Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenman

Greenman

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (104/66/9); Scheduled to end 20:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Greenman (talk · contribs) – Greenman has been editing Wikipedia for a long while now. He joined the platform back in February 2003 and has amassed more than 16,000 edits. He is an occasional contributor on the Afrikaans Wikipedia and also on the other indigenous African languages Wikipedias. A South African Wikipedian, he serves on the national Wikimedia ZA board as a committed member. Greenman is also a friendly editor and regularly participates in community discussions regarding South Africa and many more topics. He has obtained a trustworthy reputation among numerous editors and will go out of his way to help you in any situation. He has shown consistent reliability. His main interests are South African literature, sport, politics and technology. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 11:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you User:Lefcentreright for the nomination, I accept. I confirm that I have never edited for pay, and do not ever edit under an alternative account name (excluding the occasional inadvertent anonymous edit when I am logged out). Greenman (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2019 (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: Although I have been editing since 2003, I have been reluctant to be an administrator. I am fairly conflict-averse, the process has always appeared quite onerous, and I have always preferred to work quietly in the background. However, after discussions about the lack of admins in our local community, and problems local editors have experienced, I have agreed to be nominated.

I don't see myself getting widely involved in new areas I'm not currently involved in. I do see myself getting involved in two main areas:

1) Vandalism prevention. For example, on 5 August, the article Joel_Wilson_(umpire) (history) was subjected to 179 edits in less than an hour. I happened to spot the announcement on the 3rd party site that led to most of the vandalism. When I came to view the page, it was being subjected to multiple vandalism attempts per minute. I got involved in attempting to roll back the vandalism, and requested that the page be semi-protected. I also warned vandalising users, and requested a block for multiple offenders that had already been warned. If I had been able to do either of these actions myself, it would have saved a noticeable amount of work for other admins (who besides blocking and semi-protecting, also later had to redact various edits for violations of WP:BLP). I warn users and request blocks reasonably often.

2) Viewing (and occasionally restoring) deleted articles. Working on African Wikipedia content, I have in the past quite often come across articles that have been needlessly deleted. Often, the reason for the deletion was not that the topic was not notable, but that the original editor was inexperienced, and did not reference the article properly. They may also have been unable to defend the article properly during the deletion nomination process. This results in the efforts being lost, and quite often the editor losing interest. I have found myself wanting to view their original contribution (which may have been substantial) so that I could assist in improving the article, as well as nurturing a new editor interested in African content. I remember one particular case where the efforts were substantial, the topic was clearly notable to me, and I was in the midst of tracking down sources (mostly not in English). Before I could finish, the article was deleted, and there was no way to continue.

I have come across far fewer of these recently. I am unsure if this is because the situation has improved, I am just not noticing as many. Greenman (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

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

A: I tend to be WikiGnome-like in style, so my contributions are often minor, and nothing in particular stands out. I have never worked towards getting articles to good or featured status. Rather, I work in areas that don't interest too many others. I tend to start lots of small, articles for the purposes of completion (such as making sure all participants in the various editions of the Chess World Cup have an article, or that all political parties contesting the 2019 South African general election have an article). I see my best contributions as being indirect - helping in the formation of the Wikimedia South Africa chapter, and in encouraging and assisting local editors. Local content tends to fall prey to link rot, or simply not exist online in the first place, and I have worked extensively to get organisations to rectify this so that the content can be referenced on Wikipedia. Greenman (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2019 (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: Yes. My most frustrating time editing Wikipedia was in 2007. A single-purpose editor was, to my mind, rewriting history at the Herero and Namaqua genocide article. No other editors seemed interested in the article, and I became angry and despondent. I would rate this and this as my two worst edits on Wikipedia - they're both quite cringeworthy to read now. But there were positives. From the experience, I learnt to trust Wikipedia's processes. The article was protected, and the user was banned, and the systems, slow and frustrating as they seemed to me in the moment, with the 'wrong' version of the article remaining locked on the page for a lengthy period, worked in the end.

I have been involved in very few disputes since then. My style is to avoid conflict, disengage where needed, and to have patience with and faith in the systems in place. I tend to await consensus rather than act unilaterally in general. If accepted as an administrator, I will continue this style, and mostly use my privileges in uncontroversial cases of vandalism and the like. If there are more serious disputes and conflict, I will likely step away, rather than escalate the situation. My aim in accepting the nomination is to reduce the workload on other admins, and ease frustrations in the local community, not to increase my own stress levels! Greenman (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2019 (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 John M Wolfson

4. Why do you want administrator rights on the English Wikipedia specifically, when it seems like your talents would be better suited towards global rights?

A: Primarily because I was nominated on the English Wikipedia to assist on the English Wikipedia. I would have no objection in principle to attaining global rights as well. However, from what I understand, Global rights are limited in some aspects on the English Wikipedia, as consensus has not been attained in all areas. See WP:GRP. Greenman (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from ThatMontrealIP

5. Could you comment on why you chose not to include inline sources in these article creations over the past couple of years? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

A: For 1, the source is included as part of the sports team template. The rest are all chess players, and the standard format includes three main sources, included as templates/external links; FIDE, the international chess federation, which is the official source for their titles and rating and which includes some biographical information, as well as chessgames.com and chess365.com, which are chess databases containing a record of their major games. So all articles have sources, but little if any extra content needing further inline sourcing. Greenman (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Lee Vilenski

6. Thank you for running! You have ~16,000 edits, and 16 years of service. Do you see you activity levels increasing with the mop?

A: My least active year was 2004, with 132 edits. 2019 has been my most active year, with 2652 edits so far. I see my activity levels in future changing according to my available free time, rather than whether or not my nomination is approved. Greenman (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional Questions from Beeblebrox

7. This is a follow up based on the second half of your answer to Q1: EN.Wikipedia does suffer from inadequate coverage of African topics, so wanting to work on that is great, but there are some aspects of your answer that are bit troubling. One is that you seem to be suggesting that you would substitute your own judgement for that of an admin who previously deleted an article. The other is your statement that you were tracking down sources for an article when it was deleted and there was "no way to continue." To my mind the solution to both of these issues is to simply write the new article yourself, so I'm wondering why that seemingly did not occur to you.

A: To my mind, the judgement an admin makes in the case of a nomination for deletion is simply to carry out the consensus of the community. They are not there to impose their own views on the process, and I certainly don't see myself doing this. The situation I described was based on a specific example, where an African editor had put in many hours of work on an article, but it was poorly sourced. The article was nominated for deletion, and deleted, primarily on the basis of it having insufficient reliable sources. This does not mean that the topic was not notable, but in this case, simply that sufficient reliable sources had not yet been added. By deleting the article, the contributor can became demoralised, and most likely stop contributing, and a notable African topic would remain uncovered. Writing the new article myself is exactly what I would not want to do - I could not replicate the expertise of the original contributor, and redoing what they had done over many hours would be an immense waste of time. It would be even more of a waste of time if I can't see where they went wrong in the first place. The reason for highlighting this example was that being able to view the deleted article would allow me to assist the disillusioned contributor. I could assist them with sources, or point out where the article needs to be improved, or simply engage with them about why the article has no chance of being included. WP:BIAS is on ongoing issue, and every gathering of African Wikipedians is full of horror stories. Viewing deleted articles could help here in a small way. In the rare case an article needs to be restored, it would be restored on the basis that it has been improved to a degree where it now meets the criteria.

I must point out again that this situation has improved in recent times with a greater awareness of systemic bias, and with processes and privileges around new page reviews. Greenman (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

8. 540 of your 1,214 page creations are User:talk pages [1]. Can you explain why that is?

A: The majority of these are warnings about vandalism and the like. Greenman (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from Cryptic

9. To Q1, you say you want to work with page protection and undeletion. In the last year, I can find five edits to WP:RFPP ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) and two to AFD (to 1 and 2) and nothing else deletion- or undeletion-related (though I looked only in the WP: namespace); and zero to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV ever. Is there something obvious I'm missing? —Cryptic 01:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A: No, I don't think so. When it comes to volunteers, the number of active admins is currently 508, down from a peak 1016. Helping out in a small way I see as a net positive. In general, when it comes to volunteers, I am grateful for any contributions that are a net positive, and don't expect more. Everyone does what they can, according to their circumstances. I can also point out that, as per question 8, 540 of my 1,214 page creations were to user talk pages, mostly warning them of vandalism. Further action was often left to admins.

Adding to this further, some editors have said they don't think I need admin rights, They are correct, I don't. I am quite happy editing. But I accepted the nomination because I think it would be helpful. The long tail can make quite a difference. Greenman (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional Questions from Kudpung

10. What in your opinion are the benefits to the encyclopedia of a user creating hundreds of stubs (some poorly sourced) in a niche topic and hoping that other editors will find them and turn therm into proper articles?

A: I have been around since the early days, and this is exactly how Wikipedia was built, so the historical benefits seem clear. I am also involved in other language editions, and again, many articles are stubs, and this is a valuable starting point. However, even if an article is unlikely to be expanded upon, its existence is valuable. In the case of the two topics I mentioned elsewhere, participants in the Chess World Cup, and political parties contesting the 2019 South African general election, it scratches my own itch and makes things better for me, and others, as a reader. I want to know what the difference between, say, the similarly-named African Security Congress, Afrikan Alliance of Social Democrats, African Christian Democratic Party, African Congress of Democrats, African Content Movement, African Covenant, African Democratic Change, African Independent Congress, African National Congress, African Renaissance Unity Party and African Transformation Movement, and a stub article that contains information such as date of formation, and primary policies, with a link to other sources, is more than sufficient. Similarly, when viewing the Chess World Cup results, I would like to know who a player is, whether they are young and upcoming, nationality, peak rating, so a stub article containing this information, with links to sources containing more detail, is perfectly sufficient and overall enhances the value of the encyclopedia. Greenman (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

11. This is not a two part question as it requires only one answer. Imagine you are a New Page Reviewer. (something which I believe you have never done) There is a script devised by a user that greatly simplifies adding the appropriate Wikiproject banner and rating. Should New Page Reviewers be expected to do this or should the author, especially autopatrolled users do it as part of the article creation process?

A: Firstly, when it comes to the word 'expect', I'm wary. As mentioned above, I prefer not to expect anything from volunteers - rather, I am grateful for anything that's a net positive. However, it is certainly beneficial and preferable that authors do it themselves as part of the article creation process. Greenman (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional Questions from Lourdes

12. On 23 June 2019, you wrote on your user page that you were employed part-time by MariaDB. Did you reveal this conflict of interest before 23 June 2019 in a formal manner during your edits to articles such as MariaDB, List of content management systems, Comparison of relational database management systems and others where you edited information related to MariaDB?

A: I have always been completely transparent about who I am, and my name, with a link to my blog, which contains public information about me, including from when I began part-time work for the MariaDB Foundation, has always been available from my user page, so nothing has been hidden at any point. Quoting from the COI guidelines, "Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns." My edits to the MariaDB and related pages have always been within these guidelines, because they are almost exclusively version updates, such as this and this. I maintain software version information for multiple projects, and if you look at my edit history, will see that I am one of the key editors in maintaining version information across Wikipedia in articles such as Comparison of wiki software, recently, primarily by replacing the previous, ineffective, templates, with templates that could be used in the various list and comparison articles (see the list of articles created) so that version information only needs to be updated in one place, and so that table sorting continues to work. I avoid edits of a textual nature that could possibly be considered COI. For example, there is a user request to split the MariaDB page into MariaDB Server, MariaDB Corporation, and/or MariaDB Foundation. I would happily do this myself on any other page, but have refrained from doing so in this case because of possible perception of COI. Greenman (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional Questions from Andrew D.

13. Green Man and green have a variety of meanings. Which was the inspiration for your user account name, please?

A: It's primarily a nickname from university due to my involvement in environmental activism. I quite like the Green Man motif, and have one staring at me in my lounge. Greenman (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

13b. Your edits now seem to focus on four categories: chess, political parties, software and sport. Why do you not edit environmental topics if this was once such a strong interest?

A: Firstly, global environmental topics are quite well covered on Wikipedia (at least to the degree where I can make improvements), and secondly, many environmental concerns are local, and not really notable enough to be Wikipedia articles. Perhaps a third part is that editing on topics where the outcomes are sometimes quite depressing might be draining and take away some of the fun of editing. Your questions are a welcome change from the others, so a question back to you (or anyone else interested in the answers). Do the answers make a difference to your decision on the RfA, or are they more general curiosity? Greenman (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

They make a difference to me. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW answers to questions (but not necessarily my questions) are the primary basis for my RfA !votes. It's the best indicator of who the person is, today, and how they interact with others. My feeling is that if a candidate is a jerk, or evasive, or condescending, or arrogant, or clueless, in answering questions, that's who they are right now, and that's what kind of admin they'll be. Same if they're thoughtful, respectful, clueful, etc. I've changed my !vote due to answers to questions before. – Levivich 02:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The answers make a difference but I would find it difficult to quantify this. But, in any case, they seem productive in that, regardless of the outcome, we get better acquainted. Also, in this case, your account name has sparked other productive activity: see Green Men and Not a bad idea. Andrew D. (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional Questions from DBigXray

14. From your answer 1, section 2, can you elaborate more what exactly do you intend to do when you state that you will restore deleted articles "that have been needlessly deleted." Can you provide few examples of such articles that were deleted but should not have. How exactly do you intend to use your admin bits in these cases.

A: I would like to thank Kudpung for (almost) providing some good examples. To take one example then, an editor based in Europe, with no expertise in the subject, suggested an article about an award-winning female South African poet and translator, Karen Press, for WP:PROD. This is meant to be used for uncontroversial deletions. What would normally happen, since it's an obscure topic, is that the seven days would pass without anyone noticing, and the article would be deleted, resulting in African content disappearing from Wikipedia without a trace. With admin rights, it would be possible to view the article that has been deleted, see that it should not have been deleted, and the article could be restored, hopefully with some improvements made. In this case, due to the increased eyeballs as part of this AfD, the article was spared this fate, and has been improved in the meantime, a positive outcome. I would like to ensure that this sort of positive outcome is more widespread. Greenman (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Jovanmilic97

15. What is your opinion regarding to WP:NFOOTY-WP:GNG's relation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovan Tatović? If you were to close this AfD, what would you do?

A: The AfD has been closed already, so unfortunately I cannot view the content, but as an admin my role is to carry out community consensus, so it's not important to answer this question. This sort of situation is not uncommon, where WP:GNG and a sub-guideline meant to provide clarity, such as WP:NFOOTY, still leave a resolution unclear. I tend to lean more on the Inclusionist side of things, so would be uncomfortable deleting content where there is no clear consensus. In this case, there seems to be a lack of clear consensus, so I would probably have relisted or closed as no consensus (and therefore removed the deletion notice). Greenman (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from John M Wolfson

16. Your edit summary usage is currently at 84.2%; while that isn't abysmal, you haven't had a month where you used a summary for at least 90% of your edits since February. (Your mainspace stats are slightly better, at 89.2% of the time, but still no 90%+ usage since March.) Given that communication is a key part of being an admin, would you promise to start consistently using edit summaries at least 90% of the time?

A: Clarity and communication are important, but I feel that the edit summaries that are autofilled (such as for this edit), can in some cases be clear enough, even though they will reduce my % according to the metric. My % for October is 39.6% and dropping fast, partly due to this Request for adminship. It would be easy to game this metric, but that sort of thing doesn't interest me, and looking through my edit history, I am satisfied that my edit summaries are clear enough, so won't be promising to increase my %. Of course I am happy to consider examples where my edit summary could have been improved to make things easier to future editors. Greenman (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Levivich

17. If this RfA is successful, will you be open to non-binding WP:RECALL by adding yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If so, under what criteria? If not, why not? Thanks in advance for your answer.

A: I would be open to the idea. This is a much bigger point than I have time to answer fully here, and I'm aware of much more discussion on this elsewhere. I haven't reviewed the current situation about removal of admins in enough detail to give an opinion on the point. I am also aware that your question has been described as a misuse of the RfA that puts off potential candidates. I don't consider your question offputting at all, agree with your response to the editor, and would imagine that "PRODing a bunch of an RfA candidates' articles in the middle of their RfA", as you say, is far more offputting to potential candidates than your question. Greenman (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Nsk92

18. Could you please comment on your creating this new BLP stub article, Andrés Rodríguez (chess player) (link to the version at the time of this question) a little over 7 hours ago, while this RfA was in progress? The article is referenced to a single source, all citations are WP:BAREURLS, the first external link is a dead link[7], the DOB is unsourced, the article is not tagged as a stub, and the edit summaries for your last two edits are transposed. [8][9].

A: Yes, Proveit was not loading (it seems to sometimes fail, I think this may be when my connection is spotty), and I was very tired, with it being around 2am I believe, so I submitted what I had, planning to come back the next day. Thanks to the eyes on my activity from this RfA, the article was fixed before then. I'm aware that most people would probably not have done this 'while this RfA was in progress' as it may not look good and be seen as harming their chances, but, I don't worry that much about appearances, and submitting what I had for improvement later seemed a net positive. Greenman (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Lightburst

19. Since the most controversial thing about your RFA is the WP:COI issue, I want to give you an opportunity to say anything you like about the issue.

A: I don't have much more to add than my previous answer to question 12. I have always been completely transparent about who I am, and my edits have always been simple, uncontroversial factual changes that improve the encyclopedia, as it appears everyone that's actually investigated them has concluded. I'm well aware of COI concerns and avoid any sorts of textual changes that could possible be misconstrued. I find it intriguing that an editor below implies that it's preferable that vandalism should remain on the page rather than be fixed. I disagree. I prefer to interpret things according to the spirit of Wikipedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and improve the body of knowledge. If an action supports that goal, I think it should be welcomed. If I see vandalism, I will revert it. To take another actual example, this time from real life, if I see someone lying injured next to a no-stopping sign, I will stop and help them. I live in a country where for much of my early life, the rules were malevolent, so I prefer to try to live by doing what is right, and what is helpful. Greenman (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Discott

20. When did you start work at MariaDB? Did you do any work for them or any other organisation that might lead to COI issues before you started at MariaDB?

A: I started with the MariaDB Foundation in April 2013. I did no other work for them before that, nor am I aware of any possible COI issues. From 2005 to 2013, my sources of income were all from entities that do not have Wikipedia articles. Greenman (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Lefcentreright

21. As the nominator, I am obliged to ask a question. Since the main topic of this RFA discussion, is the WP:COI over you editing the MariaDB article. I have reviewed your contributions to the article. Most of your edits were small, obvious and self-explanatory. Nothing caught the eye as being controversial in the sense of writing the article as promotional or as an advertisement. No user reverted your work. Now for the question, just for you to confirm: Did you, knowing Wikipedia's strict WP:COI policies and guidelines, indeed edit the article with any bias or favourability towards the company?

A: No. Greenman (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Bruce leverett

22. I am unlikely to vote on this, because it would require me to do more research than I have time for, but I would like to ask you, or perhaps remind you, about something relating to CoI. Not long ago I noticed that there was an article about a close relative, and I read it and wanted to make some copy-editing changes to it. At the time I read through WP:COI, looking for guidance, and it seemed to me that the guidance boiled down to two things for me: (1) make uncontroversial edits; and (2) register your connection to the subject, so that anyone who wants to know will easily find it. For the latter, I used the "connected contributor" template on the article's talk page. The guidance suggests some other possibilities, but that one seemed particularly easy to use and effective. So my question for you is, have you used some such signpost to give warning to potential readers? And if not, do you plan to?

A If would consider using the template if I had contributed to the article structure or content in any sort of way, but since my edits are limited to version numbering and the like, and I've had no other impact on the article besides keeping it up-to-date, nor do I plan to, I don't see the need. Greenman (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Greenman

23 Since no-one has explicitly asked about the copyvio issues listed below, I'll do so myself. In 2008 you created the article Graham Michael Lesch. It was a blatant copyvio and hasn't been fixed in 11 years! Surely this is immediately disqualifying?

A: It appears so :) It was 11 years ago, and I'm not sure I remember correctly, but this is what I think happened. In 2008, an African literary organisation, Chimurenga, heard about Wikipedia, were excited by the possibilities of what it could do to assist in the preservation of marginalised knowledge, and started adding information. At first these were direct copies from their website, and they were all quickly deleted. They approached me for help. Over a period of weeks, I assisted them, and as a result they changed the licence on their website to a compatible GFDL. I suspect this was one of the articles logged in under my name on a shared computer, as it's not familiar to me, and does not seems characteristic of my edits. I presume Afribeats was an affiliated project to Chimurenga but I may be wrong. I can't recall further details. Since I can't recall the topic, and don't think it was me that added it in the first place, it's unlikely it would cross my mind to go back and fix it.

It's also a good example of the point I'm trying to make. African editors add content, which gets deleted, often, since connectivity may be sporadic and time limited, before the editor has even been made aware of a problem. Since it's deleted, there's no way to see what the problem was, and the content is lost. It's not even possible to see when the article was created. The editor, denied a chance to fix it, and unable to access their contribution to even start fixing it, gets discouraged and leaves. It would have been much more friendly to tag the article for improvement, and notify the editor. The problem is made worse when the original source becomes unavailable, as is common with online African sources. This is the problem Chimurenga were trying to solve by using Wikipedia. But, their funding ran out, their website is now offline, so the original is gone. Only the Wikipedia copies remain, but with no source backing it up, many of these have since been deleted, and those that remain are at a greater risk of being removed as well. We were naive about the promise of "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." in those early days. Here is a link to the Chimurenga website with the changed licence, changed at some point after I started working with them.

Note that I'm not saying this particular case is an example of content that should be restored. It's not. Greenman (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from SilkTork

24 You say above "I suspect this was one of the articles logged in under my name on a shared computer, as it's not familiar to me, and does not seems characteristic of my edits." This sounds like you allowed someone to edit Wikipedia through your account, and that therefore it wasn't you who created that article. It also sounds ("one of the articles") as though there are other articles where this will have happened. Can you recall which other articles are involved? SilkTork (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

A: The only ones I am certain of are from the Xhosa Wikipedia - I didn't recall the article mentioned above before this RfA, but it's not impossible there are others. If there are, they'd probably be from the earlier years as well, such as when I was working with Chimurenga, or when users frequently couldn't create accounts at editathons. Greenman (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow up Could you put a date on when you last allowed someone to use your account, either supervised or unsupervised. And is this something you might allow again, such as when someone else couldn't log on or create an account. SilkTork (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A: I don't foresee a situation where someone would edit using my account in future. I can't give a specific date as to when last this happened, only 'a long time ago', and the only examples I'm aware of are those listed in my answer. WP:EVC has made that kind of need obsolete. Greenman (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Seems to meet my criteria. Valid need expressed and long term no drama contributor. Be careful when wading into project space and please feel free to ask other admins for help if you pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Support I don't see any problems with giving this user adminship. Their contribution to Wikimedia South Africa demonstrates a deep and impressive commitment to Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

   Weak support I am not particularly impressed with Greenman's contributions, especially his low edit count in projectspace (not to mention overall) and the low number of AfDs he's been in given that he wants to view and possibly restore deleted content. Nevertheless, he would appear to be a (slight) net positive, and NOBIGDEAL applies. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Moving to neutral. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC) And now oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

3. Strong Weak support: adminship is NOBIGDEAL so my only major concern in almost all RfAs is temperament. Greenman appears to have a good temperament and I'm sufficiently reassured by the second paragraph in the answer to question #3, and the Wikimedia ZA board participation. As for the first paragraph, I think it's fairly brave to drag up that 2007 incident here, which would be concerning were it recent, but the understandable frustration when dealing with an overt racist and the intermediate 12 years are plenty of mitigating circumstances for me to ignore it entirely. We need more editors working in our under-maintained and under-developed South African content and giving an editor already working in that area the ability to work more effectively seems to me like a no brainer. I also agree with TonyBallioni above. — Bilorv (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Beeblebrox: I'm quite baffled by this question—[...] you were tracking down sources for an article when it was deleted and there was "no way to continue." To my mind the solution to [this issue and another] is to simply write the new article yourself, so I'm wondering why that seemingly did not occur to you. Is it not clear that in the case Greenman describes, the main issue is that the other editor's work was lost? You could sensibly say "did you consider WP:REFUND?", but not "write the new article yourself". I also don't think it's an honest interpretation to say you seem to be suggesting that you would substitute your own judgement for that of an admin who previously deleted an article, but I suppose the candidate can answer that one. — Bilorv (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

   Coming back to change to "Weak support" per Ched (and not anybody else). I checked some of the 4im notices the candidate was giving out and found them to be acceptable in cases of severe BLP violations, but in the case of the four edits Ched points out, a level 1 notice is the only appropriate warning. The candidate should re-read WP:BITE and assume a lot more good faith of IPs and new editors in future. — Bilorv (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

4. Support. I like the well-reasoned answers to the standard questions. Q1 and the example of Joel Wilson (umpire) shows why it's a good idea to have (more) admins from South Africa (I can't think of any of the top of my head). From a mild view of the candidate's contributions, I don't think the tools will be used much, but I can see having Greenman have access to them being a net positive. I especially like the focus on editor retention and the willingness to rescue articles that may have been wrongfully deleted. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Support - an excellent member of the community, does very good edits, should be an admin.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Writes articles, knows about BLPs and is reasonable at AfD. No reason not to support that I can find. Collect (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
7. Support Worthy of the admin tools. No real reason to oppose. A definite support. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 23:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
8. Support Long term contributor has been around since 2003 clear net postive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
9. Support for a clear net positive. No evidence that they would misuse the mop, and I see no reason to oppose. Miniapolis 23:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
10. Sure. — 🦊 02:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

    And now more explicitly to counter this odd trend of bringing up mistakes from literally a decade ago in a request to get a delete button. — 🦊 15:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

    I've addressed this on Greenman's talk page, but I'll clarify it here. The issue is not merely that they created a copyvio in 2008; it's that the copyvio remained and was never fixed, and only speedy deleted when this RfA ran. Remember that CSDs only apply if every single revision meets the criteria, so that the article could have been deleted any time in the last 11 years but wasn't is a problem. If the article had been deleted in 2008, I wouldn't have brought it up. If another editor had fixed the close paraphrasing, I wouldn't have bought it up. If the licensing of the original source had been shown to be compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 / GFDL, I wouldn't have brought it up. Early mistakes are okay; not realising they are still active issues years later when running for adminship is more of a concern. Again, I want to say that I oppose this RfA with regret; there just needs to be a bit of careful thinking of the nuances first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

11. Support. This is more like a mild support, due to concerns about low AFD participation and no edits to various other admin boards. Nevertheless, I think the candidate is knowledgeable about policy and has been editing long enough to know what is and isn't allowed. epicgenius (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
12. Support: a trusted contributor; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
13. Support: Fully mature and ready to take the janitor's keys. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
14. Support: Long history of constructing editing and sound knowledge of policies.Hughesdarren (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
15. Support. No concerns about the mopworthiness of this candidate. bd2412 T 03:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
16. Support - an excellent member of the community, does good edits, should be an admin.Michaelgraaf (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
17. Support - WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
18. Strong Support: WP:NOBIGDEAL + has extensive knowledge about African content, can help bring insight in sticky situations. Thuvack | ^talk 14:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
19. Strong Support: I strongly feel that Greenman would be a good admin for a rang of reasons. In addition to WP:NOBIGDEAL he has a strong knowledge of South African and African content, has been a long time editor that has consistently shown good judgement and great integrity, is strongly committed to the free knowledge mission of Wikipedia, is looked up and proven himself to be an important member of the South African editing community, and knows a great deal about Wikipedia policies and practices. The Wikipedia community globally, and in Africa in particular, would benefit from having him as an administrator.--Discott (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
20. Support - From what I've seen, he has a lot of integrity and strong track record of good editing and leadership in important task areas. I really like seeing his perspective as noted above by Thuvack (talk · contribs) and others, and I think he'd be an amazing asset to the community. Michepman (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
21. Support I looked over the history of MariaDB. Agree some disclosure would be highly prudent. I do note that all the edits I saw appeared pretty gnomelike and not promotional. Should be a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
22. Support Eligible user.--PATH SLOPU 05:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
23. Support Supporting is likely just a gesture at this point but I think there is a chasm of difference between some occasional non-promotional gnoming of an article about the company you happen to work for and capital-P capital-E Paid Editing, but in these days of absolutism, a moral panic pile-on is inevitable. Fish+Karate 14:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
24. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
25. Moral support at this point. I do not have any concerns with COI.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

    I see that the answers of the candidate show a lot of clue, and most of the opposes are based on expectations which would be fine for an editor from Europe, North America, or Australia, but are often unrealistic from an editor from Africa (like for example sourcing issues etc). I am prepared to fully support the candidate.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

26. Support. Geographic diversity in the admin corps is healthy, plus I concur with their attitude that stub creation is "is exactly how Wikipedia was built" and they should be applauded for contributing instead of criticized because all their contributions weren't instantly FA quality. Gamaliel (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
27. Long experience, net positive. —Kusma (t·c) 15:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
28. Moral Support - Unfortunately, I think there are too many opposes in order for this RfA to succeed, but I appreciate that you have admitted past mistakes and it hasn't stopped you from making an RfA. If you try again in about 9-ish months, I think you will have a higher change of succeeding. Best of luck! Foxnpichu (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    1. Switching to supporting in general per Xeno's request. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
29. Support - per Foxnpichu and Gamaliel. Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
30. Support In my 2007 RfA, I gave as the principal reason I wanted to be an admin that I wanted to check deleted articles to see if they could be rescued. Wanting to do this does not imply using admin powers to over-ride community decisions, but in making the articles available for discussion or repeated discussion or improvement. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC) .
31. Support good answers for the most part, no reason to expect tool abuse. Edit summary usage should be increased, but I don't see that as a deal breaker. Being able to check deleted revisions to see if work can be rescued is a worthy reason for wanting the bit. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

    I'm not concerned about the Coi editing. I suspect I dropped an edit or two like that when I lived back West. Being paid by the subject doesn't automatically imply being paid to edit.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

32. Moral support, though I would recommend withdrawing the rfa at this point. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
33. Strong Support and this is due to his friendly nature towards new users. During my early days as a Wikimedian, Greenman was and still is one of the few experienced users whom I could ask about any Wikimedia related question and he would always provide me with a simplified and summarized response, then proceeds to mine the correct links from the Wiki-abyss for me for further reading.Bobbyshabangu _talk 07:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
34. Support we need more articles on underrepresented subjects, which too easily get deleted. A willingness to find sources, even if they are gasp bare URLs, is a net positive. No problem with the Paid Editing/COI. Those edits are minor and getting paid for doing a job is not the same as getting paid to edit Wikipedia. Tobyc75 (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
35. Support pretty much per TonyBallioni. A steady contributor since the early days, working diligently in badly underrepresented topics which need admins familiar with those topics to make good and fair decisions and encourage retention of editors from those areas (instead of the armies of jilted sockpuppets we get instead), and drama-free since '03 (excepting this RfA but RfA is just a quirky way to spell D-R-A-M-A). I'm not convinced at all that the potential conflict of interest with some other topics is of any concern here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
36. Support - reliable contributor; will learn as he goes along, as do all admins. Net positive from an underrepresented geographic area. schetm (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
37. Support, though probably only moral support at this point. I don't think I have encountered this editor in my short time editing, but I am encouraged by the comments of those who have. I see Greenman's second reason for wanting administrator access as entirely reasonable. Sometimes articles/drafts are deleted because no one has provided sufficient evidence or sourcing to show that the subject meets notability guidelines. Sometimes a subject gains notability in the time since their article/draft was deleted. Of course, it's possible to ask another admin to access deleted articles and restore them to draft or userspace, and it seems that that's probably what Greenman is going to have to do for the near future. I hope they feel strong enough to return for another RfA in the future. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
38. Support while there is a theoretical possibility of this user editing with a conflict of interested, in practice I don't see any evidence of them doing anything that would affect the neutrality of the article (which is the point of all the COI etc policies and guidelines). Further I don't see any other issues that would suggest Greenman would be a bad administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
39. Support. I've read through the opposes and not found anything too troubling (i.e. that indicates malice or incompetence). CoI editing where editors add flattering material or remove criticism can be a problem but no-one has shown an example of the candidate doing that. DexDor ^(talk) 18:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
40. Support, moral at this stage. The user page COI declaration was too late (a few months ago) & maybe the relevant article talks don't have a note, but no one has really produced examples of edits that aren't factual. Otherwise seems fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

    Johnbod: You wrote "moral at this stage", however, could you clarify whether your concluding sentence 'Otherwise seems fine.' should be read as a standard position of support? –xeno^talk 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    Of course it does - not sure what else it could mean. I've struck out the moral as things have perked up, Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    I thought so, but it could have meant "Otherwise seems fine for a future run." Closing bureaucrat(s) may be required to determine if those indicating "moral" support also support the candidacy in general. –xeno^talk 17:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

41. Support not convinced by the reasons to oppose. COI editing only becomes a problem if contentious material is added, and even then only if the person adding the material digs their heels in and refuses to budge. Other reasons for opposing are less concerning. The idea that "Greenman started the article, therefore he's responsible for it" is not convincing to me. AfD participation is also not a problem if Greenman familiarizes himself/herself with the policies before using the tools there. Since the reasons to oppose are not fatal, I default to support. Banedon (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
42. Support --Severino (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
43. I get the concerns about COI, but without evidence of non-neutral edits I don't see that as a deal breaker. FWIW COI≠PAID. Also I would imagine there are a lot of notable African topics that were deleted due to lack of sources and the difficulty in finding said sources. Having a competent editor willing to go through these to find ones that are worth restoring seems like a pretty good thing to me. The answer to question 7 assures me they are actually going to improve the articles to a standard where they encyclopedic not just overturn a deletion discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
44. I am also not concerned about the alleged COI. The applicant seems mature and stable, and would be a net positive with the tools. We should not insist on perfection from our admin candidates, and accept that they will learn applicable policies on the job. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
45. Support long-term editor of English and Afrikaans Wikipedia, with emphasis on South African subjects Wizzy…☎ 11:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
46. Moral Support: Some legitimate concerns have been raised and these need to be worked on. Give it a few months; then try again. Thanks for making yourself available. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
47. Moral Support - Basically per Ret.Prof. Some issues were raised, but assuming you try to address them moving forward, they aren't the kind of issues that should derail your next RfA. Hang in there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

    For clarity, after being pinged about it, this should indeed be taken as a "real" support for the purpose of establishing consensus. I have reservations, but they're not major reservations, and would be happy to see Greenman +admined. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    The same is true for my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

48. Support We need to drop this idea that knowledge and competence inevitably mean malfeasance and self-interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
49. Support - 16 years editing, 16,000 edits, no evidence of disruptive editing and every sign of being a good editor in an area (Africa) where there is not enough work being done. Greenman is a good fit for admin. I work a lot on AFD and have noted the same thing that Greenman mentions - there are many badly written articles in the Africa space that are too readily deleted by people who do not have the necessary knowledge and experience to do a proper WP:BEFORE to assess whether the topic is actually notable. Disagree that it makes any sense for them to simply come back and reapply in 9 months - after 16 years on here, they will be as qualified then as they are now. My only real concern is low participation in actual AFDs, but this is a mild one. The COI issue really seems very minor. FOARP (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
50. Support I went to the candidate's talk page and told them I was neutral ATM. After further reflection... This candidate is a longtime editor who has never been disruptive and edits in areas that need attention. The candidate disclosed the COI and made zero contentious or promotional/bias edits. If there has been, someone please present the diff as I have not found one. Wm335td (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
51. Support I have not found any objectionable or promotional edits and I think editors are making too much of the COI. This candidate is a net positive. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

    I appreciated the very coherent and logical answer to my open ended COI question 19 above. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

52. Support – (1) Have you donated to Wikipedia? Is it a tax write-off? So, you've received a financial benefit from Wikipedia, which means you have a conflict of interest, and, according to some views, are engaged in undisclosed paid editing. It would be quite a novel definition if "paid editing" meant either paying or being paid to edit. COI≠PE, of course–the latter is a subset of the former–and no one has actually put forward a diff (still!) of any actually-problematic COI edit. (2) Going through an RfA candidate's 10+-year-old articles (or 5+ or 1+) and pointing out mistakes is everything that's wrong with RfA in a nutshell. (3) I didn't interpret Greenman's comment about systemic bias on their talk page as suggesting that some opposers are biased (which I think is how some editors understood it), since systemic bias doesn't refer to the prejudices of an individual–see WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. So, for example, the fact that articles about Africans, or women, will have a harder time meeting our notability guidelines because of systemic bias doesn't mean that editors are biased at AfD, it means that the world is biased, leading to there being less or harder-to-find/access SIGCOV of these underrepresented groups. An author may sell just as many books in Africa as another author does in America, but the American author will get more reviews published, and have an easier time showing SIGCOV, than the African author, simply because there's more media in America, and it's in English, and it's more likely to be online, etc. etc. Same for artists, musicians, politicians, athletes, etc. Anyway, that's how I understood it, so I didn't find it to be a concerning statement, just a true one. (4) I disagree generally, and strongly, with statistics-driven reasons for !votes, whether it's tenure, edit count, mainspace percentage, AfD match percentage, or edit summary usage. 80% edit summaries, to me, says "almost always". Four out of five times. I can't think of anything more insignificant than whether an editor has 80% edit summary usage or 95% edit summary usage. I don't think this 15% is the difference between trusting an editor with block, delete, and protect buttons, and thinking they're just going to run amok and disrupt the wiki if they have access to those. But yes, it is helpful to have descriptive edit summaries, even on talk pages, because it helps other editors decide if they can skip reading the diff or not. (5) I do agree that it seems Greenman has been leaving 4im templates as new user talk page creations too often, which can be WP:BITEy. I would prefer editors use welcome templates or non-template messages as a first point-of-contact, even for obvious vandals. I don't believe a more-strongly-worded template actually deters anyone from vandalism, but on the flip side, at least some portion of friendly messages to vandals (and suspected spambots btw) may turn into productive editors. We have some veteran editors and admin whose first edits were vandalism when they were children, but grew into productive editors. (Go ahead, raise your hands.) We also have some editors who went the other way, starting out as productive editors but then descending into childish vandalism. Anyway, despite this quibble about 4im templates, I do not think there is a substantial risk that they will misuse the tools, so I support. – Levivich 01:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

    Q23 shows a lot of clue. – Levivich 03:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

    Apart from the bit where they admit they allowed other people to use their account.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

    Well we'll see what the answer to Q24 is, but like the copyvio incident itself, this appears to date from eleven years ago so I wouldn't assume it's ongoing.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

    In my view, it's another example of RfA-by-Gotcha! Gotcha! – found a copyvio from 11 years ago! Gotcha! – a few of your articles are unsourced! Gotcha! – only 80% edit summaries instead of 90%! Gotcha! – you admitted to sharing your account! Ah ha! Oppose!! I would never spend a week of my life defending each of my 10,000 edits, just for the–ahem–"privilege" of volunteering my time to help protect pages and such. Give me a break, who would want to do that? The only question is: do you think because he said he shared his account once eleven years ago, he can't be trusted? And another question: how the hell do you teach someone to use Wikipedia if you don't let them edit under your account (or if you don't edit under their account)? Are you going to (1) show them how to make an edit, (2) log out, (3) have them log in, (4) let them try it, (5) log out, (6) you log in, (7) edit again to show them what they did wrong, (8) log out, (9) have them log in... etc. etc. That's not really practical. Since we're talking about Africa 10 years ago, it seems unlikely that they have a laptop for every student, or projection equipment, etc., as they do in US classrooms. I'm not at all worried about account sharing between teachers and students. – Levivich 16:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

53. Has been around for years and hasn't caused any major incidents, as well as has good enough experience to be an admin. It's bizarre that it's almost 2020 and people are still using the utterly bogus, 'bUt He DoEsN't NeEd ThE tOoLs!", from 2004 as a reason to oppose. The only person who decides if a candidate needs the tools is a candidate themselves; the rest of us have to judge if we trust the person with them. I trust Greenman to use adminship correctly, regardless of how often he it. Acalamari 01:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
54. Support Why not. Believe the candidate will use the tools responsibly. Conlinp (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
55. Support Candidate has a good understanding of logistical problems experienced by editors from Africa, and has expressed several original ideas (within policy) to mitigate these. They bring a different perspective on Wikipedia's systemic bias debate and will contribute (as evidenced in the questions) novel solutions to this debate. The candidate shows a lot of minority clue currently underrepresented on Wikipedia, and would likely receive RFA support from many other African editors if they were aware of this RFA Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika Ayenaee (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
56. Support (moved from oppose) per the explanation over the copyvio in Q23. The cries of COI editing are all wide of the mark, and Greenman's attitude towards deletion is the right one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
57. Support per Levivich's incredibly detailed rationale. Not the usual candidate with usual reasons for participating in the areas they would like to participate in, but their (the candidate's) uses for those areas are different than the norm - in a way that adds a lot of value. originalmess^{busta rhyme} 08:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
58. Support precious articles around South Africa as seeds. I don't count factual updates of a company's article as a conflict of interest, and I actually like your attitude of amusement towards these proceedings. I am happy that someone like you, who knows the project from the beginning, is willing to do clean-up jobs I would not want to do. Excuse a certain length of comment, but in a recent RfA, bureaucrats tended to ignore unexplained supports. I confess that I wanted to ignore this RfA, too lazy to investigate and never just going by the views of others, but I became defiant when reading this, and I enjoyed the investigation, which led to the surprise of the Eroica ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
59. Support. :-) Lotje (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
60. Weak Support for a long established civil editor. The potential COI issues seem to have got to the point where benefit of the doubt should be given. As for not going back and fixing mistakes made eleven years ago, (and hopefully the internet archive will prevent some of that sort of stuff in the future). I agree it is a good idea to encourage RFA candidates to fix their early errors - but do we want to encourage editors to exercise cleanstart and run for RFA when they can say "this is the only account I have edited with for at least five years". I'd rather praise those who do that than critique those who don't. Weak mainly because of the use of 4im on routine vandalism as opposed to stuff so egregious it almost warrants an immediate block; and partly because of the edit summary issue. Admins need to be good communicators, on a busy page like this an edit summary of answer q12 or reply to user:.... would be helpful. ϢereSpielChequers 10:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
61. Per Gerda Arendt, Lightburst. --JBL (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
62. Support All in all, giving Greenman the tools should be a net positive for the project and we need more admins. Pichpich (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
63. Support. Unless Praxi comes back with a smoking gun diff which indicates genuine COI editing, rather than simple tweaking of factual errors on the article about the candidate's employer (which I think is something one actually ought to be doing if one knows that information is known to be out of date), I'm going to join Ritchie333 in declaring the COI point much ado about nothing. Other than that, per esteemed colleagues such as WereSpielChequers and TonyBallioni, I'm going to say this candidate is a definite net positive and it would be particularly pleasant to welcome another editor working on African topics to the admin fold... for yes, like it or not we do have systemic bias - and that's not assigning blame to anyone, because most people want to tackle the issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
64. I'm seeing a lot of clue in the above answers from a polite editor with a distinctive knowledge set in an area where we are collectively falling short. I'm also seeing us trying to apply developed world values to someone editing from the developing world, with the unique set of challenges that causes for them. I'm not seeing someone who would be likely to abuse the tools or seek to damage our work or reputation. On that basis, I support this request for adminship. ◦ Trey Maturin 15:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
65. Support. Despite the opposition I see little to worry about. Nigej (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
66. Support I get the concerns, but this editor seems extremely well-intentioned so I doubt they're ever going to be an issue. Dealing with this RfA with this attitude is so impressive that I'm completely convinced. --valereee (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
67. Support An excellent editor with the best interests of the project in mind - the potential to be a fair and competent administrator. Poltair (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
68. Support Good contributor. The oppose votes based on COI or PE are wholly without foundation or finding by appropriate noticeboards and should be discarded by the closer. ConstantPlancks (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
69. Support. Won't break the wiki. Good communicator and thoughtful. It is good to see that the purported COI issue (also mislabeled PE) has on further consideration been found my many to be overblown; I agree. It has shown Greenman is sensible, explains himself, but also stands his ground and puts sense over codified processes, which we need more of. Martinp (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
70. Support per Banedon. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
71. Support He has done a lot of volunteer work and offers to do more. Deservers a welcome.Eschoryii (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
72. Support. Those who don't actually need the mop, in my view, will make fine admins, particularly with the even temperament and eloquent explanations demonstrated here. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
73. Support - for insightful answer to Q23, and as per Ritchie333 and Amakuru. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
74. Support per Levivich. The pearl clutching by a few opposers is unseemly. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
75. Support - I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
76. Support. Kablammo (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
77. Support. Well-considered and insightful answers; shows great potential—Aquegg (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
78. Support - Utterly unconvinced by 11-year-old reasons to oppose. At this point, we're just telling people to make a sockpuppet and run that for adminship if they ever mess up on their main account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
79. Support Greenman's answers to questions are clear, thoughtful and well written. COI may have been an issue but, clearly, they haven't been pushing their company in a biased way. The Africa focus, and the emphasis on the difficulties that go with editing there (spotty internet, lack of sources, etc.) are a positive, and draft space is always available for not disheartening editors. The only qualm I have is the repeated "fallback" that admins merely implement consensus. In reality, the hard part is figuring out what the consensus is and we need admins who are good at doing that. But, even that's not a big deal because, clearly, Greenman is a thoughtful person who will probably write clear and well considered closing statements. If this RfA does not pass, I look forward to a future one soon. --regentspark (comment) 16:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
80. Support Some legitimate concerns but I see Greenman as a net positive for the encyclopedia who can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
81. Support. I believe the candidate would be a net positive. /Julle (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
82. Hope the tide will turn. El_C 18:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
83. Support—Greenman is a thoughtful, experienced contributor and a good communicator. He would make a positive impact with administrator privileges. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
84. Support Although Greenman may have a COI with MariaDB, a review of their edits on MariaDB reveal no bias. I expect a net positive impact as an administrator. I am One of Many (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
85. Support Per nom Froswo (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
86. Support Per Ivanvector and RegentsPark. I don't see the possible COI as a major issue. gnu57 22:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
87. Support Long time editor, and conflict-averse is not a problem. Things 11 years in the past are irrelevant today. Mop-worthy. Edison (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
88. Support As per ad astra!→StaniStani 01:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
89. Full Support Long-time editor, works in areas that need more admin help, is thoughtful and willing to examine past behavior rationally and realistically. I am not bothered by the COI (especially for a community-sourced project not a corporation trying to advertise) and I think Greenman has the right temperament to be an admin. We could use more editors like Green. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
90. Moral Support The issue with COI is illuminating in how narrowly people evaluate this. The key point in this, as elsewhere at WP, ought to be examining the conduct of the editor. If changing version numbers and dates is not factually based, neutral editing, as so many below have decided, then we have indeed "lost the plot" as mentioned elsewhere. Righteously bellowing 'COI!', without pointing to any actual misbehaviour, is not judgement, but the abdication of judgement. Shenme (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
91. Support Levivich has summed up the issues here much better than I ever could, both in his Support !vote above, and on his own talk page. I fully agree that looking at stuff from 10+ years ago is neither appropriate nor fair, and opposing based on COI issues because of minor, factual, non-controversial edits is tickey-tack stuff, at best. The candidate will be a net positive to the encyclopedia for a position that's supposed to be no big deal, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
92. Support While undeclared COI would normally be a red flag for me, I do not see any edits that are promotionsl or contrary to NPOV. Given the long tenure of Greenman, I do not consider that he would abuse the tools. Loopy30 (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
93. Suppoert per RegentsPark, among others. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
94. Support per Levivich. In this case following the spirit, not the letter, of the rules is to be commended. --Spacepine (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
95. Support I don't have an issue with the COI, Green has a WP:NETPOS on Wikipedia and WP:NOBIGDEAL giving adminship as previously mentioned. It would be great adding another African to the project! Oppose reasons don't lean me to a weak support either, based on WP:COMMONSENSE. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
96. Support per Haps. Also per response to questions, in particular #13a (not a lizard), #13b (why not?), & #17. Has a clou. :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
97. Support. Having read the question and answers section, I'm convinced that this candidate doesn't fit the traditional admin mould, so I understand the long oppose section's concerns. However, his enthusiasm with connecting South African local content to the English Wikipedia makes him exactly the kind of fresh blood that we need. Deryck C. 14:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
98. Support Everything required of the type of admin that WP needs right now; not a ticker of boxes, but a person who thinks clearly about the needs of the project and how the flags can assist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
99. Moral Support The opposing side does make decent points regarding the COIs and does question is this the best time for you to run a RfA. However, the answers that you responded in the questions section does reassured me that you are well aware of your position. I do wish you best of luck however the outcome might be. OD1 ByHL (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    I see you have only been here for three hours. scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    Can you please to explain to me in detail why you think the opposing side hasn't made it's point, in particular in the light of the fact WP:COI is one core policies of Wikipedia and everybody worries about facts being subverted or biased. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 16:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    Every time somebody has asked to clarify or supply diffs of Greenman violating the conflict of interest policy, things go quiet. It's an old example now but WP:SOFIXIT is still a thing, as far as I'm aware. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    Fair comment @Ritchie333: Good to see you back. I would've liked some kind of rationale though. It took me a year and a half to find Rfa, never mind commenting, nor coi which I knew from a political viewpoint, even that took longer. scope_creep^Talk 16:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    The rationale has already been stated here, repeatedly. WP:COIU: Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits. No one has yet supplied even a single diff of an allegedly-controversial edit.

    I'll also repeat that, generally, calling editors out for having a low edit count at RfA is bad. You'll note there are plenty of editors in the Oppose section who are not yet extended confirmed. Other editors have engaged those editors at times, without pointing out that they're not extended confirmed. If you can see that an editor has only been here for three hours, the rest of us can see that, too. The crats are perfectly capable of identifying it and handling it appropriately. Discouraging new users from !voting in RfAs will... discourage new users from !voting in RfAs, which is not a good thing. – Levivich 17:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    Sorry for taking so long. If by 3 hours you mean not quite qualified to talk about this, I fully understand. What i am conveying is that, I fully understand that people do worry that the COI Involved with Greenman would or might cause a subjective or alternative POV and a possible bias to the edit made, which is the main reason why i gone for a moral support, The WP:COI does make it clear that it isn't good practise to edit directly if your identity may affect the nutrallity or accuracy of the article, there is no doubt that Greenman has violated this policy. I personally just don't see how the COI has affected his ablity to edit neturally, i think that being in a relation with something dosen't mean that the perspective will be altered, and that i see a willingness to change. Personally, i find no "dealbreakers" that may possibly sway my support. However, being in a COI isnt a good siuation to be in when going through a RfA.OD1 ByHL (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    Fair comment. @OD1 ByHL: Thanks for replying. scope_creep^Talk 18:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    @OD1 ByHL: A brand new user who votes at an RfA is generally presumed to be a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    @Bbb23: My account, even if it's first edit is 3 hours ago, has been created for 4 months. I am not sure which number counts but i would be happy to prove that i am not a sockpuppet :) OD1 ByHL (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

100. Support -- Having reviewed the opposers concerns, I am satisfied with Greenman's reasonable responses to Q23 & Q24. I also note that reviews of Greenman's edits to MarieDB did not reveal any diffs showing bias or a failure to be neutral. For me, Greenman has demonstrated a good background of contributions, discussion and collaboration as well as a continued evolution as a trusted editor. I believe they will be beneficial as an administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
101. Weak support: I did read through Greenman's edits to MariaDB and there is nothing even remotely indicative of spamming or inappropriate edits; frankly I find some of the inquisitiveness displayed here on the candidate's relationship to MariaDB more concerning. The rest of the support camp also is convincing, although I'd like to ask for some more substance in future articles, hence the "weak". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
102. Support As net positive. Not convinced by the opposes.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
103. Support Mostly per Levivich. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
104. Support - It looks like a trumped-up, apparently completely baseless COI hysteria in the oppose section has succeeded in sinking this RfA. Apparently some random, good faith volunteer can gnome about on their company's page, not actually doing anything wrong in terms of letter, spirit, or underlying ethics of policy, and still get vilified at RfA as if they're some fully-fledged paid advocate for the company. Pretty alarming to see some admins falling for that though. Kudos to those opposers who remained objective and opposed for their own reasons. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose CoI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Irrespective of whether his edits are acceptable or not, his continuing engagement with the MariaDB article (his part-time employers) makes it impossible to differentiate what is paid editing and what is not. If you're editing your employer's page, even if you are not getting paid for the edits but are being paid for any other work, the differentiation is but so little. If Greenman confirms he will stop editing the page and go to the talk page for any editing requests, I may reconsider this oppose. I am clear that other editors may not agree with my oppose. Thanks, Lourdes 07:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

   On the contrary, Lourdes, it's an excellent point. What would seem even more significant, perhaps, is that in their acceptance of this nomination, they even confirm I have never edited for pay. This suggests that they do not, in fact, understand what paid editing actually is. Which is only slightly less troubling a vista than their not understanding WP:COI in the first place. ——SerialNumber54129 07:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

   Editing an article about someone or thing that has paid you for other reasons may be COI editing, but it is certainly not "paid editing", which means (shocker) being paid to edit. Don't go blurring bright lines for no reason. --JBL (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

   Wrong. But thanks for the usual. ——SerialNumber54129 11:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

   This is correct. Paid editing requires direct compensation in some value form (e.g. money) for making edits to Wikipedia. Editing areas of Wikipedia related to your employer is an "interest" as described by COI editing. — Bilorv (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

   I agree with JBL also; paid editing is being paid to edit; editing an article about someone who pays you isn't paid editing (it's a COI). – Levivich 17:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

   Obviously I respect the philosophy that If One Repeats The Same Thing Often Enough It Becomes The Truth, but I do not subscribe to it. The editors above may wish to read JoeRoe's oppose comment (currently #17 below). Many thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 09:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   Joe Roe quotes a quite reasonable definition of the phrase "financial conflict of interest". The state "being paid to edit" (= "paid editing") is a special case of "having a financial conflict of interest", but the two are absolutely not synonymous. Insisting on blurring lines like this is corrosive to meaningful, good-faith discussion. (Please note that I do not argue about what impact this should have on anyone's vote -- if you want to oppose based on some reasoning involving the phrase "financial conflict of interest" and how important it is, be my guest. But you should not misrepresent the situation while doing so.) (Edit: sorry, I should have realized that this discussion also continues below; I am pleased to see that Lourdes also recognizes the importance of this distinction.) --JBL (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   Thank you, Joel B. Lewis, I'm glad we agree that it was, indeed, a form of paid editing. ——SerialNumber54129 09:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   You’ve got it backwards. Apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples. –xeno^talk 10:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   ..ah, it's abou time for Houdini-linguistics, of course. as I said: start an RfC. Otherwise you jus' keepin' that can warm :D ——SerialNumber54129 11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   Your level of commitment to an obvious and easily-corrected error is gobsmacking. "Houdini-linguistics" for the idea that super-categories are not synonymous with their sub-categories! I hope that your editing here does not touch any areas where a basic understanding of logic is necessary. --JBL (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   SerialN, are you seriously having this much difficulty understanding what JBL is saying? It seems very straightforward to me. Lepricavark (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   If you mean, is the hairsplitting as unimpressive now as it began, then clearly yes. Happy days. ——SerialNumber54129 12:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   If this is somehow too technical for you, then the graceful thing is to bow out of the conversation rather than talking to another editor as if he doesn't understand his own comments. Lepricavark (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   I imagine the difficulty of understanding is with those who feel that relitigating the TOU is in anyway productive. Still, perhaps those that do...are too focussed on producing featured material. No? Really? You suprise me. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   There's a noticeable difference between having a potential conflict of interest and being overtly paid to edit. That's not hairsplitting, and it won't become hairsplitting no matter how supercilious the tone of your replies. Lepricavark (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   Serial Number 54129: If your position is that all financial conflicts of interest are paid editing, then I don't think a full-blown RfC is necessary - it's clear that is not the case. If someone owns stock in a publicly traded company, they have a financial conflict of interest with respect to the company's Wikipedia article. Is it your position that such an individual is a "paid editor"? They aren't being compensated for their edits. Other than owning the stock, they have no affiliation with the company. Should potential administrators be required to start disclosing their complete stock holdings, and any time they may have (uncontroversially) edited an article for a stock they've concurrently held?

   The peculiar thing is that you can just as persuasively oppose the candidate with your belief they have edited in a position of financial conflict of interest without appropriate disclosure without calling it "paid editing" - this comes close to casting aspersions as undisclosed paid editing is a clear TOU violation; financial conflicts of interest are not. We're merely asking you to reconsider your choice of words, not to withdraw your opposition. Joe Roe you haven't revisited your comment either, and I would appreciate if you more carefully considered your choice of words with respect to these edits. –xeno^talk 12:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Xeno: Sure, we can call it a financial conflict of interest instead of paid editing, but I don't think the semantic difference is important. As Lourdes has said, we know there is a financial COI, that makes it impossible to tell if there was also direct paid editing. But the COI alone is enough for me to oppose, together with other concerns expressed here. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Lourdes and Joe Roe: I’m interested to see some of the improper edits to MariaDB. Have any specific edits been identified? In particular, anything that wasn’t simply a version update, which doesn’t seem to be so much “writing about” something as it is updating a verifiable piece of data that was pre-existing. –xeno^talk 11:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   xeno, if my part-time job at a company involved me writing blogs about, amongst other things, new version introductions, and if I were to do the same at the Wikipedia article of the company, then each and every edit of the editor where they add such information of new versions or add references written by MariaDB employees is a significant conflict of interest and in some perspective absolute paid editing. Just as an example, if I were working in car company and was responsible for their product documentation, and kept adding details of new brand introductions or brand updates to the company's Wikipedia page, what would you perceive this as? If you want relevant links, please email me. Thanks, Lourdes 14:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   The question turns on whether Greenman received compensation for their edits (from wmf:TOU): ...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation., also from meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure#How can I avoid disclosure under this provision of the Terms of Use?: If you wish to avoid the disclosure requirement of this provision, you should abstain from receiving compensation for your edits. So unless their employer is specifically paying them to edit Wikipedia, this seems to be a potential "financial conflict of interest" as per our local policies, but not "paid contributions" per the TOU. None of this is to say the candidate shouldn't have disclosed it, or realized it was a potential concern; but if they did it of their own volition, I don't see that as "paid editing" - and to call them a paid editor without adequate evidence seems unfair. –xeno^talk 15:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   I agree. Lourdes 15:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose Not encouraged by the AfD activities, especially that the candidate wants to occasionally restore deleted articles. Just looking at the votes from 2018 onwards, the nominator has failed to either give a policy/rationale in all of these, used WP:ITSNOTABLE (which is to be avoided), and didn't analyze whether the sources were in-depth/WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TitcoinWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y-Mag (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark KrokWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocker Vybz (no valid deletion rationale here and per X is also to be avoided), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backdrop CMS (this one is especially bad in that regards) or the latest one with a non existing rationale that isn't grounded on guidelines/policies Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Académica da Praia season. It becomes a bit better in 2017, may move to neutral if question answers are good.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

   Also the fact that the candidate avoided Q9, Q11 and Q14 is a big red flag to me. Am I the only one that actually noticed this? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   Not sure the justification for using the word "avoided" as opposed to "not answered yet". There have been a lot of questions posed in a short time, and many of them are long and complicated. – Levivich 15:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   I guess so? But feels odd to skip some and answer something else ahead of that question. Maybe because i'm not experienced yet in RfA discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   There's no need to answer in any order, or to even answer any of the additional questions; they are all optional. Some take a little time to research or formulate a response to, some come easier. Besides, it's not been that long. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

3. Strong oppose COI and paid editing are a massive problem on this project. Someone seeking tools should understand this and absolutely refrain from engaging in such activities themselves. So basically per Lourdes and SN. The lack of (accurate) AFd participation is also deeply concerning. I don't see any indication here in the nom or by the statements from the candidate that they need the tools. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Praxidicae:, what are the COI and paid editing issues you mention? You seem to suggest that the candidate might have engaged in that in some way or enabled it? If so that is a pretty serious allegation that would need some hard evidence.--Discott (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   Discott I'm not sure why my oppose is the only one being challenged but you can read question 12 by Lourdes for insight. The candidate has been editing MariaDB for 6 years - since 2013 - and only disclosed that they are his employer in June of 2019. It doesn't matter if they are gnomish edits or not, our COI and paid editing policy are very clear and common sense should tell anyone who reads it that editing your employers article without disclosure, save for maybe blatant vandalism is a bad idea. Praxidicae (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   I hate piling on opposes, but did the paid editing policy actually exist in 2013?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   The issue here is not paid editing but COI. The COI policy page WP:COI has existed since 2004, and here is the version of the COI policy as of the end of 2012. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   I do not mean to challenge your 'oppose' position but rather gain clarity on the accusation made in the oppose statement. If you still feel you wish to oppose for reasons other than the one you mentioned above then I would be comfortable with that. I agree with Nsk92 that the issue here, if there is one, seems to be more of a COI issues and not paid editing. One would also have to establish whether the candidate made the edits in question whilst they were an employee of the organisation in question. If the candidate was not an employee of the organisation at the time of the edits in question then I don't think COI or the more serious paid editing accusations would stand up. If they were then I feel we should continue this conversation in the COI vein. This then begs the question, was the candiate an employee of the organisation in question when these edits were made?--Discott (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Praxidicae: I'm still trying to make up my mind whether this is a serious allegation or not, so would like to see some more detail from you on which edits represent a COI? The answer to question 12 point to edits such as this one, which you describe above as "gnomish". I can understand concerns about COI in general, and agree that it would have been better for the candidate to be explicit on their talk page about where they worked, rather than leaving it to an external blog. But if the edits in question are only of the type linked then I just can't see how this is an issue. Updating unambiguous sourced factual information, which conveys no opinions or potential biases whatsoever can surely be permitted and I'd have thought it better for someone who actually knows when the versions get updated (because they work there) to go in and update them, than to just leave them as out-of-date. You may have seen other edits of a more problematic nature, however, so would appreciate diffs if so. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

   After looking into this further and reading the candiate's replies to all questions on this matter I am comfortable concluding that there have been no COI issues here.--Discott (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose (Moved from Support and then Neutral) I thank Greenman for volunteering his efforts for this RfA and greatly wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors, and I have no doubts that he's a great editor, but he doesn't appear to know that much of Wikipedia policy. His answers to Q5 and Q15 do not fill me with confidence that he knows about the importance of sourcing for biographies of living persons. While I'd argue that Q15 does have some open end to it, and my judgment is limited since I myself can't view the now-deleted page, he doesn't acknowledge BLP and barely touches on fact that SNGs like NFOOTY supplement, rather than trump, the GNG, which is how that particular discussion was closed, and without which knowledge the appropriate consensus would have been a lot less clear. These are understandable mistakes, but not ones adminabili should be making, especially given his intents to work with deletion. His low AfD participation also gives me pause, for that same reason. I'm further not thrilled by his answer to Q16; it's easy to write edit summaries in addition to the auto-summaries (You could in this RfA, for example, say "Answering Q16" for the edit in which you answer Q16, rather than rely on the section heading). I really don't want to be seen as coming down hard on this candidate, and am not vouching for the validity of the other opposes, but I'm afraid I just don't feel right supporting this candidate at this time. I wish Greenman the best of luck and encourage him to keep up the great work editing, and would very likely support a future RfA in the next couple of months iff Greenman works on these issues. (Also note that his edit count, while not large, is not a factor in my oppose here.) If this RfA passes, I highly urge Greenman to read the Admins' reading list cover-to-cover and brush up quite a bit on our policies and guidelines. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Not too sold on their AfD history, especially for a candidate who's second main goal is to restore deleted articles. Since the start of 2017, they have had a 73.68% success rate in 19 AfDs, with which I share Jovanmilic97 sentiment. The lack of response to Q14 (or delay, depending if the question is answered) furthers my fear. In addition to this, the response to Q15 doesn't fill me with much confidence. Wikipedia is not a democracy. AfD's don't operate on a "majority vote" basis, but rather the reasoning provided from both sides. Claiming that it isn't important to make a stance on whether the article should be deleted or kept, regardless if the content is viewable or not post-deletion, makes me uneasy about Greenman's understanding of Wikipedia policy. As much as I would like to help Greenman based on his response to Q1, but I can't bring myself to support this candidate. Utopes (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose For Now The answer to #15 is evasive and the answer to Lourdes's question #12 misses the point entirely. Whether the edits were appropriate or not has nothing to do with whether conflict-of-interest was explicitly disclosed. And a disclosure of conflict-of-interest must always be disclosed; just being able to connect the pieces with detective work is not explicit disclosure. Can't support at this time any RFA in which the candidate misses the point entirely on something so important as conflict-of-interest. We've had enough COI causing havoc on Wikipedia lately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   Definitely staying in the Oppose column and the activity on their talk page is making me more sure of this stance. Talking about not withdrawing because it entertains you and to make some kind of point about systemic bias reinforces the notion for me that you're not admin material, at least at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I have reviewed every single one of the candidate's 347 creations. The danger of mass creating stubs is what is clearly demonstrated by their large number of articles tagged for attention, including unsourced or poorly sourced BLP that do not meet notability criteria, and some articles which I have had to PROD. Despite the large number of pages created, they do not pass my criteria for according WP:Autopatrolled which require all created articles to be of clean format and free of tags or taggable issues that would raise he attention of New Page Patrollers. The candidate's creations are rarely complete even as stubs - in the majority of cases even the stub tag is missing - the very item that might just attract the attention of someone who might be disposed to expand the article. That being said, if a stub is capable of expansion, why cant the creator not do that expansion? My mantra has always been: 'If one wants to police Wikipedia pages, one should also prove they know how to produce them,' nevertheless unlike some RfA voters, I don't go so far as to demand a FA or two and a raft of GA. Some of the earlier articles might just scrape through a request for Autopatrolled, but the rest and any future creations clearly require the scrutiny of New Page Reviewers. I also concur with others that there is insufficient work in maintenance areas including AIV, ANI, AfD, etc which does not inspire confidence in sufficient knowledge of policies and guidelines, and no work at all at NPP which though not required, is one of the best learning and starting tasks for aspiring admin candidates. There is a clear lack of use of Edit Summaries, which are important for an admin or maintenance worker. I am concerned about the COI issue - as I understand the rules, it is not only about specifically being paid to edit, but being a salaried employee of the subject of the article is a very strong Conflict of Interest. I am not doubting for a moment that the candidate can be trusted not to abuse the tools, but he required experience is just not there. My own RfA criteria, which are far from being the most severe, and on which I often allow a lot of leeway, are unforunately not met. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I initially forgot to sign

   Kudpung doesn't give any examples so I looked at one of the articles which he has prodded: Karen Press. The subject – a South African poet – seems reasonably respectable and I have no difficulty finding more sources myself. I would expect this article to have a reasonable chance of surviving AfD and so consider the use of proposed deletion to be inappropriate as it is only for uncontroversial deletion and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". So far as the candidate is concerned, note that they created the article thirteen years ago in 2006 and don't seem to have been back to it in this time. Complaining about something of this age seems unreasonable because standards were different back then and the candidate was presumably still green (inexperienced). As Kudpung has been though all the candidate's work, do they have any better examples which are more recent? Andrew D. (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   I haven't made a decision on this RfA yet, but thanks for that example, Andrew Davidson. I have long-since concluded that biographies of women are one of the most likely topics to be accidentally deleted on Wikipedia, and this is a good example of one. It's why I support Women in Red. I wonder if this creation of mine from 2005 would have been deleted today? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   Nice try Andrew, I started researching from the most recent stubs, they were bad enough, and that's what happens when gut feeling tells me I have to spend 3 hours (good thing it's a Sunday) taking a deeper look and I'm here to comment on a RfA not to turn someone's 300 stubs into articles for them. As systematic opposer to every single RfA for years, how often did you spend more than 3 minutes on your research? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   As Kudpung hasn't provided any more specific examples, here's a list of the other prodded articles which haven't already been discussed:

   Tyrone Appollis – artist and poet – article created in 2008

   Willie Marais – Member of Parliament – article created in 2007

   Al Lovejoy – writer – article created in 2006

   Tony Eprile – award-winning writer – article created in 2006

   So, all of these articles were started over 10 years ago. All but one has since been deprodded. Andrew D. (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   I think the point is if you are running to be an admin it would be a good idea to go back to your early creations and add references or expand them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   Precisely, and it's a point I have often made on many of the 100s of RfA I have voted on - although it's rarely a deal breaker. Candidates should at least get their ducks in a row before running. If Andrew wants do do their cleaning up for them, that's up to him, not me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   Kudpung stood for RfA in March 2011. At that time, the page Lulsley was tagged as having no sources and, even now, that page still has a cleanup tag. Kudpung created that page but has never been back to improve that stub. Why should the candidate be held to a higher standard? Andrew D. (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   Because standards have changed, both for new articles and at RfAs. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

8. Oppose - Either an actual conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest or a tone-deafness toward conflict of interest issues should be disqualifying. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose The PAID/COI issue sinks this one for me. Jbh ^Talk 04:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose I am not too concerned about CoI editing as long as any potential conflict of interest has been declared on their user page (which has been), and the edits are minor and within policy and guidelines, from a subject that will not be financially awarded directly from the kind of edits they make. In this sense, the candidate is perfectly fine and within policy here, but in their answers I do think they have not demonstrated the kind of understanding in terms of expectations when it comes to CoI, especially for someone going for adminship. In addition, answer to Q15 is simply just a mess; an admin’s role in a AfD discussion is not to “carry out community consensus”, that sounds like counting heads, which only works for uncontroversial pages. Rather, it should be to assess the strength of arguments from both sides in order to determine rough consensus, something that the candidate seem to have limited understanding of. Therefore I cannot support at this time, sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Alex Shih and Kudpung's well-thought out rationales. I can't think of anything else to add beyond what's already been said. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose The above opposes (COI, AfD, etc) gave me pause enough to do a bit of research. You appear to hand out This is your only warning templates: ({{Uw-vandalism4im}}) at a fairly regular rate. The problem is that some of these warnings are for an IP who has only made 1 edit. example: here, here, and here. I thought perhaps it was just a bad month or two, so I went back a year and see that it's a pattern. This example was particularly concerning to me because the WP:RS (here) being used is continually changing; and in fact on the 10th of Sept 2018 - the rankings were as the IP stated. So, due to the above concerns and what I consider a pattern of IP WP:BITE, which we have more often than we should. Given that the user intends to work in this area of vandalism, I must oppose. — Ched (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
13. Oppose (moved from neutral) Greenman is a much better editor than I am in many ways. However I cannot wrap my head around the very low bar he seems to set for BLP article creation, as described by Kudpung above. So while there are many positives here as described under the support column, there are also some unexpected negatives under the oppose column that leave me unable to support. I'd be a support if he came back in a year or two having raised the BLP standard.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
14. Sorry. I haven't looked into the COI issues. The AfDs cited by Jovanmilic97, and the article creations cited by Kudpung, compel me to oppose without needing to. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
15. The candidate demonstrates between little (page protection, deletion) and no (undeletion) familiarity with the tools he's specifically requesting use of in Q1. With the Joel Wilson (umpire) situation he pats himself on the back about, it was User:The C of E who actually made the request for semiprotection and escalated to ANI when that showed itself necessary. The reverts were correct and are appreciated, but you don't need an admin bit to run twinkle.
    Of the three other visits to RFPP in the last year, two were reasonable. This, though, is not the history of an article where semiprotection should be the first resort, barring LTA, edits to other pages, or some outside context, none of which the candidate made any effort to explain. It did call for admin action, and I don't fault someone for asking for the wrong kind - unless they're asking to be put on the other side of that request.
    User:Jovanmilic97's already articulated my issue with the candidate's AFD activity, with a lot of the same examples I'd made note of. Which is unsurprising, given that it's just about all of their deletion contributions for as far back as it's reasonable to look during an RFA.
    No experience shown with undeletion whatsoever, and not even an attempt at an explanation despite prompting. That innocent-looking "Undelete 62 edits" link is probably the easiest admin tool to cause the greatest amount of harm with if misused through carelessness (as opposed to malice), the candidate gives us nothing at all to base a judgment of competence on, and he's not asking for any end result that wouldn't be nearly as easily accomplished with a visit to WP:REFUND or a friendly admin's talk page.
    Some things raised above that I'm not concerned with. Edit count: he's made enough and for long enough that we can be reasonably sure he knows how to edit, and that he's not somebody's sleeper sock. That silly "success rate" score that the afd tool shows: it's what you should expect from someone who comments early in AFDs, as the candidate has done, and isn't some sort of unreasonably extreme inclusio/deletionist fanatic, which he isn't - sometimes you're just going to be wrong, and that's ok, or you're going to be right and everyone else is going to be wrong, and that's less ok but not really your fault. The edits to MariaDB: unless there's some smoking gun I'm overlooking, they're all the completely banal, opinionless sort of update that's most of the reason why WP:COI "very strongly discourage"s direct editing instead of forbidding it outright. He should've mentioned it here, yes, but we don't need that kind of faux pas to sink this adminship after the utter unsuitability he's shown with his answer to Q1. —Cryptic 05:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
16. Oppose I like to see a demonstrated need for the mop before supporting, and while Greenman has made steady and continuing contributions to content over the course of the last decade plus, I am not confident in the need at the moment, particularly the response to Q15, where they focus on consensus instead of the moderately difficult policy argument which I addressed in the AfD and note their bias towards inclusion. I'm also concerned with the recent creation of BLP articles with no inline references. I am sympathetic to Q7, though, as an editor of African articles myself - there's a giant geographic hole in the encyclopaedia here even though sources aren't all that hard to find online. Also concerned about the template use above. Reading through the other opposes, I am not at all concerned about the COI. I would consider supporting in a renomination with a showing of a clearer policy-based record at AfD, so I can get a clear sense of how they would close a contentious AfD, more of a record in vandalism prevention, and a better sense of sourcing, especially BLP articles. On the whole, I think Greenman has the capacity to be a good administrator as they do bring some strengths to the project - I just need a bit of confidence and a little more of a track record in knowing handing the mop over won't create problems down the road. SportingFlyer T·C 05:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
17. Strong oppose based on the COI editing. Editing an article on one's employer, whether or not you were directly asked to do so, or the nature of the edits, is paid editing according to the Terms of Use and our policy: An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. (WP:PAY). This makes Greenman's statement above (I confirm that I have never edited for pay) untrue and I strongly encourage him to strike it. The reason we ask for that statement is because there is a strong consensus that paid editors shouldn't be allowed anywhere near advanced permissions. I'm sure he didn't intentionally lie, but not understanding an important policy like WP:COI/WP:PAID is a red flag for an admin candidate on its own. The answer Q12 reinforces the impression that he does not understand the COI policy or why paid editing is a threat to the integrity of the project. – Joe (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, paid editing is one form of financial COI. That does not mean that tweaking your employer's article constitutes paid editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

18. (edit conflict) Oppose - Qs 5 and 15 don’t do it fore either, but I’m concerned about Q 12 and the CoI problem. I’m not suggesting Greenman’s edits to the articles have been problematic per se, but they fall into the ‘strongly discouraged’ area. The approach to (and judgement of) AfDs is also an issue. - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
19. Oppose - concerned about COI edits and lack of experience. GiantSnowman 08:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
20. Oppose per above. Concerns with limited experience and policy knowledge. -FASTILY 08:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
21. Oppose Not particularly keen on a candidate that writes so many stubs, some as small as 990bytes and some with no references. That approach is fundamentally posting work into the future. Bio articles in my opinion, assuming there is sufficient information available to create it, should be between 15k and 25k in length at a minimum. One sentence articles are useless and you can find more in simple google search. There are almost a kind of anti-article, as they provide so little information and drive folk away. Not particularly worried about supposed coi as candidate has declared their interest. Nor the footy question. Up until a couple of months ago, nobody was bothering about it, until the analysis was completed and realised how many were being created as stubs, of dubious notability. scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
22. Oppose - Some of the concerns raised above are particularly off putting. Also, a general lack of experience in some of the areas that the candidate wants to work in raises the question of whether they actually need the tools. Kosack (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
23. The AfDs linked to in Cryptic's question alone show a worrying lack of knowledge in deletion policy for a candidate wishing to work in this area. Since there is little more recent deletion work to compare this to, I must oppose. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
24. Oppose Insufficient experience in the areas they intend to work. Lacks key policy knowledge re deletion/undeletion. It's not work of admins to unilaterally look at Special:Undelete and "restore" articles that they personally think "have been needlessly deleted." But it seems this is part of what the candidate intends to do as they said in their answer to the first standard question. Admin candidate who wants to work in undeletion should ideally know the legitimate ways of restoring articles. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
25. Oppose Lack of experience in areas in which they have said they want to use the tools, and insufficient policy knowledge.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
26. Oppose - I don't want to dump on a good editor, but the more I think about an administrator creating unsourced BLPs the more I'm worried about it. Personally, I don't mind mass stub creations like a lot, but at the very least, chuck a reference or three on it, and it's golden. Implied references, where it's got a link to an external website under EL is not good enough for me. Clearly a decent enough editor. I'd like to say it's a WP:NOTNOW case, as if they took some of the things on board, and adapted, there's no reason why they couldn't get the mop in future. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
27. Oppose due to a combination of the already-discussed COI and mass stub creation issues. An inability to provide adequate sourcing violates one of the fundamental principals of Wikipedia ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
28. Mainly per answers to questions 12 and 15. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
29. Oppose I'm not super concerned by the COI thing at this point as the changes were all uncontroversial, gnome-like editing. Policy, as written, would define that as paid editing regardless but if there's no POV pushing or anything like that it's not a big deal. What does concern me is that candidate's seeming lack of basic policy knowledge and experience in administrative areas. (and as a serious pointer for the future, if you see an article get deleted and think you could've saved it with sources you dug up, just tell the deleting admin that and it can be restored and/or draftified.) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

    Oppose Sorry, but I can't support a candidate if I have to speedy delete one of their creations as a copyright violation. I realise it was a while ago, and there are extenuating circumstances, but admins have to know the basics of our CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licences. It's also a key point mentioned in Advice for RfA candidates. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

    Ritchie says that this was "a while ago" but the Lulu work which is supposedly the source, says that it was published in Sep 2018. I can't see the history of the deleted page now and I can't link to the Lulu page because an edit filter has blacklisted it as unreliable. Perhaps this was a case of plagiarism from Wikipedia? Can we have more details, please? Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

    I asked that exact question. Since the talk page is not a copyright violation, I have restored it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenman/Graham Michael Lesch talk so everybody can have a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

    I'm not sure it's real fair to bring up a mistake from 11 years ago in an RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

    I too raised an eyebrow. Several contributors to this discussion have suggested, "come back in a year or two", but in a year or two, his 2008 mistakes will still be out there. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

    @Andrew Davidson: Just a note: you can share blacklisted links by wrapping them in < nowiki > tags. — Newslinger talk 10:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

30. Oppose, while the candidate is a valuable editor to the project contributing in particular to a sorely under-covered field of subjects, the various editors above who have found significant problems with several of their created articles means that I can't support giving them a toolkit that includes autopatrol. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
31. Lots of problematic article creations. Nobody is asked to produce flawless and complete articles on the first edit, but there are expectations that experienced users ensure their content rises to a basic standard for quality and adherence to core policies. Copyvios and unsourced BLPs, even if years old, are disqualifying for adminship if the nominee has neglected to fix them. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
32. Oppose It is a real shame this isn't an WP:ORFA, as I would say this candidate stands a good chance here after another 9 months or so of editing focussed more on understanding administrative work. But right now I am sorry to say that I don't have that confidence. Yes, I am really impressed that Greenman wants to help and encourage Wikipedia activity in their local area - and they have clearly done a lot to foster engagement there. But I feel this RFA has been done more out of a sense of duty to that community, than a real need or desire to become an administrator. The first paragraph of their terrible answer to Q1 makes that clear, and I have mild concern that maybe there's a feeling amongst those local Wikipedians who supported them standing that having an administrator in their mists might somehow help them 'defend their corner'. (It was the use of the phrase "and problems local editors have experienced" in that paragraph that concerned me, though I've not seen those 'problems' properly explained, nor do I feel I need to ask before !voting here.) Offering just one example as to why I don't feel they're quite ready yet: as I think has already been pointed out by Cryptic, the answer to Q1 is factually incorrect with respect to Greenman's involvement in requesting semi-protection of the Joel Wilson (umpire) page from a barrage of vandalism on 5th August this year. They didn't request page protection, as they stated; instead, they simply added this pointless request to hurry up. A potential admin, knowing that a WP:RPP request had already been made, and seeing no action and continued serious vandalism, should have known they needed to go to WP:ANI to request 'urgent eyes on' the RPP page from any active admin, and to flag up that article in particular. So, we have a hugely productive and wonderfully supportive editor who is not quite ready for picking up the bit - but I think they soon will be, assuming they really want to? I urge Greenman not to be disheartened by this RfA. Some of our best admins failed at their first attempt. (Feel free to identify yourselves, folks!) I genuinely hope Greenman will come back again quite soon and that I can then offer them my full support. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
33. Oppose – My concern with the weakly sourced creations goes beyond the simple fact that this user created them. Nobody's perfect, of course, and I know full well that standards were not as stringent many years ago. However, Greenman seem to have made no real effort to improve the articles after starting them, by adding inline references etc. For example, one of the creations is Carel du Plessis, a former coach of the South Africa rugby team. The article mentions that he "was controversially appointed coach of the Springboks", the type of statement about a controversy related to a living person that simply must be properly cited per BLP policy. That's been in the article since its creation in 2009, and has apparently never been referenced, even though he was a coach for a major national rugby team in the 1990s who likely has plenty of potential sources available. It just looks like a lack of care has been taken, and that's not what I'm looking for in an admin, who must exercise care in their actions. Add to that the COI and copyvio concerns raised, and I can't support giving this candidate the tools. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
34. Oppose - I am sorry Greenman, but there are alarming issues. Your AfD participation is very minimal, especially for a user who wants to focus on deletion aspects as an admin. Your edits to general administrative areas such as RFPP and AIV have been lacking. Some article issues arise as well, but I cut some slack as people make mistakes. In conclusion, I do not see a demonstrated need for the mop, but see you as a great asset to the Wikipedia. You are a great editor, but the possible COI raises a red flag in addition to other reasons for oppose. Please do not be discouraged and in the future you can try again. I was in your shoes a few months ago at RFA Greenman, I understand the process and hope you will emerge a better editor from this experience. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

    You have raised some legitamate concerns. However your statement: "I do not see a demonstrated need for the mop". How does one demonstrate a "need" to be an admin? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

    The user is a great content creator and asset to Wikipedia. To be a great creator and editor, you do not need the mop. The low AfD participation and lack of skills in other areas, shows that the user does not currently have a strong demonstrated need for the mop. If a user had more experience in administrative activities, there would be a demonstrated need. However, Greenman's strengths stem from non-administrative activities such as creation. I hope this answers your question. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

35. Too much disingenuity in the supports not to comment, unfortuantely. WP:PAY is pretty clear that a ((tq|financial conflict of interest}}—including being an employee—is paid editing (clue: it's under a L3 section header called 'Paid editing), uniquivocally and regardless of the nature / quality of the edits. But my position is, rather, that that is somethng of a distraction: the important thing is that we have a candidate for advanced tools who either doesn't know or doesn't see the significance of making such edits and then baldly declaring the opposite—equally equivocally—that they have done so. Combined with ignorance of WP:V and WP:BLP—not just policy, but two of he most important editorial policies we have—their is an unreadyness for the tools. Their comments on their own talk page also give pause for thought: continuing this RfA for the lulz? The opposition are all systematically biased? No thanks. Mind you those who have mentioned WP:NOTYET in either their supports or oppose are your friends, it definitely applies in this case, as I see no malice in Greenman, only a commitment to the encyclopedia, bringing personal qualities which in some cases should be developedand and others, adjusted. At the moment it appears that the latter outweigh the former; see you in a year though. ——SerialNumber54129 10:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

    Moved to talkpage -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

36. Oppose, unfortunately - the questions about possible COI and/or paid editing and Greenman's responses mean that I'm not comfortable giving him a mop at this time. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
37. Regretful oppose I had thought I would just sit this RfA out as he's clearly asset to the Wikimedia movement even as he's not the right fit to be a sysop on English Wikipedia today. However, the pointer to his talk page discussion means I want to register my concerns with his understanding of policy and crucially norms. It would have been best if he'd not edited MariaDB. It would have been second best if he'd been upfront about it and generally followed COI best practices. If he'd done that he could have avoided the parts that have lead some to believe he's violated our rules about paid editing. He might have done that but just as importantly he's definitely violated, through ignorance, our norms around paid editing, a topic the community rightly cares a great deal about. I would hope that Greenman would become a sysop one day. But to do that he'd need to be serious about wanting it by finding a mentor or two - there are some really great possibilities up in the support column. With some guidance, so for instance he created higher quality stubs that wouldn't as Kudpung points out need review by NPP, and time spent digging into the nitty gritty of policy (and the many unwritten but still very real conventions we have) he could pass. We should want more South African sysops - I know I do - which is why I hope he'll take this as a learning experience rather than a chance to rail about Wikipedias shortcomings. We have many, some of which were on display here, but I don't think they are why this RfA isn't passing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
38. Oppose – I cannot support a candidate who does not fully comprehend and comply with our conflict of interest guideline. – bradv🍁 15:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
39. Oppose per Ched. Not knowing when to use a Level 4im warning is an absolute deal-breaker for me. A user who thinks this edit deserves a 4im shouldn't be doing any patrolling, let alone have the mop. I haven't investigated the COI issues yet, but this alone is enough for me to be unable to support this RFA. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
40. Weak Oppose - the COI issue is major, but the actual instances seem minor - it should have been tagged, but it hasn't damaged the encyclopedia. The 4im issue is major - they should only be given in really rare circumstances, not the cases highlighted by Ched. They also don't seem to show enough experience in some of the areas they say they'll be operating in. Greenman has obvious pluses (the benefits of diverse admin locations aside), but the three negatives are too much between them. I'll reconsider if any of them get knocked down. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

    Changed to weak oppose Nosebagbear (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

41. Oppose - the COI issue is a deal breaker.--Frmorrison (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
42. Oppose. I am not bothered by the candidate's editing at MariaDB, the lack of edit summaries, or random annoyances from 10 years ago, they are all for me in the super lighweight category as they carry precisely zero risk to Wikipedia. The deal breaker for me is Greenman's lack of experience and contributions in key admin areas: AfD, SPI, DRN, ANI. It brings up the question whether they need the mop at all - AmericanAir88 has put it all very well. The warning issue brought up by K6ka also adds to my oppose. My advice now will be: keep up good work, be more active in admin areas, get a better grasp of policies (including how to use warning templates) and re-apply in a year or so. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
43. Oppose – not fussed about the COI concerns others have discussed. The candidate has nominated anti-vandalism as one of the two areas of admin work they would like to contribute to (which is great!); yet, they have made a combined <50 reports to AIV/RPP which to me appears to be quite low. Additionally, I am very big on editors taking those few extra seconds to use the edit summary feature and explain their edits (no matter how big or small); a quick glance at the candidate's edit summary usage shows that they've used the edit summary feature <80% for 14 of the last 24 months. For now I must oppose, but would reconsider in the future if these issues are addressed. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
44. Oppose. I am happy to accept Greenman's statement that he has not undertaken paid editing. However the undeclared COI editing is a concern. Together with questionable article creation (from a notability viewpoint), inadequate participation in AfD, and mediocre content creation, this is enough for me to oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
45. Oppose. I find little difference between undisclosed paid editing and undisclosed COI editing. Keeping WP unbiased is one of the central pillars of this site. Additionally, the small number of edits over a large number of years makes me question whether the admin tools will be used by the user enough to warrant granting them in the first place. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

    I feel if an admin uses their admin tools just once in their entire wiki career, and it improves the encyclopedia, then it's a good thing that they had the tools. Similarly, if an editor makes just one edit, or creates just one article, etc. – Levivich 20:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

46. Oppose as per the COI/PE issue as well as the lack of AFD participation, Their lack of knowledge on policies is also a concern, as such I cannot support the candidate at this time. –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
47. Oppose I'm fairly indifferent to this, but having read about the sour grapes on his talkpage, alleging "systemic bias", it seems they have an unfit temper for this duty. --Pudeo (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

    More collegially, the phrase "sour grapes" means something, and that thing is not in fact evidenced by the relevant comment. Likewise the phrase "systemic bias" means something, and the comment in question clearly lays out how actions stemming from this RfA relate to it. The comment is thoughtful, cogent, and in good humor, and it suggests that Greenman has an excellent temperment to be an administrator. --JBL (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

    The sour grapes are implied by their remarks about the actions of other admin's arising during this RFA.Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

48. Oppose (moved from neutral). Oppose per Pudeo.Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
49. Oppose- I can't agree with the cavalier approach to sourcing, as pointed out by John Wolfson. Admins should understand the importance of proper sourcing. Reyk _YO! 13:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
50. Oppose- Per above. BigDwiki (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
51. Oppose - After reading through the comments of this Rfa I am concerned with the COI guideline as a employer of the company that he edited with. Also the fact that their is a lack of editing in the time he has been a Wikipedian. HawkAussie (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
52. Oppose I still have a question open, but looking at Greenman's editing history I won't get a reply for another 12 hours*, so I find myself here. We are all volunteers, and we contribute as and when we can. Editors have few responsibilities as regards being available, but we have a higher expectation of admins - we expect admins to make themselves available in a timely manner to respond to questions about their actions - and during a RfA, which only runs for seven days, we expect candidates to remain alert for that period. Indeed, it is usually expected that they will nominate at a time when they know they can make themselves available. That Greenman's recent involvement with Wikipedia is surprisingly low for a candidate - looking more like someone winding down their involvement rather than stepping it up, is another small cause for concern. These things by themselves wouldn't bring me here to oppose, but given the somewhat controversial nature of this candidate, their casual, somewhat slipshod attitude toward the project and the community as a whole, their harshness in issuing warnings, their defensive rather than reflective approach to questions, and their shrugging off responsibility for the CopyVio by saying here on their RfA that they didn't do it, that they allowed someone else to edit Wikipedia through their account, and didn't supervise or check what they had done, my concerns have added up to an oppose. What happened 11 years ago is in the past, but to attempt to wikilaywer the indefensible doesn't encourage me. They put up a link to Chimurena, but the article links to and copies Afribeat, which Greenman is aware of as it is mentioned on their talkpage. When I came to this RfA a few days ago I saw an unanswered (as then) question on why Greenman had created so many use talkpages. On looking, I saw that these had been created when Greenman placed last warning templates on them. I looked into it, and while I didn't like what I saw, finding it unnecessarily aggressive for often small infractions, as the RfA at that point was heading to a clear fail, I didn't feel it worth getting involved in the RfA itself. Given that Greenman appeared unsuitable and the RfA was clearly failing, I went to their talkpage to discuss with them the option of withdrawing their nomination. I saw that the nominator and one other had already raised the issue, and in reply Greenman felt it would be "entertaining" to keep it open, and Greenman was assuming bad faith and incompetence of the admins who looked into the CopyVio - "another article speedily deleted based on a supposed copyvio (which was actually a 2018 copy of Wikipedia)". I didn't see in Greenman's contributions any reaching out to either of the admins involved in that decision, nor any involvement in the discussion on the talkpage of the article, nor any attempt to use DRV. But, somehow, these admins got it wrong because it was "a supposed copyvio (which was actually a 2018 copy of Wikipedia)". I left Greenman a comment in which I made it clear that the deletion was within policy and recommended that as "Among the things the community wants to see from prospective candidates is that they can judge consensus, know when to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse, reduce conflict and heat rather than keep the fires burning, and put the community above their own interests", it might be an idea to withdraw gracefully now, and apply again later. Three days later there's still been no response to that, but Greenman has not withdrawn, and we are heading for a fractious and divisive RfA. Some people like admins who are tenacious, I'm one of those who prefer their admins to be reflective. My concern here, adding up all the little bits, is that Greenman may make a harsh admin action and would either not be available to discuss or reverse it in a timely manner, or would be too tenacious/stubborn/non-reflective enough to address the issue appropriately. If Greenman was able to accept responsibility for the CopyVio, admit that what they did was wrong, and reassure the community that such a thing would never happen again, I would feel more comfortable. SilkTork (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The follow up question was answered a few minutes after I registered my oppose. This is a positive response, and worth noting. SilkTork (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    SilkTork's question (Q24 followup) was asked at 01:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC) and answered at 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC). As the candidate is likely to have been sleeping throughout most of that 8 hour period, this response time seems reasonable. Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, Greenman has now responded, which I have noted above. I was basing my observation on the editing history up to the point I made my comment, which indicates a general lack of involvement in the project, including not raising the CopyVio issues with the two admins, but making snarky remarks about it on their own talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    You’re opposing because they didn’t take your advice to withdraw? Eww. Please, in the future, don’t advise candidates to withdraw. Just vote on their RfA and skip the advice giving. – Levivich 13:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    I'm opposing for a variety of reasons, neither one of which by itself I would oppose for, but the culmination of which amounts to, in my opinion, that: "Greenman may make a harsh admin action and would either not be available to discuss or reverse it in a timely manner, or would be too tenacious/stubborn/non-reflective enough to address the issue appropriately." What caused me the most concern was Greenman allowing someone to edit Wikipedia through their account and not accepting responsibility for that. The attitude shown is one of shifting blame. The admins who spotted the CopyVio are criticised, and the blame for it is shifted to the person who edited through Greenman's account. These are not actions that give me confidence in Greenman's judgement or sense of responsibility. Your views may differ, but these are my views on looking at what Greenman has said and done. I hope that is clear, if not we can talk about it further on my talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

53. Oppose oer SilkTork and Pudeo. Hlevy2 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
54. Oppose per arguments above - doesn't seem like they are ready for the duties adminship entails. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
55. Oppose sort of per Pudeo. I was going to sit this one out but, with the valid concerns raised above, there are just too many red flags for me. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 17:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
56. Oppose. There are significant numbers of editors who share the candidate's concerns about encyclopedic coverage of South African topics: some of them have the tools and can easily provide copies of deleted pages to other editors with the same concerns so that pages which could be rescued (see WP:HEY) will be identified. In addition, the candidate has been far too cavalier about sourcing, particularly for WP:BLPs, and for a long, long time failed to disclose a WP:COI. I don't think this candidate needs the tools, and I don't think providing them would greatly benefit the encyclopedia. – Athaenara ✉ 19:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
57. Oppose Based almost entirely on the candidate's somewhat evasive answers to questions (but also the above opposes), which seem to indicate they do not fully understand why someone should become an admin, nor do they seem all that interested in doing admin-related work. Judgment seems lacking in general; doesn't seem to need advanced tools (hat collecting?); lacks proper temperament (conflict adverse) for adminship. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    @Demetrius Tremens: I don't think there's any concerns over hat collecting at all. Greenman made it clear he was reluctantly putting himself forward so as to get an adminstrator active amongst his own local community of editors. What worries me far more is the large number of templated 'Only warning' notices they have recently issued to new editors after just one bad faith edit to articles about South African topics. If there's a risk they'll use their admin tools in an equally heavy-handed manner to 'protect their own corner', I don't think they're quite ready yet to join today's new cadre of adminstrators. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    Hat collecting??? This would be his second hat in 17 years. The first was event coordinator. Not much of a hat collection! – Levivich 14:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    Maybe I misused the term, "hat collecting" (I did hedge it with a question mark), but I don't think this user needs advanced tools nor do they show the proper temperament to instill confidence that they would use them properly. Yes. They have been here 17 years, but I don't see longevity as a valid reason to grant adminship. Seems more like, "well, I've been here 17 years, might as well become an admin". Strikes me as seeking a distinction for the sake of having that distinction (hat collecting). Just an opinion. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    I've heard of WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNOW, WP:NOTNOTNOW, WP:NOTQUITEYET, and WP:NORUSH, but this is the first time I've seen someone argue WP:TOOLATE. – Levivich 17:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

58. Oppose: I will be quick: matters of copyright infringement and remunerative editing are enough to move me firmly here. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    Apparently it is necessary to point out yet again that Greenman's behavior does not meet the definition "remunerative [ed: srsly?] editing". You should remove this incorrect characterization of their work. --JBL (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

59. Oppose. A serious lack of transparency regarding the WP:COI issue and consistent poor display of judgement across various areas (article writing, communication, attitude, tempermant). This is the type of behavior Wikipedia does not seek in an editor, let alone a potential administrator. ƏXPLICIT 00:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
60. Strong Oppose Many of the user above have presented good reasons to oppose, but there are three issues that land me here. Editing with a financial COI: We don't want editors doing this, and I certainly don't want an admin doing so, leading by poor example. Copyright violations: There should be no tolerance for violating copyright. It is one thing to make a mistake and own up it and another to just dismiss it. Bad account security practices: The candidate was willing let other people use their account. This is completely unacceptable, especially for an admin. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    JJMC89: The COI policy explicitly allows for uncontroversial edits even for those who have a conflict of interests. Could you point out some of Greenman’s edits that you would consider controversial? –xeno^talk 09:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

61. Oppose per JJMC89. There is no room for financial COIs for administrators. Nihlus 04:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
62. Oppose Although I agree with most of what the supporters have to say, the answer to Q21 is offputting to me. A big part of COI is that it might not even be visible to the editor if it exists. Saying just "no" to this question makes me uncomfortable. — Frood (talk!) 04:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
63. Oppose The candidate's role as an employee of MariaDB conflicts with their role as an editor of the MariaDB article, causing them to bestow preferential treatment upon the article. I'm saddened (but not surprised) they don't see it that way — for such is the logic of conflicts of interest — in that they camouflage themselves from our own inner view of them. This leaves me unable to support.  Spintendo  14:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    Is there a diff of the "preferential treatment"? – Levivich 14:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

64. Oppose (consider it strong oppose if goes to crat chat) I have concerns about both the 2 areas of work the candidate intends to work in. I see a clear and obvious lack of judgement in giving final warnings to IPs and new users for minor reasons pointed above. They can ward off potential editors. The candidate says he intends to do antivandal work, so I cannot support an admin mop with such recent judgement errors. I dont find the AfD logs very convincing to support. Candidate in Q1 has shown interest in Deletion topics. Thanks for answering Q14, as others have pointed out, you could have made use of WP:REFUND. The recent comment made by the candidate on the ongoing RfA also does not inspire confidence in supporting. I understand that there are good intentions, but I believe some more experience in doing the admin related work will be useful to judge your grasp of the policies. As Kashmiri advised, be more active in admin areas, get a better grasp of policies and reapply with evidence of good judgement. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    I think your modifier may have the opposite effect - while bureaucrats only concern themselves with the validity and strength of the arguments presented, expressing your intention to hold your breath until they pay better attention to your comments should they decide to find a consensus seems... immature? They may be careful in weighing the presentation in that light. You either oppose or strongly oppose; it should not matter in which venue it is evaluated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

    After saying whatever I had to say, I would leave it upto crat discretion. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

65. Oppose -- The real or apparent conflict-of-interest is enough to put me here I am afraid. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
66. Oppose I don't trust that user wouldn't let other users use their account again based on their answers to SilkTork's questions. That combined with the COI editing leads to me oppose. Valeince (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

Coming down here until Q12 is answered, although I'm not filled with confidence in the circumstances. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Candidate has been editing for several years, but I dont find the AfD logs very convincing to support. Candidate in Q1 has shown interest in Deletion topics. Waiting for Q14 to be answered. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for answering Q14, as others have pointed out, you could have made use of WP:REFUND. I understand that there are good intentions, but I believe some more experience in doing the admin related work will be useful to judge your grasp of the policies. The recent comment made by the candidate on the ongoing RfA also does not inspire confidence in supporting. For now I would be unable to support this RfA and would keep myself parked at Neutral. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC) Moved to Oppose.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

implied primary sourcing on BLPs has me worried - on Q4. I don't see that they would particularly cause an issue with the tools, biut saying they have had almost 3,000 edits this year, as a record is a little worrying, as it's only around 200 a month (or, for the duration, 3 a day.) I'd want an aspiring admin to do at least a little more than this. Leaning support aside from this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC) (moved to oppose)

(Moved from Support) Something seems off about his answers to the optional questions so far. Q5 does not inspire confidence in his understanding of the importance of BLP; while I'm not going to put a ton of bricks on him for that, the other answers seem to have a slightly flippant tone, which I'm willing to believe is a result of cultural difference/language barrier. I will wait for answers to the other questions, especially those related to deletion, before I make a further decision. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Moving to oppose, regrettably. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

#Neutral Greenman is a much better editor than I am in many ways. However I cannot wrap my head around the very low bar he seems to set for article creation, as described by Kudpung under the opposes. So while there are many positives here as described under the support column, there are also some unexpected negatives under the oppose column that leave me balancing on the fence post. I'd be a support if he came back in a year or two having raised the BLP standard. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC) moving to oppose

In two minds here. 16,000 edits when spaced over 17 years isn't a lot, and not a lot of AfD activity. I'm also not seeing a clear need for the mop. I understand NOBIGDEAL, but I also like to see a clear need demonstrated before supporting. Also see a lot of potential positives, though, but leaning oppose at this time. Will be basing my vote off of how the candidate answers the questions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Moved to Oppose. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

1. I'm landing here since I don't see a point in piling on with another oppose given that this RfA clearly will not pass. I agree that there are serious concerns presented above that prevent Greenman from being ready for adminship at this time, but I do want to express my appreciation for his long history of contributing to the 'pedia. At this point, I think has Greenman has received sufficient feedback and I would recommend withdrawing and reflecting upon the advice given above with the hope that a second RfA in a year or two will be far more successful. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   (moved to support)Neutral. I land here as a bit of moral support. Of course CoI/paid editing is a major issue on Wikipedia, but if the result of our policies and norms is that a part-time employee who updates version numbers on his employer's website with no actual CoI gets caught up in our zeal to prevent extensive, paid-to-do-so biased CoI editing, then we've lost the plot, and the problem is how we've defined things rather than the user. Martinp (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

2. Neutral My take on this editor is that a little more knowledge and experience is needed. I would oppose, but I don't want to be associated with the rationales of many of the opposers. To the extent that our policies and guidelines conflate voluntary, undirected editing related to one's employ with paid editing, it is our policies and guidelines that are wrong. What Greenman is known to have done related to MariaDB, etc., should be neither considered editing for pay or disqualifying for adminship. Vadder (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
3. I planned to sit out, but agree with Lepricavark so I'll land here. Greenman has received sufficient feedback on what the community would like to see before another run. Further pile-ons are not helpful and only risk discouraging a good editor from trying again later. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   Given the upswing in support that may lead to a crat chat, I believe it's worth expanding a bit since my rationale is a little less applicable now. I don't have time to look into the candidate properly, so I don't feel that I should move from neutral. I will say that I find the opposition largely reasonable. The COI and CopyVio concerns are valid issues, and while the supports are right that they may not be as big a deal as some opposes make them out to be, I don't agree with some that they should be completely disregarded. The issues in how Greenman has responded to those concerns as SilkTork and Ifnord raise also gives me pause. Like I said, I can't look into the candidate enough to determine for myself whether these concerns are enough to demonstrate a net negative. They are however enough to show it's not a clear net positive situation. I'll stay in neutral and wish Greenman the best regardless of the outcome. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

4. Neutral. I came to put myself into the moral support category as the editor meets my minimum criteria and I continue to believe in the no big deal idea. Unfortunately, I cannot. Anyone who wants to be saddled with a mop knows that RfA will crawl through one's history. Placing a recent statement on one's talk page, saying this arduous RfA process is entertaining, shows a shortage in insight and judgement that I would expect even the most novice administrator to have. But, there's always hope. As Wug states, further pile-ons would not be helpful. I do wish they will try again with a little more experience. Ifnord (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Neutral Greenman is a very good editor in many ways but the thing is that I just can't give a positive vote because of his previous history with paid editing. TurboSonic (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral per my RFA criteria. The COI issue doesn't bother me that much as I don't consider editing about your employer paid editing just because they are your employer. The things that stop me from supporting are the AFD issues raised by opposers, and the general lack of experience in administrative areas. Iffy★Chat -- 09:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral ATM. While the majority of editors have dismissed the candidate over the WP:COI I have not found any objectionable or promotional edits. In addition the candidate disclosed the COI - and without that honest disclosure this RFA would likely have considerably less oppose votes. I may change my vote to support after more research, and I think others should consider that this candidate is a net positive. I would like to hear more from the candidate. I want to think that the comment that the candidate made candidate's talk page about this RfA process being entertaining was a defense mechanism. Lightburst (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

7. Neutral I'm going to park myself here, for the moment, while I look more into the COI issues raised above. Strikerforce^Talk 20:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
8. Neutral I think Greenman adds value to our community and I feel like many of the opposers miss the forest for the trees. That said, I am not convinced Greenman shows a definitive need for the administrative tools. I hope Greenman continues to contribute to this project, elevates the voices of subjects from Africa, and if so desires, become more engaged in the back-end work of this project. --Enos733 (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral. leaning to moral support I don't think they will break anything and we certainly need more admins to fight vandalism. I think they need to actively address the concerns of the oppose side and come back another time better prepared. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC) move to oppose

9. The candidate’s “most frustrating time editing Wikipedia was in 2007”? And he avoided any serious conflict since – here, on the site ridden with acrimony? Sorry, but I have no trust to people keeping low profile. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• Re Q8: it's normal when patrolling for vandalism to create a lot of IP user pages, as Greenman's contribs show: [10]. So do mine: [11]. And so do yours, BMK [12] – Levivich 04:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Wants to fight vandalism. Has 45 edits to RFPP and WP:AIV over sixteen years? The candidate is clearly suited to what they currently do and the method with which they currently do it. ——SerialNumber54129 06:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

---

This is not WT:RFA. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Q13 on Username by User:Andrew Davidson is not adding any value to the RfA contributors and it is sad to see such questions being asked regularly at RfAs. Candidate should feel free to ignore them, if they feel so. The candidate could have been asked such questions on his user talk, if it is considered so important to know the reason behind usernames.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC) That's not a fair criticism in the slightest. Often the simplest questions can raise the biggest concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC) In the last such case, another editor independently asked a similar question on the candidate's talk page. The candidate chose to answer at RfA and that seemed to work out fine. Andrew D. (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Greenman has now answered the question. Andrew, I am sure the response will now help many of us to gauge if he is fit for the admin role or not. I will speak for myself, that it did not help me in any way. Selecting a username is the first thing done while making an account and IMHO it is just a name that is "often" selected without any or little thought to it. As long as it is not offensive or promotional it should never be a concern for RfA hence I called them out as frivolous. We dont judge the maturity of an admin candidate just by seeing his first few edits that were made years/months ago. If someone needs to be convinced that a username has a good/interesting story (or some reasonable explanation that can be conjured up) behind it that can help to judge the maturity of an admin candidate, then I would question the judgement of the reviewer for using such a criteria in their RfA standards. I can understand the curiosity we have when we come across certain usernames, but I believe that curiosity should be addressed on the user talk page. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Q17: Levivich, you've already been told several days ago about inappropriate questions - in a manner far from condescending - but your ripost with PA tells us a lot more about your crowdsourcing methods. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I asked the candidate by email in advance, he gave his permission to ask on-wiki. Sorry, KP, you've expressed your opinion on the matter, but I disagree. And, I didn't make any PA in that thread or elsewhere. – Levivich 04:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll just re-iterate that asking the same question of every candidate, trying to make it a de facto standard question, is lame and annoying, regardless of whether it is permitted or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think of it as "lame", I'd describe asking the same question of every candidate (and judging every candidate by the same criteria) as "even-handed" or "fair". – Levivich 21:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I do. I even consider it disruptive. Particularly that kind of loaded question which has nothing whatsoever to with a candidate's competency for adminship whether they are happy to humour you with an answer or not. It's the kind of misuse of the RfA venue that puts off potential candidates of the right calibre from running and gets people asking for a reform of the system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What I consider disruptive is going through and PRODing a bunch of an RfA candidates' articles in the middle of their RfA. I mean that is just stone cold man–the PRODs couldn't wait a week? But I guess we each have different definitions of what's disruptive. – Levivich 01:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Levivich I appreciate the question and I think the answer reveals something about the candidate.Lightburst (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Q5: Regarding the stub biographies of chess players, I consider the three sources used to be OK. In some cases it would not have been too difficult to find other sources; for example, I was easily able to get more information about Shimanov from reliable online sources. So it is a little disappointing to see that the editor did not pursue this, but as bare stubs go, these are all right. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Is any uninvolved admin or crat prepared to close this? WP:RFA says bureaucrats may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, which I believe is definitely the case here. The support is below 50% so has no chance of passing, the candidate is saying on his talk page I actually find it quite entertaining and am tempted to let the process run its course and see what else comes up. It's providing a good indication of the sort of systemic bias in place. I do not believe this is an acceptable reason to keep a doomed RfA running. It does no good for the community or for the candidate's future chances.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I am also tempted to endorse a close, although a bureaucrat has not closed a non-SNOW RfA since February 2016. I don't want this to be dragged on and negatively affect a future RfA for Greenman, which per various comments above I hope he does eventually pursue once he has more policy experience. (EDIT: I have further recognized that we have had otherwise-doomed RfA's run the whole 7 days.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I would give Greenman a chance to log in first and address any further questions if he wants to, and let him make the decision about whether to withdraw or not. The only reason I would consider a SNOW close if if the discussion started deteriorating into personal attacks, which hasn't happened yet in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment, even if Greenman's decision about withdrawal is different from what I would do in this situation. We have examples of otherwise-doomed RfAs running the whole 7 days. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

His support % has actually been rising slightly for the last 2 days, so a premature close might not be helpful to him. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There used to be a presumption/unwritten rule that once an RFA dropped below 50% it was time to withdraw, especially if support was on the slide. Presumably that needs updating to 45% based on the lower discretionary band. As for this RFA, it is currently just over 50% and supports are still coming in. Years ago the community did me the courtesy of letting my first RfA run the full 7 days, though at the time I had far fewer edits or tenure than this candidate. I suggest we do that in this case. It isn't as if Greenman is a NotNow candidate or anything close to that. There are currently open questions, at least one a tad intrusive, but germane to the COI issue. The COI issue is not the only one where more discussion might be useful, there is also the issue of use of 4im on routine vandalism and edit summaries. If nothing else' I'd hope that the candidate comes out of this realising that on large pages like this, "reply to x" is a really useful sort of edit summary. ϢereSpielChequers 15:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: - While I can easily understand your view, and I agree that times have indeed changed, I do have a thought. While it would likely be a very small percentage, I think it's possible that "judgment" could become an issue in a future RfA. While I'm of the view that if something is wasting my time, I just remove it from my watchlist - there are those who will possibly feel differently on the next 'go round'. I can easily foresee oppose votes as "poor judgement/ wasted community time" in a future RfA. Just a thought. — Ched (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ched, we tend to think RFA candidates are wasting community time when and if they come back without dealing with the issues raised in earlier RFAs. I would hope that an RFA candidate would not be opposed for letting an RFA like this run the whole 7 days, and if anything i would have thought they were more at risk if they withdrew early with certain questions unanswered. ϢereSpielChequers 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm a newer editor but I never understood this idea that keeping a discussion open–any discussion–"wastes time". It takes the same amount of time to close a discussion whether it's closed today or tomorrow. No one has to read it or write anything unless they want to. If an editor comes, !votes, and leaves, they've spent the same amount of time whether the discussion is closed today or tomorrow. The converse, however, is that closing a discussion early takes away an opportunity from some editors to comment. So an early close reduces opportunity, yes, but wastes time? Who's time? How? – Levivich 03:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

In some cases I agree that there's no real harm in letting discussions play out, but in general "wastes time" for me isn't just in terms of time commenting or even length of discussion. It's also about the effects the discussion can have elsewhere on the wiki. People get upset, and they don't magically calm down when they load a different page. Festering discussions can cause conflict elsewhere on the wiki in unrelated areas (e.g. Framgate). Obviously conflict is inevitable and in many cases healthy, but in cases where the conflict is about people rather than ideas there is a great deal of time spent mediating the situation (like the crats, especially Amanda, have been doing) and quelling the nascent factionalism (e.g. the portal mess). This happens a lot at RfA and AN where the things under discussion are usually people, and helpful feedback can easily turn into a pillory. The pilloried or minority faction may feel resentment and (perhaps unintentionally) cause problems elsewhere that will need to be resolved. The larger and longer the discussion the greater the chance of that happening. Time spent engaging in unproductive conflict, like piling on at an already doomed RfA, is time the community is not spending working together or engaging in productive conflict. Sometimes we want to take away the opportunity for further comments because beating a dead horse doesn't build an encyclopedia. All that said, I think we should let this RfA run its course if Greenman wants it to. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Wugapodes has a good point about the effort spent on "quelling nascent factionalism". I also, however, agree with their conclusion that the RfA should finish per the candidate's wishes (and on a somewhat unrelated point, I like the candidate's citing of their own life experiences in their answer to Q12.) Airbornemihir (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thank you for that explanation–I get it now. Yes, I can see how keeping a discussion open can lead to or aggravate disruption, which in turn wastes time. (And I agree with you that this is not such a discussion.) – Levivich 19:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

---

• I recently edited the Cape Party article and just for curiosity, decided to check the article's talk page. I came across a discussion Greenman had with an IP user regarding WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Greenman was friendly and welcoming and indeed helped the user right. He showed a great understanding of the two policies and had a good temperament in dealing with the user. Greenman also helped the user to understand what reliable sources are, as quoted from the discussion: "Also, the only way to properly present the party's views is by incorporating a Reliable source rather than just adding a response to the article. And the new membership figures should be cited (they're not currently, so even the existing figures could be challenged and removed) - if there's a reliable source with these figures, that can be added to back up the numbers." If I was not so enlightened, I would have suspected that Greenman was an admin. This is just a clear indication that Greenman has shown competency and he would be a net gain, if he were appointed admin. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Lefcentreright (talk · contribs), do you know about WP:ORFA? It's apparently useful for flagging potential issues for those thinking of running in RFAs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

---

@Ymblanter, Foxnpichu, Hrodvarsson, RebeccaGreen, Ret.Prof, and Rhododendrites: At this stage, it may be helpful to the closing bureaucrat(s) for those who have indicated some form of "moral" support also support the candidacy in general, as some comments may be considered ambiguous. –xeno^talk 17:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Extend RfA?

• As votes continue to be made, and this RfA has made an exceptional swing from oppose to support - not yet enough to indicate a consensus to promote, but a movement in a few days from around 50% support to 60% support, I think it worth the Crats considering extending this RfA for a few days to see if that swing will continue. Note: I have voted oppose, so this is not a partisan request. SilkTork (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Other than the occasional hour or two here and there - has that been done before? link? I know nothing is "set in stone" as far as when a crat gets around to closing a RfA, but just wondering about a formal extension for days? Seems a bit out of the ordinary. — Ched (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe WJBscribe has written persuasively on this topic. If I recall correctly, the argument goes: unless there is some new piece of information that needs additional time to be digested, to extend the period just to see if an RfA can push itself into the discretionary range generally isn’t appropriate and amounts to bureaucrat overreach. –xeno^talk 02:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I have started a time-limited RfC on the talk page of this RfA on this topic. Lourdes 03:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)