Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon 2

Robert McClenon

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (35/9/1); Scheduled to end 23:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) – Robert McClenon is one of those editors that you were probably surprised that he did not already have a mop. Speaking of tenure, Robert has been with Wikipedia since July 2005, and has been consistently active every month since returning in April 2013 with more than 76,000 edits. I first encountered Robert when I was patrolling CSD, and I noticed how consistently accurate he is, with one of the more impressive CSD records that shows a firm grasp of policy.

His presence as an active volunteer can be found in almost everywhere: dispute resolution, the help desk, the teahouse, articles for creation and more. While Robert is not the strongest editor in content creation, his record as a copyeditor is more than solid. His wide knowledge and approachable manner has been helpful to both new and experienced editors, including myself. The kind of patience he has in working with thousands (literally) of new editors is quite astounding. In all of these areas where Robert is actively involved, there is no doubt in my mind that the tools will make him an even better contributor to this project. For these reasons, I am proud to present him for the consideration of this community. Alex Shih^Talk 04:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: If I am selected as an administrator, I will focus largely on quality control, which (unfortunately) has to be done largely by the deletion of crud, that is, pages that have no place in Wikipedia. As an editor I have done this by New Page Patrol, by tagging articles for speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and deletion after discussion. As an administrator, I plan to help keep the backlog of speedy deletion nominations down, and occasionally by closing deletion discussions. However, I plan to be conservative with regard to speedy deletion, and will decline uncertain nominations. (I have tried to avoid making uncertain nominations, and I think my CSD record speaks for that.) Uncertain CSD nominations can be sent to AFD. I would like to continue working on quality control, that is, crud removal, as an administrator. I will do my best to keep my own moderate deletionist views from getting in the way of following the will of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

B: Another administrative task that I will take is reviewing WP:ANI and WP:AN discussions and closing them, especially ones that have dragged on.

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

A: I think that my best recent contributions to Wikipedia have been in the areas of conflict resolution and of New Page Patrol.

B: I have done a good job of copy-editing.

C: I have done a good job of creating disambiguation pages when they have been needed.

D: In conflict resolution, I think that I have done a good job of staying neutral when possible but of being sure that Wikipedia policy and guidelines were followed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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: Occasionally I have been subject to personal attacks. Usually those have been in already public places, rather than on my talk page, and I have preferred to let other editors respond. I have occasionally had to report conduct at WP:ANI. I don't think that I have ever lost my temper to the point where I returned the personal attacks. I certainly hope that I can keep my cool. If I become an administrator, I will remember not to use the block button when involved.

B: One stress has been having closes of Requests for Comments challenged, sometimes by someone who said that they wanted to insert a statement (and I think that they deliberately waited until it was closed). I have sometimes raised the issue at WP:AN if I wanted the close endorsed, or have told the challenging editor to go to WP:AN.

C: I have been involved in a few heated Articles for Deletion discussions. I have requested attention at WP:AN. I don't recall losing my cool.

D: I have sometimes been hassled by editors whose pages I either declined at Articles for Creation or tagged for speedy deletion. I have referred them to one or more of the Teahouse, deletion review, or WP:AN.

E: In summary, I have dealt with conflicts by referring them to the community rather than personalizing the dispute. I hope to continue to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Additional question from Everymorning

4. Your first RFA, back in 2006, was unsuccessful. What have you learned since then to demonstrate that you are qualified for adminship now, especially given that the standards for it are significantly higher now than they were then?

A:I waited until several admins said that I was ready to be an admin. I have more experience in various areas, including New Page Patrol, which I see as a quality control function of keeping Wikipedia free of crud, and in keeping my cool when dealing with contentious editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from Frank

5. Your answer to question 1 is detailed and specific. I am concerned that your actions do not match the intentions stated in that answer. In particular, you answered ...I plan to be conservative with regard to speedy deletion, and will decline uncertain nominations. (I have tried to avoid making uncertain nominations, and I think my CSD record speaks for that.) Uncertain CSD nominations can be sent to AFD., but I find the following CSD/PROD requests to be far from certain (sorry, admins only):

Golazin ardestani (A7, with the text her expertise in playing the piano, dulcimer, dammam (Persian percussion) and the flute and debut single, “Miri” has already received over 2,000,000 listens, and her latest single “Booseh” has been played more than 800,000 times in less than a month

Indecisas (PROD, your comment was: Incomprehensible after machine translation. No references. Not worth waiting two weeks to get rid of.).

Envoy Textiles Limited (A7, containing the following text: Introducing rope dyeing denim for the first time, now the largest denim fabric producing unit in Bangladesh, and achieved ISO 9001: 14001 quality certification)

These edits occurred within the last 24 hours, and represent only about 10% of the deleted edits, but still...they raise concerns. I do not in any way assert that the articles met criteria for creation, but I am concerned that the deletion rationales were...questionable...and that in so doing, we risk driving away potential contributors quickly and permanently.

My question is this: Can you reconcile your answer to Q1 with the deletion requests I outlined? Examples of articles you sent to AFD/PROD when they were previously nominated as CSD would be helpful here, but feel free to answer in any way you see fit.

A:First, in general, I will admit to having a prejudice (that is, a tendency to prejudge) stubs with no references, unless they make an ipso facto case for notability. I am willing to accept that as something that I should be aware of and work on. Second, I will specifically defend most nominations for PROD or CSD of anything that isn't in English. I don't think that we should wait two weeks to get rid of non-English pages, but I am aware that is policy, so I will try to help the non-English pages along. Third, I probably should have left the musician alone or taken her to AFD. Fourth, I still think that I have been conservative in making CSD nominations, and I will be even more conservative in deleting CSD nominations. Fifth, I didn't say that I am conservative about PROD. As an admin, I will be sure that all expired PRODs have really been there for a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad

6. Do you have any interest in getting involved in arbitration enforcement? Why or why not?

A.Arbitration enforcement is an extremely useful administrative function, and it works better than WP:ANI for conduct issues that are within its scope. However, I would prefer not to be one of the admins working it because it is stressful and unpleasant. I could be persuaded to work it, but it would not be my first or second choice. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions from Callmemirela

7. If you were involved in a content dispute but found something actionable as an admin, what would you do? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A.

8. If a long-standing user were to be involved in an dispute/edit war, what are your approaches to settle it as a neutral admin? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A.

Additional question from Linguist111

9. A series of articles are tagged with {{db-a7}}. The articles are all unreferenced, and each one contains one of the following statements and nothing else. Which ones would you delete, and which nominations would you decline (let's say all the statements are true)?

• [Name] is a former contestant on Asia's Next Top Model, where she finished in 5th place.
• [Name] is a rapper.
• [Name] disappeared two weeks ago and was found alive yesterday.
• [Name] disappeared four months ago, her body was found last Wednesday.
• [Name] died yesterday, would have turned 100 tomorrow.
• [Name] appeared on The World's Strictest Parents.

A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon
• Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon 2
• Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon 3

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

---

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

Support

1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Support As nominator. Alex Shih^Talk 23:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
3. Support: Experienced and responsible; excellent candidate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
4. Over a decade since the first RfA - wow. The candidate is active in areas where they would benefit from using the admin bit, and I think they can be trusted to use it well given their track record. Full support, and thanks for volunteering! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Long term experienced user has been editing since 2005 with over 76K edits last RFA was in 2006 with clean block log .Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
6. Support Absolutely no concerns after reviewing this users history and I have seen them around. Good luck! -- Dane ^talk 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
7. Support Seen them around too, fine worker, I remember that excellent Washington DC article quite some time ago now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
8. Support no concerns. One of our best users. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
9. Support. I finally arrived at an RfA where I genuinely thought the candidate was already an admin. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
10. Support A stalwart of great experience and productivity. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
11. Support per nomination, no concerns and the first time in years I've been able to appropriately link to User:Dominic/RFA cliché no. 1. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
12. Support I'm so happy to see an RFA candidate with Robert's depth of knowledge and his temperament to use that knowledge constructively on the project. For instance, I've taken note that even though he's one of our most experienced New Page Patrollers, if ever he encounters an ambiguous situation, he doesn't hesitate to bring it other reviewers for input (see Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers and archives for examples). That kind of thoughtful, consensus-seeking manner would be a great addition to the admin corps. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
13. Support I've seen this user around in AFC/NPP, and he's always done an excellent job. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
14. Support, level-headed, no-dramah editor with prodigious experience. GAB^gab 01:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
15. Support lots of great work at AFc/NPP. No reservations here. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
16. Support, seems qualified and experienced. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
17. Support, very level headed from what I've seen. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
18. Support - Robert has consistently impressed me as thoughtful, considerate, and knowledgeable. I have no doubt that he would make a fine admin.- MrX 01:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
19. Support: I believe Robert will continue to benefit the project if given the tools, and I have no concerns that he would abuse them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
20. Support: I too also figured he was already an admin given his competence. Very helpful editor, seem him around doing fantastic things. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
21. Support: Robert's work at the DRN demonstrates that he is exactly the kind of editor who should be an admin. Cjhard (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
22. Support: I support this qualified candidate, he had done exemplary work at New Pages Patrol Anoptimistix "Message Me" 02:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
23. Strong Support A core requirement for admins is to handle conflicts and mediate. Robert has that experience in bucketloads. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
24. Strong support primarily because of the candidate's experience with dispute resolution. Model candidate. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
25. Net positive. ceranthor 02:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
26. Support. I'm surprised Robert isn't already an admin based on his contributions around the project, which makes this an easy support for me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
27. Support Candidates years of experience on Wkipedia as well as other support reasons mentioned from other editors. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
28. Support – No major problems; easily experienced. J947^{(c) (m)} 05:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
29. Support I run into Robert's work all over the place and have never found anything that I even mildly disagree with. He has my full support. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
30. Support For reasons already mentioned by others.Wanli33 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
31. Support, clearly a huge help to the project and a net positive. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
32. Support I've seen the oppose comments but feel they're too harsh and don't credit the work don't by Robert over the past so many years. To be fair, I myself have interacted with Robert on the opposing sides, disagreeing with a few prods of his; (for example, I would have preferred that instead of prodding first and checking later, Rob does some review of sources before prodding articles like: Eisoptrophobia, Hathazari Degree College, Boomerang Beach, Brooks-British Range tundra, and others). Having said that, he's contributed here for so many years and has excellently contributed to this project. In my opinion, trustworthy to use the tools. Lourdes 06:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
33. Support - An administrator who works to improve the quality of the encyclopedia is an administrator I can get behind.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
34. Support Learning doesn't stop when you get the mop - Robert displays the clue required to know when to use the bit, and when to ask for help. The oppose !votes don't raise anything which couldn't be quickly rectified -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
35. Support- Is experienced and is a good candidate for adminship.  FITINDIA  08:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I suppose someone has to go first. I am concerned about the inaccuracies in deletion tagging highlighted by User:Frank above, but more than that I am concerned by the disconnect between your content creation and your stated goal of "deletion of crud". In your user page, you currently list 13 articles you've created throughout your tenure in Wikipedia. Of those 13, one has since been deleted from mainspace, one is a redirect, and one is a disambiguation page. Of all of the remaining 10 articles, I do not see a single one that is other than, stub, start, or unassessed. I do not see any indication on your user page that you have contributed to any good or featured content, nor do you or your nominator highlight any in this nomination. While I have no doubt that the praise others have lavished on you in other areas is accurate, I want any admin candidate who opens with an overt deletionist charter to have demonstrated the skills to drive content to at least the good article level, and in doing so worked through the effort required to achieve that milestone. Had you not stated that deletion of crud was the raison d'etre for this nomination, I would probably not oppose. I wish you the best; I just don't want you to have the delete button until you've gone through the pain of getting something to GA or FL status. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Weak content creation with not a single specific example provided in Q2. Checking out his work is difficult because AfC activity means that he gets the credit for the work of other editors. All I'm finding are weak stubs like Fidelity Union Life Insurance Company. And I'm not convinced that he's much good as a patroller. For example, he just prodded a foreign language article. Prod is the wrong process to be using for newly created pages. In this case, it should have been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:A2, as it's a copy of a page in the Tamil Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
3. Regretful oppose The candidate has been very active in the last three years although being a Wikipedian since 2005 is somewhat misleading because as soon as his first RFA failed, he stopped editing for seven years. I also encountered the candidate when patrolling CSD but my impression was, unfortunately, the opposite of Alex Shih's. Of the 15 taggings within the last few months I personally declined, 10 still exist today in one form or another. I know I was recently chided for somehow having too strict standards when it comes to speedy deletion, i.e. the right of admins to delete articles on sight without any discussion, so I will limit my examples to taggings that I think most people can agree were seriously problematic:
   • A7 for an article within 4 minutes of creation that was clearly still in contruction (and already contained the claim that she was a member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE), a classical indicator of significance)
   • A7 + cleanup tags within 8 minutes of creation, also clearly still in construction
   • A7 for an event where 10 notable artists performed (at least he waited an hour here)
   • A7 within 3 minutes on an article clearly under construction for a footballer that plays in his national team
   • A7 within 8 minutes for band signed to EMI Music

   The same pattern of behavior can be found in the CSD log the nominator linked to (and which only covers the last two weeks):

   • A7 within 1(!) minute (yes, still under construction) for a musician who is a member of two notable bands (cf. WP:BAND #6)
   • A7 for the CEO of a notable airline (with 5 refs!)
   • A7 for member of notable band signed to notable label

   And some examples from before he turned on the logging:

   • A7 for artists signed to notable label (still under construction)
   • A7 for a clearly notable state-run entity
   • A7 within 7 minutes while still under construction (to his credit, he removed it after the article was completed)
   • A7 for a subject that already had an article
   • A7 after 5 minutes for spouse of notable person
   • A7 for the mayor of a city with half a million inhabitants
   • etc. pp. (the last group of examples I pulled from his contributions directly and is just from the last two months)

   New page patrolling is an area that requires some nerves and patience and anyone working there is to be commended for their dedication. Which is why I won't admonish anyone for making some mistakes. But NPP is also the area most new editors first encounter other editors and thus where the BITE-risks are highest. And many new editors, trying to create a new article based on what they have seen, building it step-by-step, will become disillusioned and leave when within minutes of their first edit someone slaps a tag on the page that basically looks like Wikipedia’s version of “game over”. And so no one will probably be surprised to learn that some of the creators of the pages I mentioned above have not edited since. That the articles even in their unfinished form did not meet the criterion used just adds to the problem. Thus while the candidate promises a conservative approach to speedy deletion, there is nothing in his current approach to suggest that he is capable of that.

   To summarize, the candidate’s willingness to "shoot first and ask questions later" is not what I expect from an admin who are supposed to be careful when handling their responsibilities. Yet, I oppose with some regret because Robert clearly means well and also does a lot of good. If he really manages to moderate his approach and learns to only tag pages for speedy deletion that are clearly completed and clearly meet the criteria for speedy deletion (which does not include any pages that can be handled by WP:ATD, such as articlea about a CEO of a notable company or a member of multiple notable bands), I will support any future attempt if this request fails. Regards SoWhy 06:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   Not to disagree with your view, but is there a guideline which guides editors to wait for significantly reasonable time before tagging an article with A7? Lourdes 06:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   @Lourdes: Yes, it's called Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers which explicitly includes this section:

   A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticise.

   Regards SoWhy 06:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Also, Articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will have added full content in their first revision – Special:NewPages. Linguist^unEins^uno 06:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks. It is better to wait a few days... In my opinion, this is inapplicable and illogical for new page review; I would use common sense to disregard this in A7 tagging. Ten minutes is the general recommended time for only no content and no context; not for A7. So would hope you reconsider at least those statements above where you've disagreed with Robert's A7 tagging in quick time. Lourdes 06:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) @Lourdes: While there is no fixed wait time, all those examples I mentioned a) already failed A7 at the time of tagging and b) were still actively under construction, in most cases obviously so, so I don't see what there is to reconsider. Do you have any specific example you think was a correct tagging? If so, please elaborate. Regards SoWhy 06:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   For example, I would prefer that better description be given for a statement like "A7 + cleanup tags within 8 minutes of creation, also clearly still in construction" as this presumes that A7 falls under the 10-minute guidance criteria. If your view is that an A7 tag has been placed on an article that clearly mentioned a credible claim of significance when the tag was placed, then I have no issues with the same. Lourdes 06:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   There is lots of guidance about this, for example, WP:NPP, "Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginally poor. ... Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor." Andrew D. (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   For those interested, there was a discussion here about this issue. Alex Shih^Talk 06:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

   "Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice." This is from the policy page of WP:CSD for no context and no content tagging. I would observe that if ten-minute is the suggested time for A1 and A3, and if A7 has been specifically excluded from the same after quite some arguments on the relevant pages, then A7 does not necessarily qualify under the suggested waiting period criteria. This is not to say that hasty tagging should be promoted; this is just to mention that considering A7 under the same criteria of A1 and A3 is illogical and in my opinion, incorrect. Lourdes 06:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

4. (edit conflict × 5) Oppose. I was very uncomfortable with the candidate's answer to question 5; while it is encouraging that the candidate admits that he could have handled some of his recent CSD and PROD tagging better, I would expect a prospective admin to already have gained a good command of these matters. For the rest, I can do no better than say "per SoWhy". Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose I was about to mention the hasty addition of speedy deletion tags on certain articles as well, by SoWhy has already mentioned it. Nevertheless, I still found a few more tags which are questionable, which aren't just A7. This use of A1 is totally false as it identifies the article's topic. Looking at the bottom of the history if this article shows that an A3 tag was added only 15 minutes after creation. This one is very similar but made worse by adding three criteria. AFAIK these were all made within the past 2 months. Goodness, please give these victims a break. Minima© (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose I checked out Robert's contributions a while back and came to the same conclusions as SoWhy. I have also been concerned about the number of times (c. 250) he has posted to User talk:Jimbo Wales, which I tend to find is a time waste. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose We have admins who seem to delete speedy requests without further inspection and I'm sure Robert wouldn't do this. However, his judgement about what is an appropriate speedy candidate is seriously misaligned with the CSD criteria and general requirements. In other respects he does very good work and his contributions with advice and in discussions are often helpful – I hope he continues in these ways. Thincat (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose: When I see a familiar username in RFA, I vote strictly based on my previous interaction with the user. I can remember having two main history with Robert. I considered him (through his edits) strange but quite helpful in the first incident. However, in the second one, his assumption of bad faith isn't what I want to see in an admin. I will try to get diff for the first, but the second can be found in the history and edit summaries of Binta International School. If he agrees that he was wrong or someone can engage me in a discussion that his reviews and temperament were appropriate i will withdraw my oppose. For what its worth, the second was after the first incident. Darreg (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose; When a candidate has only 11% of their edits to article space they need to do something extraordinary to convince me they're here for the right reasons, and I'd definitely not seeing that. Someone who explicitly states that their reason for wanting to be an admin is so that they can play judge-jury-and-executioner when it comes to quality control needs to have a demonstrable track record in understanding what Wikipedia's norms are, and there are far too many recent examples of serious competence issues when it comes to assessing whether material ought to be deleted, and absolutely zero evidence that he's ever done any non-trivial content work. I don't expect admins to have written featured articles, but I do expect them to at least have the basic experience of writing something and having it criticized by others so they understand the way editors feel when material on which they've worked in good faith is nominated for deletion or drastically changed. I know this is a harsh thing to say, but you've given me no reason at all to trust you and those above (in particular SoWhy) have given me plenty of reasons not to. ‑ Iridescent 09:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I cannot jump on this train just yet. I've seen good work, but I've also seen some less positive things in dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)