can cause collateral damage, so this looks like an appropriate way to have it dealt with in the long term, contacting the ISP. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:53, 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)

Optional question from →Στc.

7. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: There's a few things I'd consider in this situation, the type of IP address, the edits they made, and the wording of the unblock request. The IP is semi-permanent, so while on one hand collateral damage from a block would be low, on the other it is more likely that the user making the edits on Monday is the same one that edited five days before hand. This is also backed up by the fact that on both occasions they edited articles related to dentistry. As for their edits, all but one was either vandalism or an attack on another editor. Two of the three unblock requests they made were also either rude or disruptive. That said, they did make one reasonable edit and their last unblock request was reasonable.

Having considered all the circumstances, I would decline the unblock request, however provide them a {{2nd chance}}. Normally blocks I place I would leave for another administrator to review, but in this situation I think that there's no issue with this course of action. I see their interests are related to dentistry, so I'd suggest they select an article that interests them to improve, and keep an eye on their talk page. We're unable to see someone's true intentions from words only, but their actions. If they are genuine about wanting to do the right thing, they would jump at the opportunity to prove themselves. While blocks are cheap and relatively easy to re-apply for issues like vandalism, given their history I think this is the best way to open the door back for them, but minimise the potential for further disruption to the encyclopaedia. It seems like a win-win situation to me. They may opt to take up the offer and improve an article. Or they may not. Either way, no harm has been done. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from Surturz

Have you participated in any off-wiki (e.g. email) communication in regards to this RfA?

A: Yes, I have. Over the past few months I have been approached through email and IRC by editors asking me why I am not an admin, if I intend to run for RFA, or even offering to nominate me. Before I started this RFA, I discussed the events of 2008 to ensure I didn't leave anything out and presented a full and complete picture in this rfa. I had these discussions between myself and both current and former members of the Arbitration Committee, users that were involved at the time. In addition I also discussed this with my nominators. As is usual with an editor who is considering an RFA I asked a few of the most experienced editors, including my nominators, to see if they thought if I was ready for RFA.

Given the increasing rarity of RFA's, there is always disscusion on IRC in #wikipedia-en about new admin requests and this RFA has been no different in that regard. However, it has just been general chatter and I do try to keep out of them bar the obvious acknowledgement of "yes I am at RFA" and thanking them when someone says something like "good luck".

9. Has there been any off-wiki canvassing for your RfA either by you or other editors? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A: As far as I am aware, no, there has not been any canvassing by myself or anyone else in regards to this RFA, either for or against me. A few editors have expressly asked me to let them know when this RFA was going live but there have not been any unsolicited approaches by myself or to the best of my knowledge, by anyone else to get responses to this page. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Fluffernutter

10. There have been some comments in the discussion below about how your password and/or general account security might not be trustworthy based on your past history. Can you detail (without, obviously, BEANSing) what sort of account security level/strategy you use, and whether that will change at all if you are granted the mop?

A:

Optional questions from Ched.

11. I was notified off-wiki by multiple people of this RfA within an hour of it's transclusion. (not by Steve, but perhaps because I was the primary nom of the 2009 RfA). The gist of many of the contacts I received revolved around the issues of socking(?), the Mellie account, your wife(?), the harassment she endured - and/or your use of that and any other account(s). While I could indeed answer some of the questions myself, I also believe in a right to privacy and value any confidentiality you've entrusted to me, so: As far as you are comfortable in disclosing any of your personal details, could you inform us as to the following. Are you still married to this "Mellie" account? Is your wife still an active editor on WP? (one link simply lead to a page that stated the user name was to prevent impersonation) Do you use "her" account, (under what name) and does she use yours? Do you both share the same computer? .. and what security measures have you instituted to ensure that any administrative actions or editing from the "Steve Zang" account are actually "you" .. and not your wife? What steps have you taken to protect her/yourself/your family from any further or future harassment? — Ched :  ?  18:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A:

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.
• Candidate's AfD stats posted to talk page.

---

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

Comment: I have seen many a RfA torpedoed due to "off-wiki" communication, such as email, IRC, etc. I think it's important to note that while we do value transparency in any decision making process regarding our "ON-wiki" project, I think it's a bit unrealistic to suggest that none of us should ever be in contact with each other "OFF-wiki". There are friends here, meet-ups, people who live in the same towns, and even in the same houses. We communicate in a very wide range of ways in this digital age, and to condemn a person simply because they use email, IRC, Facebook, Twitter, texting, etc., is not only unrealistic, but also unhealthy. I'm not saying that a decision to block, ban, protect a page .. whatever should be done anywhere BUT "ON-wiki", but to expect someone to forgo options available to them in various other communication venues is simply not a reason to "oppose". Thank you. — Ched :  ?  18:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC) (full disclosure: I do indeed know of Steve outside of WP, although we've never met, we have communicated in other areas)

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)

    I'm ruddy well judging you. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:42, 7 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)

    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) Moving to neutral. Some of the opposes have led me to question my support. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

37. 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)
38. 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)
39. 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)
40. Support I trust him and trust that he has learned his lesson --Guerillero | My Talk 22:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

    Support. I think Steven is one of the best non admins in wikipedia Rookie1219 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

    Note: Rookie1219 has been blocked as a sock of indef blocked user:Pokemonblackds. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

    It should at least be indented, I will leave it to someone else to judge whether it should be totally removed. Monty₈₄₅ 02:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

41. Support: This user knows the wheels here, and what happened in the past is in the past. Thanks for answering my question! ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 23:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
42. Support. From the great state of Victoria, so it's not surprising that he's a good bloke. I trust him to use the admin tools appropriately. Jenks24 (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
43. Support as I also did last time. We are all prone to occasional error and those who can admit and learn from error are valuable to the project, as are those who can forgive them. Steven's having access to the tools seems like a net positive. --John (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
44. Support From my experience Steven is an exceptional editor, my only qualm with him is the fact we both have a heterosexual man crush on Jack Bauer even though we all know Jack loves me more so he has no shot. Peter.C • talk • contribs 01:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
45. Support - Theres no reason to dwell on something from literally years ago. The tools can always be taken away if the user gets into mischief. --Kumioko (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. When I saw the nomination, I thought, "He's not already an admin?" I was unaware of the prior bad behavior. I would have opposed the nomination in 2009, and maybe even if he had run in 2010, but the work he's done with MedCab and DRN show a clear change towards extremely valuable and productive engagement with the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
47. Support My interactions with this user have been very positive. He does great work at the Dispute resolution noticeboard and at MEDCAB. The incident from 2008 isn't really concerning. I don't believe he would do something like that again. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
48. Support The password incident is pretty shocking stuff, a lot worse than I had expected on reading the teasers on this page. But, this mea culpa is also quite impressive and, on the balance, this is a risk worth taking. --regentspark (comment) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
49. Absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
50. Support - What happened in '08 was bad, but I think he has made up for it, and it has been three years. Valuable contributor in a number of ways. AlexiusHoratius 04:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
51. Support. The candidate is qualified. I think he's learned from past mistakes. More importantly, he has a solid track record during the past couple of years. Majoreditor (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
52. Support. DRN was a pretty great idea, contribs suggest he will even more helpful in his current administrative-type task given the tools and he clearly knows how to handle himself in heated disputes. I mean, not only can he help out with mundane topics like abortion, but he has the guts to venture into Windows related disputes! Danger ^{High voltage!} 05:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
53. Support. 2008 was a long time ago, as was 2009. Since then Steve has been an active and model Wikipedian. He's worked hard in the mediation area which is so desperately needed. He spearheaded DRN, which is also a great asset sure to grow in the coming years. His original crime was, if anything, being overzealous to be a part of the process. It seems he has harnessed that for the greater good, and will continue to add to our ongoing improvement. That said, he is entrusted with a good deal here, so he should know that there won't be as much slack for mischief as an admin, considering he's already been one twice! :p (note, he was not *really an admin before). Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
54. Support I've had excellent interactions with Steven, and I've found him to be very helpful and polite. 2008 is forever ago, and Steven seems to have learned from his mistake.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 06:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
55. Support. Great candidate with track of excellent work in Wikipedia: in my opinion he has already done an admin type work. Divide et Impera (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
56. Support. I see Steven everywhere and I have absolutely no reason to believe he would abuse the tools. The opposition is unconvincing - if Steve had joined the project two years ago , they'd be none the wiser. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
57. Support One of the things I most admire in Steven is his openness and honesty in dealing with the (ages-old) incident. It would have been extremely easy for him simply to have resigned from that account, created another one under another name, and just come back as someone else. In which case, nobody, as far as I can see, would have had any qualms on giving him a mop now. The fact that his honesty about the earlier incident is effectively now used against him makes me uncomfortable. We're all human, we all make mistakes (particularly in our over-zealous and impatient youth), and many of us can regret those mistakes, be honest about them, and turn over a completely new leaf. This is what Steven has done. The Steven of now has excellent interaction skills with other users, even difficult ones, and has shown superb judgment in (particularly) the Abortion debate. His work there was quite brilliant, and an example to us all in terms of patience and insight with a very tricky situation. His tagging is acceptably accurate and trustworthy, and he works hard, and well, and consistently. If he had been a new editor in the latter part of 2009, with the record he has made since then, nobody would be likely to oppose this at all. I strongly feel that it is very wrong for us to hold years'-old sins against people. People do grow; people do change. We need to accept this, and to move on, as Steven clearly has done. I don't think that there is the remotest possibility that, having worked so hard and well since then, he would abuse the mop. Time to say yes. Just adding (and I hope Steven can forgive me!) It's important to remember that he was in his teens at the time of that earlier mistake. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
58. I think most people are probably going to disagree with me when I say this, but I don't think Steve's err in judgment in 2008 was really all that big of a deal. Yes, I do think he rightfully lost the community's trust for doing what he did. It was inappropriate for Steve to log into Chet and Peter's accounts to perform admin actions. It was also poor judgment to use another editor's account on Simple English Wikipedia despite being banned from this site for having done exactly the same thing here. But aside from those breaches of policy, Steve never did any harm to Wikipedia through his actions. And that's why I have always opposed his ban. We basically told an invaluable contributor that he's no longer welcome on Wikipedia just because he made some huge mistakes, and he remained gone for several months. He owned up to his decisions and accepted the consequences for them. There was no need to punish him any further. But that was way back in 2008; here we are in 2011. Times have changed, and so has Steve. I think he would be a huge asset as an administrator, particularly at SPI, so I'm supporting. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
59. Support after some deliberation. It is a net positive kind of thing. JORGENEV 11:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
60. Support It's been over 3 years since the incident, which had no serious long lasting effects. I notice that Coffee and PeterSymonds are both admins who regained tools after they were removed following this incident. Opposers using this as an excuse to oppose prove the classic idea at RFA that you can never be forgiven for anything on Wikipedia. Anyway, no reason why this candidate won't make a good admin. AD 11:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
61. Support per above. Graham87 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
62. Support. Intelligent mediation of Holodomor. (Time served for lapse in judgment, so let's welcome back into the community.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
63. Support - I've seen him around and looks like a great candidate. -- Luke (Talk) 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
64. Support. He seems sufficiently experienced and a reasonable person. He did make some mistakes 2-3 years ago, but he's been quite open about them, and the other Wikipedians involved in that password sharing issue were forgiven since then. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
65. Support - He seems like a great candidate and his blocks happened three years ago and everyone makes mistakes on Wikipedia. If he turned his editing around after the blocks then he is a great candidate. You can't hold someones blocks against them forever. TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
66. Support The incident that happened two years ago is two years gone, and it seems, to some level, he has regained trust in the community and has bettered himself after the fact. If anything fishy happens while he has the mop, something can always be done then. In response to Townlakes oppose, I say: The Benefits outweigh the risks. Good luck! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
67. The lack of trust shown in the opposition has proven to me that there are people, who after 3 years, cannot seem to forgive an error, and who cannot look past the one bad judgement error to see the 3 solid years of contributions to this wiki. This is disgusting. Steven Zhang is a well-rounded, dedicated, extremely clueful user who made a slip up 3 years ago. It's amazing that people can't see the opportunity presented to us. We need admins. Steven is more than capable of this role. (X! · talk)  · @769  ·  17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
68. Support - user didn't delete the main page. And good answers to questions. →Στc. 17:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
69. Support - the fact that this user continued editing after his problems in 2008 is commendable. I'm sure most people would simply dis-own their old account and create a new account thus giving the impression of being free of any controversy. I'm sure that lots of people have done that including many admins. User seems respected and has significant support.ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
70. Support Awesome guy! he Needs admin tools again! I've know him for a while and he's a really great guy. So it's a definite support from me! --Zalgo (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
71. Support .Sole Soul (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
72. Support. I too have noticed this user's many helpful contributions to the Mediation Cabal and as such believe that he certainly passes the aptitude test here. SuperMarioMan 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
73. Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
74. Support No reason not to; user does good stuff, no evidence of problems. Imagine if this were a 2-year user; we wouldn't even think about this? Forgive and forget, surely. Xe did something REALLY extremely stupid, years ago; and that's been pointed out quite a lot. I doubt very much that xe'll do anything similar every again. And the contribs since are fine fine. No concerns here.  Chzz  ►  21:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
75. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBloemink (talk • contribs)
76. Support. Yes, Steven has done much for the project in the past years but the incident in 2008 was really really bad with a healthy dose of cluenessless, so I'm wary to grant Steven the mop. On the other hand, he has, as Pedro correctly points out, accepted the blame, admitted his mistakes and worked tirelessly to make amends; being a firm believer that anyone should get a second chance, I'm willing to give Steven one as well Plus his actions will most likely be more closely scrutinized because of his past and thus any misuse will be identified swiftly anyway. Regards SoWhy 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
77. Support - Back in 2008 my and Steve's mindset was different... it was more of a "shoot, ask questions later" kind of thing. Neither Peter, Steve, or I harmed the encyclopedia by our actions, but we definitely didn't think them through and realize what the consequences might turn out to be. I think that is what is most important to note about his past actions. He's realized that actions like those during 2008-09 aren't acceptable, and he's realized it was a mistake and has apologized several times for it. He never intended to hurt this encyclopedia he was simply impatient, as I'm sure we all have been. Wikipedia is a site made for people who have a passion for spending their time helping others, and Steve's been doing that since he got here. Looking at his triumphs in the mediation area one can see how he is very level-headed, and that the so-called rash actions are in his past on this site. Anyone can see now that Steve deserves the mop, and that he is a net positive to this encyclopedia. I too see no worries in handing the simple tools of adminship to Steve, and I'm positive no one in the oppose section can tell me how he would possibly do harm to this site. The human brain is a complex thing, more complex than any computer on earth, yet we as humans are prone to making mistakes - it's how we learn everything about ourselves and the world around us, "through trial and error". If we were to be stopped from advancing forward during our short life due to every mistake we make, be it small or large, we would all end up locking ourselves inside our homes waiting for death to take us away. </purposefully dramatic>. I and other admins have become less active, and it seems (to me at least) that there needs to be more administrators helping maintain this site; I also completely trust Steven Zhang will not abuse his tools. Therefore, I support his RFA and wish him luck in his new endeavors as an administrator. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
78. I've looked through the candidate's recent deleted edits and am content. Few would dispute that the candidate is well qualified based on the last couple of years edits. That leaves one issue, should the previous events be regarded as time expired? My view on this is pragmatic, I would prefer that people who have made mistakes continue with the project rather than leave or exercise cleanstart. So when a candidate stands who chose not to cleanstart from events this old it is important that we don't judge them to a harsher standard than if they had exercised cleanstart and we were just judging their last two years contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 01:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
79. Support - I think the candidate has atoned enough for what he did in '08, and will make an excellent Administrator.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
80. Support - Candidate is well-qualified in all respects with the exception of the "catastrophic error of judgement" as the nom statement puts it. Disclosure of the error has been extremely transparent. The candidate has the support of a large number of distinguished Wikipedians who believe that enough time has passed, and that the candidate deserves a chance at redemption. I concur--Hokeman (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
81. I don't think I've ever disagreed with Chase me ladies, WilliamH, Fluffernutter, and Courcelles simultaneously, and I see no reason to start now. All of those editors make sound arguments, and I will add that we will all make some kind of "monumental fuck up" at some point in our lives and probably in our tenure as Wikipedians (I have). Steven has served his time, he's matured, and now he's making us a good-faith offer of assistance, the likes of which we can't afford to turn down too often. He clearly has the requisite technical skill and the enthusiasm; everything else you can learn on the job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
82. Support - While the episode 2 years ago is quite concerning, I think enough time has passed, and the full disclosure was the right way to handle this. Looking at the candidate's contributions, it's clear he's not here for malicious purposes; and even if he was, he'd be quickly desysopped if he deleted the main page. One of the best ways to motivate someone to do good work is to put your trust in them. I say let him help out. —SW— ^chat 04:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
83. Support — I've interacted with Steven through IRC and I truly think he'll be a good admin. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
84. Support The spirit of Wikipedia has always been to believe that people who make mistakes can change and learn from their mistakes. I'll encourage the opposing editors to view Steven's candidacy in this perspective. Wifione ^Message 09:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
85. Support while I don't know the candidate or have ever really spoken to him, I've heard nothing but good things about his work these days, and nothing but good things about his personality. Can't find a reason to oppose. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 10:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
86. Support For sure. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
87. Support I've seen Steven's work on Wikipedia a lot and, based on experience, can only support this nomination. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
88. Support, 2 years is plenty of time to atone for one really really really dumb mistake. No concerns at all. fish&karate 13:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
89. Support — I've been working with Steve at DRN and MedCab and have found that he is energetic, efficient, and chock-a-block with good ideas. I've rarely encountered anyone who has the good of the encyclopedia so much at heart as Steve and he'd make a great sysop. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
90. Support Despite the disgusting behaviour of one of the supporters, Stephen Zhang is an excellent candidate. I personally thought he was an admin already, and after a decent review I can see why I did. His temperment and knowledge are excellent. Perhaps he did slip up two years ago, I remain unconvinced that that has any bearing on his request today. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
91. Over two years ago I opposed Steven Zhang's previous RfA, citing the Simple Wikipedia incident in conjunction with the earlier account sharing plus a few other smaller concerns; however, I also said I disagreed with the "never" comments, and that I'd be willing to support at a later date. To now support is what I have decided to do, and I'll explain why: the PeterSymonds/Coffee account sharing and incident happened well over three years ago...more than long enough for someone to learn, mature and rebuild their trust, as Steven Zhang has done. That error notwithstanding, Steven Zhang is a highly experienced editor, and could quite easily have abandoned his account after the news broke, created a new account, and returned to adminship a few months later without anyone knowing. Instead, he has stuck with his original account, been honest, and worked hard to restore his image...a fair more difficult undertaking. I have been familiar (at least in observations, as I don't recall ever interacting with him) with Steven Zhang long before the sharing was revealed, and based on everything I know I do not believe he would be a bad admin; and nor do I think he would share his own admin account with anyone else (this assuming, of course, that this RfA is successful), thus creating a similar scenario to what happened years ago. He is constantly doing good work in the places where he chooses to edit, and there are no faults that I'm aware of. Finally, I have confidence in both the nominators, and know that Pedro and Doug would never have nominated if they thought that Steven Zhang would make a similar error to the one three years ago. As a past oppose, I now support. Good luck, Steven. Acalamari 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
92. Support. Steven's last major issue was back in 2008, and while it was a very concerning issue, it's been three years and he's had time to mature, and mature he has. He's a well-qualified candidate, and I'm happy to offer my support. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
93. Support I wouldn't call myself one of the candidate's "IRC friends" but we have spoken a couple of times. I did ask on IRC a week or so back why I haven't seen an RfA from him before because I see him around the project often and he mentioned that one might be forthcoming. He didn't tell me it was finally transcluded though, shame on him for not properly canvassing my support. Anyway, I have nothing but good thoughts about the candidate. Since the "2008 Stephen Crossin Incident", the candidate has had a collective 17 months (50+ edits) of editing. I'd say that is plenty to demonstrate that the candidate has matured and grown. It's too bad negative memories stick better than positive ones.--v/r - TP 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
94. Support. I have had numerous good interactions with Steven in the past, all of which demonstrate his experience and ability. He has been extremely helpful, particularly regarding SPI–an area where I'm not nearly as experienced as he. I am confident that Steven can be trusted with the tools, and I believe the issues in the past are just that: in the past. He will be a very valuable administrator. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
95. Support TNXMan 19:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
96. Support. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
97. Support. The user has been active on Wikipedia for over three years. During that time he has been very helpful in dispute resolution areas. He has grown since 2008. Even then, he showed wisdom and patience. I think he'd be an effective and uncontroversial admin.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 7 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)

   Pantherskin - are you aware we are in 2011 now? A few months shy of 2012 even.--v/r - TP 17:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Agreed - oppose for now. Maybe in another year? DS (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   How is that different than the three that have already elapsed?--v/r - TP 17:47, 7 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)

   Would you prefer that he stopped using the account which he was using then created a new one and pretended that nothing ever happened? Nobody would have ever known.--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 18:28, 6 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)

   No, that would be pointless. You either see the risks here or you don't. Townlake (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   Can you identify them? And maybe why?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   Doug, I support Steve 100%. But these other editors have a right to their lack of trust. It's not something they can define, it's something they feel, and they're not "wrong" to feel that way (they're just mistaken, in my judgement and the judgement of 90% of us). Let's leave them alone; if Steve's stand-up behaviour in keeping his personna publicly known since His Troubles won't convince them, nothing will. And maybe it will be good for Steve to have this as a reminder that there was a 10% minority lacking trust in him. If it keeps him humble (not an easy thing for someone with his talents), then the project is better served.HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:16, 6 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. Those who were regranted or given perms back should not have been, and this user for his part in this, should not be given them at all. BarkingFish  21:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for acknowledging you minor error [4] and clarifying your position. Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   Do you really think that a well-intended gross error of judgment by a teenager should be held against them for ever more? Surely you must have been a "normal" enough teenager, yourself, to have made idiotic mistakes? "Life without parole" A lifetime driving ban for the equivalent of "driving without a licence" (and without having done any damage to life or property whilst doing so) seems a little harsh, to me. In the real world - with real lives possibly endangered by an unlicensed driver - you'd be looking at a one-year driving ban, not a lifetime one. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   Your comparison isn't fair either. The equivalent of "life without parole" in this case is an indefinite ban from the site, which Steve is not subject to. I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but before you point out flaws in other peoples arguments, you may want to look for flaws in your own. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   Good point, well made. I shall change that wording! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose - The earlier incidents of course, but also other things I've personally noted in the past years that make a general impression on me. I can't support. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Snowolf put it quite well; this user's contributions may be valuable but I do not trust him with admin tools. — Manticore 15:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose Seems too inexperienced. For example, he wants to be closing AFDs but he doesn't seem to have much experience of that forum. Warden (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   Uh, maybe you missed it in the nomination but Pedro mentioned how active Steve is at various fora, including AFD and I linked to Steve's Non-Admin Closures. Steve has done more at AFD than many admins; in fact, I have to say that Steve may have closed more AFD's than I have even participated in!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   These mostly seem to be very recent - just the last few days. What I'm not seeing is any evidence of ever having contributed to such discussions. It just seems to be a performance in support of this RfA. Warden (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   If Steve has been "performing" for this RfA, then his act is probably going to make this list. I understand some of these other editor's concerns, but lack of experience or activity is certainly not one of them. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   His NAC list is dated, and stretches back to 5 July 2011, rather than "just the last few days". →Στc. 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   I'm more interested in his actual contributions to AFD discussions. Again, these are very recent - all but two in the last week. And it is interesting to observe that his comments are usually towards the end of the discussion; as if he's playing it safe. I want admin candidates to have a sustained track record but this candidate's editing history seems too patchy and staged. Warden (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   While I can't speak to the matters at AFD directly, I can say that an editor interested in "playing it safe" would never have stepped into the abortion debate like this. Steven entered a snake pit with that one, when no one else was willing to step in. Taking a stance at an AFD is chickenshit compared to that; Steve is certainly not afraid of controversy or of taking a stand. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   Uhm, this leaves me rather confused, Steven is a highly experienced user, that has been aroung for a long time and worked in many different areas. Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, but he really doesn't lack experience :S Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   The length of time is not a good guide in this case because the candidate has gone for long periods without much editing. His current burst of activity is about six months. Before that, he hardly edited at all for a year. Warden (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   @Warden: I think to say that he doesn't have much experience in this area is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and his accuracy in that area. Whatever your reasons for opposing candidates, you may wish to base your rationales on verifiability, and not on pure conjecture. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   I looked at every one of his AFD contributions. My impression is that his recent contributions to AFD were made to provide some numbers for the summary stats which you have now posted on the discussion page. With RfA in prospect, they are in the nature of campaigning, much as political candidates make a show of visiting factories. They may put on a hard hat for the occasion but is this convincing experience? Warden (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   All 210 of them? I don't want to sound presumptive, but by the same token you would suggest that anyone's edits are by nature of mounting a campaign for their eventual RfA? I'm not sure that everyone has such an agenda, and I certainly believe your judgement in this case to be erroneous. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   I am talking about his !votes. Now that you query the point, I'm looking at the output of SnottyWong's tool more closely. It said it was reporting his last 50 votes but only reported 15 so I thought that was all. Now I see that there are some older ones too - about 21. I'm not sure where the figure of 212 comes from - perhaps he was doing some sorting updates? Warden (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, he has only voted in twenty something discussions - My interpretation of Snotty's AFD tool is that care should be taken in any interpretation of the results (apart from the numbers voted in which is one of the most useful thing about the tool in that it makes accessing of a users comments for further investigation easy) as for more than that, voting late in discussions and only voting in line with clear cut prior consensus would give you a always voting in line with the outcome status. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   It seems the candidate does more work with non-admin closures and relistings than he does with actually voting. It might be worth taking a look at this slightly different tool which shows AfD closures. —SW— ^chat 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose - Even leaving aside the 2008 incident, the above comments reveal what is, to my mind, a rather unhealthy "cult of personality" around this user. An admin candidate who cannot be criticized, no matter how gently, without people popping up left and right to offer helpful non-sequiturs (oppose #2), bicker over technicalities (oppose #8), needle (#5) or just generally badger (#4) is, simply put, not healthy for the project, no matter how capable and trustworthy the candidate himself may or may not be. To put it another way, if Joe Blow Who Nobody Knows makes a weird block or a questionable XfD decision and I bring it up on AN/I, I can be reasonably confident that the subsequent discussion will be focused on the action itself (to the extent that AN/I discussion ever is). Here, I get the feeling that there'd be a lot of kneejerk reactions to support the decision of a guy people are personally buddies with, which leads to kneejerk reactions to oppose the decision of a guy who's part of the Wiki Cabal, which leads to kneejerk reactions to support a guy who's being unfairly targeted by the self-styled anti-cabalists, which leads to kneejerk reactions to oppose a guy who's being passionately defended by some other guy who made some bad blood on a random Talk page somewhere, which leads to... plenty of kneejerk reactions to go around, which itself leads to a lack of confidence on my part in the ensuing circus. Just too much emotion surrounding the candidate. I'm sorry, Steven. Badger Drink (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Well, I guess I should offer my apologies to both Badger Drink and Steven. You see, I have very little experience at RfA, but I had somehow been under the impression that (given that this is not a "vote") this was a forum for discussion of a candidate's qualifications for the mop, and because in my (apparently twisted) life's experience, "discussion" consists of people offering viewpoints and countering those with other viewpoints, I somehow thought that I was correctly engaging in the process. Had I realized that I was participating in the creation of a new Stalin, I would have just kept my mouth shut, so as to protect the Wikipedia community from this cult of personality. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not quite sure I understand this oppose. If you have a criticism against Steven, that's valid, and you're free to oppose based on that - but opposing because you don't like how people are discussing the candidate? How is that Steven's fault in any way? m.o.p 02:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Badger, with all due respect, I'm pretty sure that the emotion is not surrounding Steven himself, and therefore not a buddy / cabal / wossname thing; it's surrounding the fact that a non-actual-damage-causing mistake, made by a teenager, years ago, is now being held against an adult candidate. One of the many criticisms of RfA is that ancient sins are dragged up as reasons to oppose, and here we are, illustrating yet again that this is true. That's why people are emotional. Injustice does make people emotional. We can't hold things this old against someone. Statute of limitations, kinda thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   I don't listen to the IRC channels myself but recall some grumbling that there's a clique that hangs out there and which promotes their membership to become admins. The earlier trouble with passwords seemed to start on IRC. Is this the background to the badgering? Warden (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   You can find "cliques" everywhere you look, if you want to! Anyone is, of course, welcome in IRC. But any theoretical clique member would have a hard job promoting me, for example, for adminship! I've made it abundantly clear in oh-so-many places that I'm "Never gonna be a Nadmin"! So nobody but nobody could suggest that I'm in a "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" situation. My actions here have far more to do with addressing the problems being worked on by an RfA Reform task force than any theoretical cabalistic tendencies. I'm not at all sure that other supporters would wholly appreciate the subtle suggestion of any kind of "!vote-rigging", either. My apologies, of course, if that's not what you were suggesting, but your edit summary of "Oppose re IRC" leaves little room for doubt. May I respectfully suggest that you strike that comment out? Either that or, alternatively, if you really do mean it, make an appropriate report, in the appropriate place, as to who you think is / are meatpuppets of whom. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Within the span of five hours there's already three reply-threads to this !vote, which somewhat illustrates the exact concern I was doing my best to eloquate. From top to bottom: Husky, thanks for the stream of histrionic bullshit nicely bookending a lovely reference to Josef Stalin. It definitely helps to promote a calm and rational discussion, and I find it a very positive contribution that does not in the slightest way reflect poorly on the maturity of some of the supporters telling us the candidate is mature. M.O.P., the fact that this certain "backing band" (for lack of a better term) follows the candidate is, unfortunately, the candidate's problem, though not necessarily his fault - an extreme example would be someone born without arms being denied a position as a soccer goalkeeper. Not the guy's fault, but definitely his problem. Pesky, there's a swarm of people offering very emotive responses in this particular RfA. I'm not sure how more clearly I can put it: I do not give a rat's shit why they're emotional or what drove them to participate in this RfA. The very fact that they're here is what troubles me about this candidate, full-stop, period, dot, end of thoughtstream. This leads me to believe that the discussion of any future issues - trivial or non - involving Steven in his administrative role will be a spectacular pain in the ass to slog through. The fact that certain people feel that the previous issues involving account security and judgment are non-trivial may, or may not, be cause for even more concern, depending on who one asks. My opinion about that issue is unimportant and a non-factor in my opposition. Badger Drink (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   I do appreciate your points, Badger. However, when people see something wrong happening, they are often likely to say so for no other reason than to point out that it's wrong. I know you don't care, but, having found that perfectly good-faith comments by supporters have resulted in IRC-based-conspiracy assumptions - accusations of wrongdoing which, as such, cannot be considered to be civil, and are, really, bordering on attacks undermining supporters, then something has gone very wrong indeed. I have trouble understanding, clearly, why people participating in an RfA is in any way a reason to oppose said RfA. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Goodness me! I didn't realise a candidate being popular was enough for an oppose vote! :P I don't even know Steven, but I've heard only good things about his work these days, so that will be the reasoning behind my vote. You're perfectly entitled to oppose for whatever reason you like, Badger Drink, and people questioning opposes is pretty common in RFA with most candidates so I'd disagree that it's a sign of something sinister, but opinions and all that. Best to leave this, when people start getting offended it's just going to spiral downhill until it gets silly. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 10:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Pesky, your assertions that I'm claiming a conspiracy exists are downright ridiculous. I guess they make your defense seem a lot more valid - I'm sure Don Quixote felt a lot more important when he pretended those windmills were giants. It's also somewhat puzzling that you would say you "appreciate" my points, while dutifully opening up a thread on AN/I regarding my statement one hour later - it comes across as very insincere, like some form of forum shopping to squelch discussion. For someone incredibly eager to wikilink AGF, you sure seem clueless about what a "personal attack" really is, and your definition of civility is simplistic at best. It's central to my issue with this candidate - he has a lot of very rabid defenders who seem eager to cite whatever Trendy Policy of the Moment exists in their defense of him, without actually having a mature, adult understanding of those policies themselves. Badger Drink (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   I wasn't asserting that you were claiming any kind of conspiracy - it was Warden's barely-veiled accusations of meatpuppetting (windmills?)to which I was referring. I understand your points quite well; my problem was not your points, but your lack of civility. As usual, in situations like that, I work first on the assumption that someone may simply have been having a bad day, and spend a little time seeing how they interact normally. All I found was a history of more and more of the same, with many complaints, hence my (only, to date) thread at AN/I for long-term civility issues. I don't go in for drama-mongering, it's not the way I work. But, regardless of what many may erroneously believe, there has never, to my knowledge, been any consensus that RfA (or, indeed, anywhere in Wikipedia) is exempt from the normal rules of basic good manners and civility. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   This is obviously a deliberately provocative oppose designed specifically to attract the very badgering on which the eponymous opposer is basing his oppose. I think that the best course of action at this point would be to call it a day. —SW— ^babble 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose - I would like to start off by saying that I consider Steve a friend. He and I have worked together since he started editing on this project (I "adopted" him back in 2008, see User:Steven Zhang/My Adoption for more information), and I will be the first to stand up and say that he has grown a lot over the years. Unfortunately, I have not, and do not feel that he is a suitable candidate for an administrator. For starters, the situation in 2008 leaves me questioning his judgement, but I also believe that people make mistakes and should not be faulted for the rest of their life because of it. That said, after the incident occurred with the administrative accounts (in which he was banned, and evaded that ban by editing while logged out), Steve's ex-wife (who created the account User:Mellie) managed to gain access to Steve's account and a rather harsh edit directed towards a user. When I confronted her about it on IRC, she replied, and I quote: "I know, people violate policies all the time and do not get blocked." (Steve can confirm that this did in fact happen). While this is in no way directly Steve's fault it leads me to feel (coupled with the earlier incident) that Steve doesn't put account security high on his priority list; something that should be important to an administrator. Additionally, in my opinion these diffs show Steve "diva retiring" [5], this time he sated it was "his last time". While minor it adds to this feeling that Steve tends to let his emotions get the best of him, and instead of walking away from the computer does things that he later regrets. Like I said before, I think Steve does good editorial work, but simply don't feel he is the right person for the tools. Tiptoety ^talk 07:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    I have by no means decided which camp I am in on this RFA, but, as a minor point, the retirement diff was from 2009, and is almost three years old. I think, in that small respect at least, you have not given enough weight to Steve's maturing. AGK [•] 09:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

11. Oppose as per User talk:Badger Drink. If there are factors that prevent the effective use of the tools by a candidate, then that candidate should not be given the tools, whether or not the candidate is at fault. There appears to be many uncritical supporters of this candidate, which would hamper proper scrutiny of the candidate's administrative actions. The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship. That has corrupted the process and destroyed the legitimacy of this particular RfA. --Surturz (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    "The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship", do you have any proof of this claim? It's not the sort of thing you can just throw out there without anything to back it up. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 11:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    Answer to question #8. --Surturz (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    Well, your interpretation of his answer is the polar opposite of mine, but I'm not going to hark on about it. I really don't see how that claim is fair to Steven, but your opinion is your opinion. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 11:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    I agree with Bunnies about Q8, and would think that off-wiki was a usual way of finding out if someone was interesting in standing, or if someone thought you were ready for the mop. Not the sort of thing to plaster all over talk pages. Peridon (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    FWIW, Surturz, it's a perfectly normal and accepted process to propose adminship to a user by email or any other off-Wiki communication. If you believe otherwise, then we had better recall 90% of all our admins, and you're welcome to start with me. Just because you may never have been proposed, is no reason to to introduce ambiguities in the electoral process. This is the very kind of presumptious voting that corrupts and 'destroys the legitimacy' of RfA as a process, turns it into a dramafest, and puts people of wanting to go through it.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    Many RFA's pass off without dramha. You have to expect a little considering the historic ban from the project for using someone else's tools and then applying for your own tools and I imagine Stephen was expecting a fair bit of questioning as has occurred. Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)Some RfA pass off without drama, and it's certain that a candidate with Steve's history will invite some meta discussion, but passing off a vote under a premise is possibly disingenuous, adds to the drama, and may even precipitate a pile-on of uncritical opposition. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, there is that. I have to admit, some of the opposer's comments have swayed me a bit, but not so far as to move from support. . Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship - Yes, he was most certainly solicited off-wiki for adminship. While, I can't speak for Pedro, I most certainly solicited Steve off-wiki to see if he would consider an RfA and let me be a nominator. I also e-mailed Pedro to see if he minded me co-nomming, oh and I also communicated with Steve and Pedro off-wiki to time the nominations; though you'll note from the times that I was still a bit slow. :-) Your question was not intended to clarify anything, it was intended to either "expose the cabal" or try to lure Steve into a ridiculous baldfaced lie.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    Yeah, the fearsome IRC cabal. It was already a silly attitude and it's getting even sillier. Just because people chat on IRC (might I add, mostly about mundane things) does not make them a cabal, it doesn't mean they're all plotting together or banding together with sinister motives. It's ridiculous and paranoid. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 17:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

12. Oppose For reasons already discussed by others, as well of the reality that there's no community way to remove adminship if it turns out to be bad idea. I'm not comfortable with this.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    It's really not that big a deal to remove adminship Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    Don't try to bullshit someone who's seen the reality of the process.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    Where there is clear, unequivocal evidence of abuse, the process is not a big deal. No BS intended. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    However there's no process that allows for removal for discovered incompetance, 'behaviour unbecoming', blockable behavior that doesn't involve tool usage or even behavior that causes severe arbcom sanctions outside of tool use.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

13. Oppose Repeated account-security issues. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
14. Oppose Are we really that desperate so as to give the bit to formerly banned sockpuppeteers? I don't think so. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    Steven Zhang didn't sock. What he did was he used two administrator accounts from two different users, Coffee and PeterSymonds. The latter is currently a steward. Steven violated the account policy by using the administrator accounts, but there was no sockpuppetry involved. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

15. Oppose Since “retiring” in May 2009 the candidate has only been back as a regular editor since May 2011. In the interests of consistency with any 6 month editor making a RfA, I oppose and suggest coming back next year, just in case you retire again. 6 months may be enough for the candidates IRC friends, as well as some others, but given the background of negligent personal security and other serious breaches of trust, a bit more time is needed to satisfy me. Leaky Caldron 17:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    Leaky caldron, a brief look at Steve's edits during 2009 will quickly show you that implying that he retired in 2009 and didn't come back until May of this year is disingenuous. Like all of us, Steve has had periods of heavy editing and periods of light editing and Steve's breaks have been as important to his development as a Wikipedian as his editing has - as mine have likewise been for me; however, he has never gone more than 2 months without editing since March 2009. I see no indication that he has ever made a serious retirement. (And I would not consider myself to be Steve's "IRC friend" and Pedro doesn't even use IRC to my knowledge).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

16. Oppose I completely agree with the above comment by User:Leaky_caldron. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
17. It's right that the Wikipedia community is prepared to forgive and forget, but in this case, I think that to do so would be a little bit premature. The community can grant the tools, but we have no effective way of removing them again, so we need to be quite sure before we do grant them. Poor administrative judgment is known to create significant disharmony, and I don't yet have complete confidence in this user's judgment, so I think an oppose for the moment is in the community's best interests. I could be persuaded to support after another six months of regular trouble-free editing.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
18. Spent some time looking at this. Good contributor. I'm a bit worried about the previous problems and having only been editing for (exactly?) 6 months[6]. Would likely support in another 6. Hobit (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
19. Oppose the candidacy of this thoroughly untrustworthy editor. His previous offences render him permanently unsuitable for positions of trust. Granting this editor the tools can only result in much grief, for him and the project. MtD (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Awaiting response to first half of my question. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 22:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

1. In his "disclosure" (here) the candidate says that it wasn't until after his Sept 2009 RFA that he recognised what he did in 2008 was wrong. In Q3 above he says that he "returned to full editing in May 2011". That's only six months ago. - Pointillist (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)