Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 4

Slon02

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (63/9/4); Scheduled to end 03:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Slon02 (talk · contribs) – Friends, Wikipedians and "other ones", allow me to present Slon02. Slon02 is one of our hardest working editors, spending large periods of time fighting vandals, and helping out at Articles for Creation, New Page Patrol and Articles for Deletion. Slon02 has helped out significantly with the Guild of Copy Editors and regularly participates in their backlog drives. He may not be the most prolific creator of content, but he has spent time working on creating articles, even gaining a good article regarding Renewable energy in Russia.

I do know that Slon02 has run for adminship in the past, though I believe he has matured significantly on each attempt, reaching a level I'm happy to not only support but nominate at. One example of the improvements he's made is with regards to speedy deletions, where previous concerns were raised. I believe it shows his character that he not only took this criticism on board but also worked to improve his submissions (see his CSD log) Worm^TT · (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I nominated Slon02 the last time and I'm doing it again simply because I personally trust him more than I do most current admins. In the 7,000 edits he's made since his previous RfA, Slon02 has continued his involvement in AfC, as well as the GOCE, new page patrolling, and recent changes patrolling. Particularly in the area of CSDs, his accuracy and analysis in tagging articles has greatly improved. I don't see any more reasonable obstacles for Slon02 to overcome at this point before handing him a mop. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your nominations- I accept.--Slon02 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 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: I intend to participate in counter-vandalism, specifically in areas such as AIV, RfPP, and CSD. This would be a continuation of what I'm already doing, since I patrol new pages for CSD and, while reverting vandalism, have contact with AIV and RfPP. I've been keeping a CSD log since my last RfA.

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

A: My best contributions would be the ones that I feel have permanently improved the quality of Wikipedia- which is content creation and improvement. Although I'll be the first to admit that I haven't created as much content as many, I do feel that those are among my best contributions nonetheless. Content improvement, especially in the form of copyediting, is a place where I've been more active, and that would deserve as a spot among my "best" contributions. I'd say that my best articles are Renewable energy in Russia and Arctic policy of Russia. I've also contributed 3 articles to DYK (those two and Environmental issues in Russia). I also contribute somewhat to quality through the Wikipedia Typo Team. At the same time, I'd like to say that these comments should not be seen as me trying to diminish the value of counter-vandalism, since that protects the quality that other people worked hard to make. I've made over 200 reports to AIV, have an 80% match percentage at AfD, and vandalism reverts probably make up a majority of my edits.

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: No instances of conflicts over editing on Wikipedia come to mind. Any time I experience a disagreement of any magnitude over editing, I keep in mind, and will continue to remember, that every editor here is equal and has good ideas, and that consensus is an integral part of Wikipeida.

Additional question from Crazynas

4. If you could eliminate a single process on Wikipedia, what would it be and why?

A: I've held off on answering this for a while, but even after thinking about it for an extensive period of time, I can't think of any process that I'd want to eliminate. There are ones that I feel could use improvement, like PROD and RfA, but I don't think that I'd want to remove any current process.

Additional question from Chzz

5. Are there any current Wikipedia policies or guidelines which you, personally, do not agree with? (Particularly, regarding any inclusion criteria - but any will do). Can you explain how you reconcile your own opinions when they are different to Wikipedia "rules"? In case this is unclear, I'm looking for an answer like, "I don't think we should permit non-free images, but that's no problem because... etc"

A: I've similarly delayed answering this question, and for the same reason. After very careful additional review and consideration of all policies and guidelines, I've concluded that I don't disagree with any of them, and that all of my concerns are about how they are applied by editors, not their existence. As for inclusion criteria, for CSD I must say that the same applies as before- the criteria are well written, but often not well applied. I also agree with all of the content policies. Unfortunately, since I don't disagree with any current policies or guidelines, I can't really answer the second part of your question.

Additional question from —cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)

6. If you are ever dragged into an edit war that is out of control and extremely disruptive to Wikipedia involving numerous users and numerous sides, how do you plan on going about this if you are an admin? In other words this is an edit was involving 5 or more editors. How would you solve this dilemma?

A: Given that multiple users are involved, I'd first protect the page to stop the edit war. If they are IPs or new users, it would be semiprotected- if at least one is autoconfirmed, I'd use full protection. The goal here would be to try to get the involved parties to the talk page to sort out their disagreements without disrupting Wikipedia. I'd issue warnings to everyone involved reminding them of policies against edit warring & 3RR, and I'd direct them to the talk page. Editors who clearly refuse to cooperate and go back to edit warring after protection is lifted would be blocked.

Additional question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish

7. The accuracy displayed in your CSD log is impressive. The same is not always true of other new page patrollers and, as an admin interested in CSD, you may frequently find yourself having to decline speedy deletion nominations. Which CSD criteria do you think are most likely to be misapplied? Catfish Jim<FONT' COLOR="#313F33"> and the soapdish 14:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A: I've seen CSD criteria consistently applied incorrectly. Very often editors will attempt to squeeze in articles under criteria that really don't apply, just because they don't want to take them to PROD/AfD. More often than not, G1, G2, A1 or A3 are used for these purposes. I have very rarely seen something that qualified as G1 or G2. I generally follow this guide, and feel that it is remarkably written. Those 4 criteria that I've mentioned are very often not applicable, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that they're the most common ones. G11 might be close, but I'd go for A7. I'm sure that some people confuse A7 with notability, and some probably use it as a way to delete non-notable articles quickly. I tend towards a fairly strict interpretation of the criteria, and I don't believe in applying criteria that just don't work to articles.

Nail hit fairly firmly on the head... NPP often attracts people who jump in and start tagging without having a clue of what they're doing (other than bumping up edit counts). A1 and A3 within seconds of article creation, G1 for physics articls, G11 for articles that simply present the subject in a favourable light... but yes, A7 is the most commonly misapplied in my experience. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

8. You have limited experience writing articles or discussing articles with other writers.

Details

Even your good article about Russian renewable energy, which was approved by incorruptible Fetchcomms, seems based on on-line trade, industry, and Russian-governmental sources. I don't see that you went to the library to find academic journal articles or monographs. There doesn't seem to be any discussion of geopolitical aspects of Russian renewable energy policy, either with respect to other countries or with respect to minorities; c.f. James Bay and Native Americans. There doesn't seem to be any information about downsides of "renewable energy", e.g. thermal pollution or stressors on aqualife. The prose, even in the lede, feels a bit clunky to me. I would have hoped for more from a GA.... One of your 2011 DYKs used the present tense for this 1996 document (which had no internal references to support the "statistics" quoted): Curtis, Glenn E., ed. (1996). "Russia: A country study". Washington: GPO (United States Government Printing Office) for the Library of Congress. Retrieved 2011-12-13. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) Your citation lacked the editor, the title, the location (no big deal), the publisher, and THE YEAR. That said, I trust your nominators' judgment about your character and helpfulness.

Will you pledge to let other administrators handle editorial disputes and civility issues concerning content writers?

A. I'm not the kind of person who dives headfirst into a situation without knowing what to do. I am, however, likely to focus my work on areas where I have experience. Those areas are listed in Q1, like AIV and CSD. If a situation arises where I'm not sure about what to do, I'll ask for help. Also, thank you for your constructive criticism. I'd be the first to note that any work of mine can be improved, but I'd also note that I never forget about my work, and consistently go back and see where improvements can be made. If you have more suggestions on specific articles, I'd love to discuss them on the appropriate articles' talk pages.

Additional question from Keepscases

9. What was your rationale for adding RfA criteria to your user page last month?

A: I haven't been very active in RfA's before. In fact, I think that I only started actively !voting on them last month, when I decided that I would become active in that area. I felt that, since I was going to be active in RfA, I should develop some guidelines so that people can see my usual rationale for considering candidates.

Additional question from —cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)

10. A.) What do you think about WP:RECALL? B.)Are you open to a recall?

A: I think that it's great that so many admins have volunteered for recall, even if it's not mandatory. I strongly believe that editors who are entrusted by the community with certain additional tools should be held accountable for their actions, and that if they lose the trust of the community, they should no longer have those tools.

B: Yes. I don't have a firm criteria decided on for recall yet, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to this one.

Additional questions from Hurricanefan25 (four additional questions will be added later)

11. Say you come upon an article that reads:

"Blue Yellow Green Inc. is a company that is dedicated to research.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} It is the largest research company in Oregon, and has been awarded the ABC Award for Quality and the ZYX Award for dedication.^[1][3][7] It is criticized because it often considered smelly!!!!!"

Google only shows 1,500 hits on the subject, yet nearly all of the Google results say "BYG Inc. is the largest research company in the state of Oregon" or similar statements. The article is currently tagged as a {{db-hoax}} article. There are two editors to the article, one who created it, and another who said "it is smelly!!!" The writer of the article then removes the "smelly!!!" vandalism. The seventh source links to a Facebook page promoting the company; however, it lists the CEO as "Bobby Zinner," which upon a quick search of the company's official website, is not the actual CEO of the website. Further content is added to the article, citing an eighth source with more false information from the creator. However, upon further inspection of the blog, reveals it to have been created in a city in Brazil, not Oregon. You check back at the first Google search, and it is revealed that there is another source that says that the company was fake and promoted Brazil; however, it is a MySpace page; while you stumble upon another webpage (called blueyellowgreenresearchco.org), claiming the company had shut down. However, the MySpace page was created after the .org site. What would you do? (I originally used this question in another RfA back in October and once in November.)

A: Well, the person who added the vandalism would definitely have to be warned. Next, I'd search for sources for the company. If I can find reliable sources other than those you've mentioned in this scenario, ones that could verify whether or not this company exists, I'd remove the tag. However, if I'm bound to just the sources given in the scenario, I'd review each one for reliability (although I'd do that anyway). The sources include a Facebook page with a wrong CEO (possibly out of date?), a blog that reveals that the company exists, but in Brazil, a Myspace page that says that the company is fake, and a website that says that the company has shut down. The existence of so many conflicting sources shows that something is definitely wrong, but at the very least it shows that nothing is "blatant". G3 says that the hoax must be blatant, so speedy deletion doesn't work here. I'd remove the tag, inform the tagger of my reasoning, and recommend that the issue be pursued at AfD. However, I'd also talk to the author of the article and try to get his version of what is going on, in hopes of getting a better understanding. Ultimately, an issue this convoluted is best left in the hands of community consensus and discussion, rather than in the hands of a single person.

12. You are an admin and see the uncensored version of say, this posted to a user talk as, say, File:lemonteaparty.jpg. Describe your actions step by step. I realize this spontaneous question is a bit vague, thus if you see multiple scenarios, please cover main ones in your answer. Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A: My first step would be to immediately remove the image. I'd give the user that posted it a warning, probably an elevated one because of the degree of vandalism that this would be. If the user had already been warned for vandalism a couple of times, I'd strongly consider blocking, especially if it was a vandalism-only account. After I got the user sorted out, I'd move on to the image itself. Since, in this scenario, it's probable that this image had been uploaded by the vandal just for the purpose of the vandalism, I'd delete it if it were a Wikipedia-hosted image, or tag it for speedy deletion if it were a Commons-hosted image. This would be done under Wikipedia:Vandalism#Image vandalism.

Additional question from FleetCommand

14. I see that you would like to participate in AIV. Please review this situation and say what would you do with respect to Wikipedia policies if you were to handle it: A hypothetical User:A is reported to WP:ANEW for having committed four reverts on an articles within the last 24 hours, meaning that he has violated WP:3RR and must now be blocked. User:A defends himself by saying that he was under the impression that the reverted contributions by User:B have been blatant advertisements, that he has stopped reverting 14 hours ago when a third opinion told him that it is not the case, and that the Wrong Version was now in effect. You investigate the matter and see that the reverted contributions are not what you would call blatant advertisement but the warring is indeed stopped. You also discover that both User:A and User:B have received blocks in the past. Will you block User:A? Why or why not?

A: Well, I'd first breathe a sigh of relief that the edit warring stopped. Since User:A was acting in good faith, and stopped reverting when he was told what he is doing was wrong, I would probably not block him (I'll explain what the circumstances for which I would block him would be). To block him would go against our blocking policy and its goals of being preventative, not punitive. The reverting had stopped, and User:A had shown a positive response to correction and constructive criticism. However, the presence of past blocks would be a cause for some concern, and I'd investigate the causes of those blocks. If they were recent, and I judged that he was very likely to repeat his offenses, and it was blatantly obvious to me that he was not acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, I would block. If I determined that there wasn't a good chance of him disrupting Wikipedia again, I wouldn't block him, but I'd give him a personalized warning about 3RR and tell him to be more careful in the future. Finally, since the wrong version was still in effect, I'd correct that by changing the page to the correct version that User:B had added. Since the addition was enough to be considered advertising by one person, I'd either try to change the addition myself to make it more NPOV, or I'd place a relevant template on the article.

Additional question from Townlake

15. Four RFAs in 19 months. Why so eager to become an administrator?

A. Looking back, the first two RFAs were made without a good knowledge of what RfA is really about. I didn't have the experience to be an admin then, but I also didn't have the experience to see that I didn't have the experience. My third RfA was made with understanding of RfA. I was prompted to go for it then because I needed the tools- I was frustrated every time I saw a vandalism backlog, at places like CSD, AIV, or RfPP, that I couldn't fix. I would not call myself "eager" to become an administrator, but I would say that I would like to have the tools, since it's an important part of my line of work.

Additional question from Leaky

16. A change to a fellow Admin's talk page pops up on your watchlist. You read the dif. which is along the following lines: "I had hoped that you would stop making the edits that are driving people mad. However, it appears that like everyone else who runs bots you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum. Or at the very least, you can't figure why what you do is annoying people......" The message is (a) from a sitting Arbcom member, (b) an new editor. Outline your course of action in each case.

A. That's clearly a personal attack, and it should not be tolerated. I would remove the attack and leave a {{RPA}}, so that the admin could then decide whether he wants to keep it removed or reinstate it. I would also give a strong, personalized warning to the person who made the attack, regardless of whether it was an Arbcom member or a new editor. The rules are the same for everyone, and I'd actually expect better behavior from an Arbcom member, as someone who has the trust of the community. Any continuation of that behavior after the warning (or if a pattern of similar behavior is present) would result in a block for the new editor, and me taking the issue to ANI in the case of the Arbcom member.

In reality, the ArbCom member retracted and apologized for the statement. Further, the member's personality (usually for better) is non-negligible and sometimes expressed in riffs, which sometimes should be understood as affectionate/playful teasings rather than personal attacks. As always, an examination of the surrounding diffs and an attempt to understand the user's history of contributions is more useful than a summary execution.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Σ

13. 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:

Additional question from Katarighe

17. What about reviewing unblock requests to blocked users?

A:

General comments

• Links for Slon02: Slon02 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Slon02 can be found here.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Slon02
• Requests for adminship/Slon02 2
• Requests for adminship/Slon02 3
• Requests for adminship/Slon02 4

---

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk page. →Στc. 04:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion regarding Question 8 moved to talk page Worm^TT · (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Why do we have questions #1-#12, then #14? Is #13 too unlucky? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• #13 has been asked. →Στc. 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Now #14 has been asked again! :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Supported last time, happy to support again. 28bytes (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   Looks good. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Moved to oppose

2. 28bytes took the words out of my mouth. I confidently support, of course. (Also, Worm tends to have an eye for this sort of thing. :P) Swarm ^X 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Sure, why not. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Looks fine to me. I see nothing wrong. -- Luke (Talk) 03:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Support Don't see any issues. Might ask a question later. Beyond495 (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
6. No problem –BuickCenturyDriver 04:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
7. Support ; I opposed Slon's previous RfA. A couple weeks ago I thoroughly reviewed his editing, with a view to nominating him myself, and found it not only to meet all my exacting crtiteria, but also found every reason to strongly support a new RfA. He has addressed all previous criticism, and I hope that the community will concur. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
9. Secret ^account 04:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. Why not? James500 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
11. Supported last time, I see no reason to change that now. Last nomination got derailed by a pile on about CSD taggings, of which the only result is we had one less good admin doing work between then and now. Thankfully I don't think we'll make that mistake again this time. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
12. Strongest Possible Support A hard-working editor who deserves a promotion. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    With respect, this isn't a "promotion". — Joseph Fox 12:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    Er, okay --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    Of course it is/would be. Let's not kid ourselves, Fox. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

13. Seems as though they will make a fine admin. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
14. Support, per exceptionally trustworthy and clueful nominators... Worm^TT · (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
15. Support. Ha, I saw a hint last night that this was coming, and was pleased in anticipation :-) I was undecided last time, but this time I have no hesitation in supporting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
16. Strong support — Absolutely. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
17. Still supportive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    I still support you for administrator, but the answer to Q16 raises some grave doubts in my mind. Somebody blowing up is not a sufficient reason for a block or ANI drama, since that only tends to escalate the situation. The best thing you could do would be to either politely point out beneath that message that it was inappropriate or just ignore it. Most likely, the user will later feel embarrassed about posting such a nasty message and possibly retract it himself after some thought, whereas taking him to ANI or blocking him would put him on the defensive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

18. Support - Had a quick look through contribs and can't see any reason not to. Normandie 13:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
19. Support, as usual :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 13, 2011; 13:54 (UTC)
20. Support a fine candidate - what issues I saw in previous RfAs seem to have been addressed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
21. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
22. Support. Never worked with this editor, but they seem to be a hard worker so I support! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
23. Support/ No reason he shouldn't Mrlittleirish 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
24. Support. Good contributions. Significant improvement since March 2011. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
25. Strong Support -- Great improvement since the 3 nominations had failed. --Katarighe (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
26. Support The user seems to have a good grasp of the policies, an example of which is the CSD log. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
27. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
28. Looks good to me-No problems here.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 18:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
29. Support - From what I've seen, he seems to be a dedicated & trustworthy editor. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
30. Support good contributor and many useful work done on patrolling and AfD. GreyHood ^Talk 20:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
31. Support If nothing else, to balance out the ridiculous ageism. causa sui (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
32. Strong Support Slon02 has grown a lot in the past year and is ready for the mop.VictorianMutant^(Talk) 22:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Per answer to q7. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
34. Support. I supported last time, and I believe that there was too much demand for perfection then. This time, I see some thoughtful editors say above that their previous concerns have now been addressed by the candidate improving in response to the feedback from before. I think it's clear that the candidate has amply earned the trust of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
35. Strongest Support: Excellent contributions to Wikipedia. Good intentions and has a great attitude. I trust Worm's nomination. Great answers to my questions. No reason why this candidate shouldn't pass.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)
36. Support - I've had excellent interactions with this editor on IRC, and xe seems to have a good grasp of policy.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 01:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
37. Support- Reviewed during RfA3, but forgot to support before it closed; no concerns since. Dru of Id (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
38. Support – No issues here. —mc10 (t/c) 02:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
39. Support — Good candidate. πr² (t • c) 02:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
40. Support I see no problems now, and I'm glad he persisted. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
41. I supported last time, on the basis that he seemed open to learning from mistakes and was appropriately cautious. Since then, he has only been improving. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
42. Support as last time, albeit at RFA 3 I had a few concerns - this time I don't. Pedro :  Chat  07:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
43. Support. Why not? Mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
44. Support I supported last time, I see no need to change my mind.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    Support Per answer to question 8 [1], trust placed my nominators, and excellent CSD log. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    My Support is strengthened due to his actual answer to question 8. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

45. Support Happy to support this time. Candidate has resolved the policy knowledge issues that caused me to vote neutral last time.--Hokeman (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
46. Weak support. Kiefer Wolfowitz puts it too harshly. This user does have a GA, and it's not a bad one; there are plenty of admins who can't even show that. In my assessment this user scrapes through, in large part because he's open to recall, which means that if this candidate proves to be a problematic admin, his appointment is at least not irrevocable.—S Marshall T/C 18:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
47. Support - Concerns about this being the 4th RfA, and the candidate seems to be (or at least used to be) in a big rush to get the mop. From what I can tell, he seems to have calmed down about adminship and made some substantive improvements to CSD tagging and such, so I think it's safe to support now. I also feel the need to cancel out some unreasonable oppose votes below. —SW— ^express 19:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
48. Support - While the response to the above questions is lacking in imagination at times, the responses and the edit history show a thorough (if recent) understanding of Policy and its application, and is more than capable of handling the, frankly, mundane tasks of adminship.
49. Support I don't see any reason not to. Opposes are unconvincing. Malinaccier (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
50. Great answers to 8 and 9. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    Pleased to support. Thank you for taking Question 15 in the constructive spirit intended. Best wishes. Townlake (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Won't oppose, but striking support per engagement with opposers. We already have plenty of overly-defensive admins. Townlake (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC) // Moving to oppose after re-reading the RFA. Townlake (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

51. Support. I've seen your good work; your answers are good; I'm sold.--Kubigula (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
52. Support - There are three fundamental functions of useful Wikipedia volunteers: content creators, quality control workers, and rules enforcers. The janitorial toolbox corresponds to the latter two functions, not at all to the first, so with due respect to the objection of my friend K-Wolf, any shortcomings of Slon in the writing department, real or imagined, are irrelevant. This seems to be a quality control worker who might benefit from the tool set. No indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC) There are also a fairly large number of unuseful people at Wikipedia — drive by vandals, POV Warriors, and people here to create and regale in drama.
53. Issues raised in the previous RfA and this one's neutral section have been dealt with. —WFC— 07:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
54. Support - Seems ready for the bit.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
55. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
56. Support - He should have been a admin by now.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 16:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
57. Support. Good contributions and answers, and no concerns — Frankie (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
58. Support - Good answers above that show good policy knowledge, contributions (including a GA) show experience in article work and in admin areas. The last RfA was a close one and I see improvement since then so I have no concerns. -- Atama頭 19:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
59. Support For some reason, in spite of the length of time I have been here I have failed to interact with this editor (correct me if you find a diff). But looking through her/his work s/he is clearly competent and I see no problem in awarding the tools. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
60. 'Support Looks good than from last time. Baseball Watcher
61. Support looks good to me. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
62. Support. mabdul 03:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
63. Like -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'Weak Oppose.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Questions about intellectual maturity and ability to communicate with new editors about policy, based on limited (and somewhat problematic) writing, as noted in Question 8, above, and in the grammatical problems and cliches in candidate's RfA criteria. The early edits, and misunderstanding of policy, raise other issues about intellectual development. The frequent schoolboy vandalism of the user page and the too early and too frequent RfAs make me wonder about social maturity, also. (Fetchcomms's support reduces my worries that the candidate be a minor; this is the first case where I raise maturity as a concern, I believe.) I wish the candidate well and I expect continued contributions to the project, but I see no need for administrative tools.

   I've read it about three times now and can't see any grammatical problems or cliches from the user. Could you point them out for me? Perhaps I can't read properly at this time... Normandie 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   I find it painful to read my own prose, which is why my articles have frequent rewrites. I understand that my reactions are overly sensitive. I shall put my comments above. It should be understood that my oppose is not strong, and I welcome evidence-based rebuttals.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   Note: Candidate's RfA criteria (originally posted by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz) moved here from the questions section: —SW— ^verbalize 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   I've had to remove it since it would mess up the numbering. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   That was why I put it up top, next to Keepscases's question about it! I'll move it to the back page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   Generally on Wikipedia, providing a link to a page will suffice, and is usually preferable to reproducing the page in its entirety. Sorry about messing up the numbering. —SW— ^chatter 19:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   I did not reproduce any page in entirety. I annotated his RfA critera directly in response to Normandie's request for clarification. Of course, a link to the page would have lacked the annotation and not answered Normandie's question.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Well that tears it, whoever granted Slon's Good Article status needs a firm trouting, and the criteria page should be sent to GAR, post-haste. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   All of us can improve our writing, and the candidate's ambitious and generally well written article on an important and broad topic deserves praise. (I stated that I like a bit more polished prose, not that anything was unclear, etc. I raised the question of finding higher quality more reliable sources; the article may well meet GA standards.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   Slon02 is intellectually mature—although one must take my word for it lest I inadvertently compromise his identity—and cliches are not always bad, contrary to the belief of an English teacher I had years ago. Grammatical errors in userspace, heaven forbid, are simply inexcusable though. Regardless, I'm slightly dismayed that my support vote indicates that this candidate is unlikely to be a minor; I have guesses but no concrete knowledge of his age, nor have I discerned it from his editing habits. If Slon02 happens to be 12, then I would continue to support him. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   What does "intellectually mature" mean? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'd be happy to address any concerns that you might have, but I'm a bit confused at one of your concerns. You mention questions about my ability to communicate with editors about policy. You seem to relate it to concerns about the articles that I've written, but I'm having some trouble drawing much of a connection. I can, however, bring up multiple examples of me being able to explain policy to new editors. I'd appreciate some examples of policy misunderstanding so that I can better understand your oppose, and I'd also like to know how my userpage being vandalized detracts from my ability to be an admin. Finally, I'd like to point out that I do need administrative tools, for quite simple reasons- vandalism-related areas on Wikipedia tend to be in need of admins, and areas such as AIV, RfPP and CSD are areas that I work in that require admin tools.--Slon02 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Hi Slon02, the too early and too frequent RfAs raise concern about maturity. I would like you to take a year before another RfA. I think that you are doing a good job and want you to continue contributing both behind-the-scenes and as a writer. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Why did you not answer my simple question above, when you were answering later and more complicated questions? If you would pledge to limit your activities, then many of us would welcome you as an administrator.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Wikipedia already has too many kiddie admins. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   I propose we make Malleus administrator for a day, I'm curious what he would do; who's with me? ;) ResMar 04:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   What leads you to believe that I'd agree to be an administrator, even for a day? Malleus Fatuorum 06:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   I can just imagine someone who's stood for election to Parliament twice, asking what makes anyone think they would agree to be a Member of Parliament. Classic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Clearly you have no imagination at all. Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of a kiddie admin?--Slon02 (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Regardless of its meaning, Slon02 will certainly not be among the "kiddie admins". --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus and are are unenforceable - any individual making them is either dishonest or inadequately aware of how a promise they made actually works, and is unfit for adminship. Hipocrite (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   This discussion has been moved to the discussion page.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   As a further and unrelated note, per "The rules are the same for everyone... would result in a block for the new editor, and me taking the issue to ANI in the case of the Arbcom member," I additionally oppose as "civility for thee, but not for mee" does not work. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose Seems too lightweight. The hasty CSD work seems have persisted after the last RfA, e.g. Army Values. Warden (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   Hasty CSD work that produces an accuracy of 454/456 (99.6%), with no mistakes since April?--Slon02 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   You're opposing because he started CSDing after his last RfA and made 2 mistakes out of hundreds? That's a bit too strict don't you think?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'm opposing mainly because this editor's contributions seem lightweight and insubstantial. The CSD example was provided because this was an issue at the previous RfA. When I browse his contributions some more, I notice some copy-editing of paperless office which adds little value. And then there's a new editor who is given a templated welcome followed by a ugly whack by proposing that his article on the topic of Media and crime be deleted. Now, the relationship and interaction of media and crime is a highly notable topic, being the subject of literally thousands of books. I can't see the draft now that it has been deleted but I doubt that there was anything very original there. This seems to be a case where a new editor needed some help in developing an article which would survive the NPP. Instead, he was bitten and we notice that he gave up editing soon afterwards. My impression is that the candidate didn't give this editor any real help because he doesn't know how. It's this sort of behaviour which is driving off new editors in large numbers and the Foundation is properly concerned. Warden (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Your nitpicking and opposing for just about every RFA, especially the ones that is deletion related is basically WP:POINT. You know for a fact that one poorly tagged CSD dif out of hundreds he has done since April won't change this RFA. Why do you even bother? Secret ^account 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Let's not badger the good Colonel. He's entitled to have a different view of the candidate than you and I do. 28bytes (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Really? Surely the ultimate aim is to crush all opposition at RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Secret and others,

   Please stop blue-linking WP:Point until you've read and understood it. (Point rivals WP:NotNow as the most miscited guideline.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Also, Secret you said that you would avoid conflict and stressors, for your own good, at your RfA. I was happy to support you and I want you to follow through on your plan of productive healthy editing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Timeline for User:Kashanova7, creator of Media and crime:

   • 22:09, 22 May 2011 the user posted a huge opininion piece into the article Manslaughter in English law [2] and removed by Kashanova7 a few minutes later.
   • 02:17, 22 May 2011 Media and crime created by user a few minutes later.
   • 22:20, 22 May 2011 PRODED by Slon 10 hours later. The PROD uw was placed using Twinkle and automatically accompanied by a standard welcome template matched for the occasion.
   • 22:24, 22 May 2011 PROD seconded by by User:De728631
   • 00:11, 23 May 2011 Media and crime Blanked by the creator
   • 01:00, 23 May 2011 Deleted by User:Optimist on the run
   • 23:07, 10 June 2011 (diff | hist) User:Kashanova7 ‎ creates a draft in their user space, ES by a bot: 'Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace)'
   • 23:03, 19 June 2011 last edit by User:Kashanova7

   I see nothing other than a completely normal deletion process for an inappropriate article that probably no regular user would have the slightest interest in recasting and referencing, and nothing whatsoever to suggest that the user was frightened off by a normal process or by any communication by the candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   The edit made to the manslaughter article was not an opinion piece; it was an explanation of the concept of manslaughter by gross negligence supported by sources. It was a rather hamfisted insertion but that's not surprising for a new user and it's to their credit that they reverted themselves - perhaps it was a practise edit. I see nothing here but a normal good-faith newbie being attacked aggressively by editors who show not the slightest concern for them or what they are trying to achieve and how they might be helped.

   I agree WP:POINT is a completely misguided guideline (and note I wasn't aiming at the first three opposes including yours as I know it was in good faith, because people assume that because if they have viewpoints that is considered "radical" to the community, they instantly assume OMG bad faith). But I was commenting on Colonel Warden (more later as I'm typing this right when I'm leaving work). Secret ^account 03:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Re "Your nitpicking and opposing for just about every RFA...". I don't attend or oppose in every RfA but, when I do, I try to provide examples because this is expected of opposes. This candidate is clearly weak because they have failed at RfA three times before and, iirc, I didn't attend on any of those occasions. My examples may be weak but so is the candidate. I will tend to oppose if I don't feel comfortable with a candidate because admin status has no term limits and is not easy to revoke. Warden (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose Answer to question number 14 was concerning and Slon02's further justifications were even more so. Seems to me that Slon02 seeks an excuse to go around Wikipedia blocking policy and inflict unjustifiable blocks. In addition, his first and last reply (i.e. last until now) show that he did not read the situation carefully. A careless person is not fit for admin tools. Fleet Command (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   The real irony in this is that what you see as me trying to cause an unjustifiable block, I see as me seeing good faith edits and stating that blocking him would probably be against our blocking policy (mentioning that the only time I would block him under those circumstances would be if he had been a person who consistently edit warred, had been blocked recently for edit warring, and was probably going to edit war again). I did not say, as you seem to have interpreted, that I would block him if he was just recently blocked. I clearly stated that he must be "very likely to repeat his offenses" and even used the term "blatantly obvious". I'm sorry that you have misinterpreted what I thought (and still think) are fairly clear words.--Slon02 (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose (moved from support) per q16. Why would you treat a new editor differently than you would an ArbCom member (or a sysop, or any other member of the community)? If you intend to block said new editor, than surely this is a grave enough situation that it warrants a block for whomever carried the action regardless of their position. Didn't you say yourself the rules apply for everyone? Why the different treatment based on status? This either makes you reckless, or like Ryan Vesey puts it, "too anxious to wield the tools", take a pick. Sorry. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   It depends on how "new" is new. If an editor has made no real contributions to Wikipedia before causing that disruption, of course a responsible administrator would treat them differently than another editor who has done a lot of good for Wikipedia. Every action an administrator makes with the tools should be for the net benefit of Wikipedia. A vandalism-only account with 3 bad edits should be indefinitely blocked, while a productive editor who made a few bad edits may or may not be blocked but should definitely be talked to, if for no other reason than to determine if they're just having a bad day, or maybe to see if the account is compromised. On the other hand, a brand new account who might be causing disruption out of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia should be treated more gently than a known troublemaker with a pattern of abuse. So to sum up, you treat new and established editors differently, but you don't necessarily value one over the other, it all depends on the circumstances. -- Atama頭 08:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose New users should be treated equally with others. So I echo Charlie's comment. Strengthened by Atama. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
8. Sorry, just too many red flags for me. In Q15 you say you're not "eager" to become an admin, but 4 RFAs in 19 months is a little worrisome, and in some dialogue here you're indicating too much (IMHO) eagerness to use the tools once granted. So the Q15 answer ultimately rings hollow. Moreover, your engagement with opposers and neutrals, while not against any rules, is ill-advised. For those of us who have had bad dealings with defensive administrators, this is troubling. Townlake (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
9. Reluctant Oppose I have been debating this for some time now. While you are a good editor, your policy knowledge is a bit lacking. You appear to have a strong grasp of policies related to new page patrol and anti-vandalism. However, you do not appear to have much experience with administrative work outside of these two areas. I am particularly concerned on how you will handle XfD's, file CSDs, and especially content disputes. Your answer to question 14 raised additional concerns, so I decided to wait on question 16. The answer to question 16 solidified my concerns. After reading your answer to question 16, I do not have much confidence with you handling 3RR violations, incivility, and disputes between editors. I am truly sorry, but I do not believe I can support at this time. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Progress has been made on the concerns I raised in the previous RfA (where I opposed). Will decide whether to stay here or support based on how questions 7 and 8 are tackled, as I consider them to be of relevance. —WFC— 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While I don't think question 8 was asked in a reasonable way, I do think it touches on something which is fundamental to your suitability for adminship. Specifically, how you will deal with "difficult" editors, where the "difficulty" is content-related and the people being "difficult" can both reasonably claim to have more experience in that field than yourself. I can perfectly understand why you might not want to dignify question 8 with a direct response, but the underlying point needs to be addressed IMO. —WFC— 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1. The answers leave me doubting your confidence a bit. I'm not sure yet. ceranthor 01:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   I will just observe for now. I am waiting to see what you are going to do with Q8. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

2. I was going for support but the answer to question 14 was concerning. Basically, Slon02 says if the blocks were new, he'd be willing to overlook the blocking policy which he himself cited and inflict a block upon a user that, according to Slon02 himself, was acting in good faith and the result of which is, again according to Slon02, not preventative. Fleet Command (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   Just so explain my answer, the reason for why I would consider recent blocks is the second part of the "preventative" part of the blocking policy- "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" as well as "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition." If recent blocks had such a context to show me that repeat offenses are likely from that user, and to show me that the user was not acting in good faith, I would block. If those two parts are not proven to me by the past blocks, I would definitely not even think of blocking.--Slon02 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   Deter what is already stopped (=fully deterred) long ago? You only end up embittering User:A and contribute to the current constant decline of the number of Wikipedia user. When somebody stops, the likelihood of repetition is zero. Fleet Command (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   Nothing in the question says that it was fully stopped. It just says that there were blocks in the past. It doesn't mention how long ago the blocks were or what the behavior of User:A was like after the blocks. --Slon02 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

3. Low content creation. TCO (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
4. I am actually leaning towards oppose but am voting neutral due to the respect I have for your nominator. There are two major problems I have seen here. First, while I support your ability to discuss issues with people who !vote neutral or oppose, your discussion with Fleet Command is one you should have dropped. I believe knowing when to drop an issue is an important skill for an administrator to have and I'm not sure that you show the level of maturity required for that. Second, I disagree with your response to question 16. I believe the clarity of the personal attack is less intense than you say it is. Sure, the editor wasn't completely civil, and did stray off the content and onto the contributor but in a relatively minor way. The worst part of the statement was the reference to autism; however, if you notice he stated "like everyone else who runs bots" making it slightly more of a statement on people who run bots. Now, I am not saying it wasn't a personal attack at all, I am just trying to point out that it wasn't a major personal attack. Continuing on, you stated you would leave a "strong, personal warning" on the talk page of the editor who left the attack. That will do nothing but inflame the issue. In a case like this, it would probably be best to ignore it and allow the other administrator to take his own actions to the statement on his own talk page. There is no reason for you to get involved here. Remember, "Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." -Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Responding to personal attacks. This issue makes you seem too anxious to wield the tools of an administrator and I'd like to see you wait a little while longer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)