Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mattwj2002 (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 6 November 2011 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Steven Zhang

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (74/8/0); Scheduled to end 12:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs)

Co-nomination from Pedro (talk · contribs). All, I'm delighted to offer a nomination for Steven. Firstly briefly some history. As Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) Steven made a, bluntly, catastrophic error of judgement by accessing the acounts of others (admin accounts) as well as alowing those admins to (briefly) use his account. Details are found here. This resulted in a ban from this project. Steven compounded his error by also accesing, albeit briefly, the account of another editor on simple wikipedia.

  • It is important to note that all of this took place over two years ago.

I'm not going to gloss over these errors, and to his credit Steven has been open and honest about them. Whether it was immaturity, a lack of understanding of the ramifications - what's done is done. As I noted at his first RFA however [1] he didn't quit or RTV - he held his hands up and admitted his errors. So, moving on, I'm not convinced it's a question of "what's changed" since 2009 although clearly things have. It's a question of;

  1. Has Steven done enough in two years to rebuild trust?
  2. If we trust him would he benefit from the admin tools?

In answer I believe in two years of editing he has regained trust. Whilst Steven was not overly active in 2010 (around 500 edits) since May of this year he has fully re-engaged with the project.

Steven is very active at WP:SPI, WP:DRN and WP:AFD (including non admin closures) - clearly areas where the admin bits are handy. I think the overall account history (pre and post ban) also indicates plenty of content work, albeit much of it tidying and fixing - which are always worthwhile undertakings. Steven himself has elaborated more on his article and article support work in Q2 below. Admins will note his speedy deletion tagging is accurate and regular. Steven is cautious and acts with due dilligence - prime requirements with the admin tool set.

At the end of the day Steven would benefit from the tools and Wikipedia would benefit from him having them. I personally believe there is no risk of misuse or abuse of the tools, and only positives can come from granting him +sysop. Pedro :  Chat  10:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Doug (talk · contribs).

I ran into Steve in June when I was about to block a user and found that he was trying to work with the user as a mentor. I found Steve's patience and style refreshing and, although the mentee was incorrigible, Steve worked very hard to help the user conform to proper Wiki behavior.

I have since seen Steve work with other mentees, quite successfully. Besides patience, Steve has a very detailed and rigorous plan which he adapted from the plan he had gone through when he first joined.

I've also watched as Steve has revamped the WP:MEDCAB board and single-handedly (as much as anything on a wiki is single-handed) created WP:DRN and made it into a relevant process for discussion of content disputes. Content disputes are very difficult, unlike WQA issues where the result is usually a matter of blocking someone or trying to get two users to stop talking, content requires two opposing sides to come together on issues that they really do disagree on. Steve has worked these issues so diligently that the Foundation is now talking to him about developing broader concepts and mediation mentorships.

The Steve of 2011 avoids controversial editing and drama, to the maximum extent possible, while at the same time eagerly taking on some of the toughest mediation cases.

Steve's work on DR and all the NACs[2] and CSD denials[3] he does (and showed me how to track!), show that he understands policy and has an obvious need for the tools.

I trust Steve as a Wikipedian and I trust him to properly use the tools of an admin enough to stake my own reputation on him. He is a great wikipedian and has proved himself coordinating the toughest DR issues and handling much of the grunt work of hte project. He would make a great admin.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I want to thank Pedro and Doug for their nominations as well as other users who have encouraged me to run for a few months, and for their trust and confidence in me. I will endeavor to answer all questions in a timely manner. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: The main reason for me running for adminship is to try and help clear some of the work that piles up in the admin backlog. Initially I'd see myself working in the areas I'm the most confident in, being AIV, RFPP and SPI. I'd also work on closing debates at AFD and would ease myself into CSD. Over time I could see myself expanding to other admin areas such as requested moves, UAA, other areas of XFD and arbitration enforcement.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In mainspace the work I'm most pleased with is related to the TV series, 24, which I managed to get the main article to GA this year, and Martha Logan back in 2008. I also expanded Amanda Fraser to meet DYK status. Although it's not so prestigious, I'm also pleased with the wikignoming I've done as a patroller, removing poor information, adding cites, fixing spelling, all boring but I feel they're still important as they impact on readers and on the credibility of the project to our audience.
In projectspace a lot of my focus has been on dispute resolution and helping newcomers. In particular I'm pleased with the adoption of the the dispute resolution noticeboard, while still a relatively new process I feel it has been somewhat successful in its goals. I also feel the adoption program that I've used has taught new users a bit about how Wikipedia works, an example being Cloveapple (talk · contribs). Finally I've been involved in informal mediation and helping users in disputes at the Mediation Cabal, a few recent cases that I've been active in are Abortion, Holodomor, and Games for Windows.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been involved in one major incident that caused me a lot of stress. As my 2009 RFA shows, back in 2008 I made a mammoth mistake of judgment, ironically it happened because I wanted to help as a newcomer and got caught up in my own misjudgment, and just didn't think about the issue of the community's trust I was breaking. A full disclosure is here.
The investigation found I had tried to use the admin access properly, but my return while banned to post even one IP vandalism revert and my willingness to make an edit for another user on Simple Wikipedia who emailed me their account details to do so, just showed that I hadn't learned the lesson back then. While my 2009 RFA gained a sizeable majority of support (around 70%), I felt I had to withdraw since the opposes showed I had not yet made good and was not yet trusted as an admin should be. I took some time to reflect and returned to full editing in May 2011, determined to make a fresh start and to try and do it right, and I hope the community will accept my apology for the past events of 2008. If I could change them I would.
After the stress of the 2008 events and the lessons I have learned from them, I feel it's unlikely I will have anything so hard again in terms of stress, perhaps the aftermath of these events have shown I try to accept criticism and accept responsibility for my actions. I can't think of other major disputes where I was personally involved as a party. Occasionally I may disagree with users, and I often have to deal with angry users in conflict when I am active in dispute resolution. I imagine if I entered into a conflict with another user I'd apply the same principles and techniques I use when trying to resolve other people's conflicts.
Additional question from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
4. Are you open to recall?
A: In short, yes: I would be open to recall if an RfC on my actions closed with the opinion I had misused the tools. I agree that administrators should be held accountable for their actions, however don't think that making myself subject to a complex and arbitrary recall criteria is the way to do it. I have full confidence in our dispute resolution system, so if an RFC was opened which was closed with the opinion that I had misused my admin tools, I would resign. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ebe123
5. What's your opinion on WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA?
A: To be completely honest, I have no strong opinion on either page, and that is mainly because I am somewhat unfamiliar with them. I do however think that WP:LTA has the potential to be somewhat counter productive. While it does help document the editing habits of the user and can be a useful point of reference for editors and administrators, it does at the same time does appear to go against the idea of denying recognition. Giving a serial troublemaker a page all about them in my opinion may encourage them to continue the behaviour, as opposed to the effect that just blocking them and undoing their edits would have. It also has the potential for allowing the user to change their mode of operation. If we have a page that says, "User:X creates 10 socks, with each they will edit 10 articles related to Pokemon to become auto confirmed and then start changing the dates in articles without references" then it's likely they will change how they do things to become less detectable. I have no real strong opinion on Abuse response, it looks like a specialised board for a specialised task, and isn't handled elsewhere. Continuous vandalism from an IP has to be dealt with somehow, blocks work too but at times can cause collateral damage, so this looks like an appropriate way to have it dealt with in the long term, contacting the ISP. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Divide et Impera
6. Creating WP:DRN is per se a notable achievement, but I would like to know more: whose idea was it and how active you were in implementing it. Also I would like to know if it was mainly implemented to relieve work in WP:ANI and WP:AE or if there were other reasons. Thanks!
A: The creation of DRN was my idea, though what it has become is the result of bright ideas from many editors. I first had a vague idea of a noticeboard after commenting at an RFC on dispute resolution (See my comment there), and after that worked up a proposal for the Village Pump (that discussion is here). Initially, it was more designed to be a board that would solve very small disputes and direct other larger issues to other forums, such as MedCab, a third opinion, or an RFC. It was also initially designed to direct content disputes away from ANI, and it was proposed to also close WQA and the content noticeboard (it was decided to keep WQA open, CNB was closed later). After discussion, which resulted in a consensus to try out the board, it went active (I had already drafted the page). I am quite happy with how it has turned out, even though it is in it's still a relatively new process.
As for the second part of your question, the main reason for me implementing DRN was to better organise content dispute resolution. Having worked at MedCab for quite some time, I noticed a lot of disputes that were filed there did not really suit MedCab, they were either very small disputes, conduct issues, or misunderstandings of policy. The lack of visibility was also an issue I saw, MedCab cases would often sit on the new cases list and rot. DRN has been designed to create a "starting point" for the resolution of content disputes, as well as a way to get many eyes on a dispute to aid in quick resolution. I also feel that because of the creation of DRN, it has had an effect on ANI, while I haven't checked, I would imagine less content disputes get listed there, and they would be sent to DRN if they are. I hope this answers your question to your satisfaction. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from →Στc.
7. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: There's a few things I'd consider in this situation, the type of IP address, the edits they made, and the wording of the unblock request. The IP is semi-permanent, so while on one hand collateral damage from a block would be low, on the other it is more likely that the user making the edits on Monday is the same one that edited five days before hand. This is also backed up by the fact that on both occasions they edited articles related to dentistry. As for their edits, all but one was either vandalism or an attack on another editor. Two of the three unblock requests they made were also either rude or disruptive. That said, they did make one reasonable edit and their last unblock request was reasonable.
Having considered all the circumstances, I would decline the unblock request, however provide them a {{2nd chance}}. Normally blocks I place I would leave for another administrator to review, but in this situation I think that there's no issue with this course of action. I see their interests are related to dentistry, so I'd suggest they select an article that interests them to improve, and keep an eye on their talk page. We're unable to see someone's true intentions from words only, but their actions. If they are genuine about wanting to do the right thing, they would jump at the opportunity to prove themselves. While blocks are cheap and relatively easy to re-apply for issues like vandalism, given their history I think this is the best way to open the door back for them, but minimise the potential for further disruption to the encyclopaedia. It seems like a win-win situation to me. They may opt to take up the offer and improve an article. Or they may not. Either way, no harm has been done. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - and in doing so, I'll quote what I said in the Abortion case: "Steven Zhang should be commended. He was, in my opinion, presented with an extremely difficult MedCab case to work with. He came up with a novel solution... I believe he did this in the belief that it would be an acceptable compromise for both sides.". I fully support Steven's nomination in the spirit of good faith - he's matured into a useful, adult and trustworthy user. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per this statement once said by Graeme Bartlett "Steve is hard worker, and we could use his skills in the admin area." I feel that this statement reflects on how much work he has done within the past couple of years. Minima© (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I think Steven is one of the most patient and civil editors I have ever come across. I'm not very knowledgeable about the qualifications for being an admin, but I know Steven has the character. HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support we need more admin clerks at WP:SPI, among other reasons. Alexandria (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Per below. Buggie111 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support As joint nominator. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Give him a chance --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I've worked with Steven over at SPI for awhile, and he seems to have a good head on his shoulders there. And just for the record, I believe he's atoned enough for what happened back in '08. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I have been working together with Steve at the dispute resolution noticeboard and at the Mediation Cabal, and he has shown himself to be extremely knowledgeable about dispute resolution, as well as being a very pleasant editor to work with. I am confident that he will do great work as an admin, and I think that he will be an asset to the community. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I've yet to come across someone who's done more good with a second chance than Steve has. Tremendously useful, and a force for good in numerous otherwise high tension areas, such as SPI and MEDCAB. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. support opposing people dont be mean 2008 was like 3 years ago! Puffin Let's talk! 14:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support A great editor, definitely deserves nothing less than a promotion. --Bryce Wilson | talk 14:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support 2008 is a while ago, and Steven has clearly rebuilt his trust from the community. No problems afaik. HurricaneFan25 14:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support 3 years is a long time, and frankly the harm from the incident was to himself and the other two people involved, not to the community at large. In light of what happened, I think 3 years is long enough for a second chance. The supports above are more convincing then the nominators at most RFCs. I see no reason to withhold support. Monty845 14:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. It is important to note that I voted to ban Steve after the incident that happened with the administrator accounts (and was actually the arbitrator that posted a notice from ArbCom about the behaviour). Also, as noted in Steve's disclosure, he violated my trust and posted chat logs of private chats I had engaged in with him. Despite this, I think over the time that has passed he has demonstrated he can be trusted with the administrator tools. Indeed, the administrators who gave him their password credentials have had their rights restored since, so I do not see why Steve should be not considered under the same regard. I trust he can use the administrator tools appropriately. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, Steven Zhang has demonstrated that he can be trusted, and shows a useful ability to think outside the box. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: Nobody should be judged exclusively on the worst/daftest thing they've done. As difficult as that might be in some cases, I think it's absolutely fundamental. As Deskana states, all the previous admins involved have had their rights restored (and one of them is now a Steward), so I also do not see why Steve shouldn't be given consideration for turning things around. Plus, as HuskyHuskie says, it must have taken a large amount of grit in keeping everything to his name at the table, and it is only to his credit that he has done so. On a practical level, Steve does good work. For example, where a load of socks have been put in the laundry basket at SPI and Steve is around in IRC, I have, a couple of times, typed out if he'd like to tag and block them, only to realise my mistake and backspace it out. Basically, Wikipedia will benefit with him as a sysop. WilliamH (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Uncontested. ResMar 16:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support', yes please. Why did you wait so long? mabdul 16:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I've been working with Steve for a short time at the DRN recently. Watching how he has both managed disputes between users and helped to develop Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and get other editors on board shows the discernment, maturity and leadership which we really need from administrators at the moment. There were problems in the past, but Steve's recent contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate that Steve has not only learnt from the experience, but gone on to be an incredibly valuable editor. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support for the reasons given by the nominators, which I agree with.Ajbpearce (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Yes, the 2008 incident was a very bad mistake, but it was 2008, I've seen this user in my seven months with the CU flag be clueful, capable, and on top of things at SPI and in the MedCab. I didn't know him in 2008, and quite frankly, I don't care; I've seen enough quality work from the candidate to say firmly that he is ready for this, mistakes from three years ago notwithstanding. Courcelles 17:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Steven is, to my mind, the textbook example of how to recover from the type of monumental fuckup that would send most of us running for the hills. I've interacted with him a fair amount since his return, and I have seen a stable, coolheaded, incredibly well-intentioned and cautious editor who is aware that he has much to make up for and intends to make up for every iota of that. His disclosure is frank, explicit, and owns up to his past immaturity and errors, and his behavior on-wiki since his return has been nothing but helpful and wise. WP:DRN is pretty much his singlehanded creation, and anyone who steps up to mediate an abortion dispute and does it as well as Steven did has more patience and wisdom in their little finger than most of us have in our whole bodies. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support I had only recently offered to nominate this user for the tools, but Pedro beat me to it. I have interacted with Steven on several occasions, and I have only the highest regard for his skill, comittment and dedication to the project. I would recommend him for the tools in the strongest possible measure. What happened three years ago is, IMHO, wholly irrelevant. He will be an excellent admin now. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Always seemed to know his stuff when I've seen him around. I'm actually quite surprised to learn about the whole banning story, but this looks like a pretty textbook return to good grace. In cases where I've some doubt I look to the opposes to see what I might be missing, and at this time they're basically of the "I will never forgive you" (and its little brother, "I will forgive you in X months") rather than adding anything of particular note to assessing the candidate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support good editor, I've seen him around a lot, he knows what he's doing, and who honestly cares about one stupid mistake in 2008? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. He isn't defined by one incident, just as no one is. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I once ate a worm, aged about five. I'm glad I'm not judged on that. — Joseph Fox 19:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you know how old the worm was? Peridon (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: Excellent work with MedCab. --LauraHale (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Secret account 19:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I've seen him around in various places - and seen nothing but good. I would think the incidents of 2008 will prevent him doing anything silly here again - because a load of people will be watching him like shitehawks (until they get bored and go off to watch some paint dry instead). Peridon (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - I could not care less that he took part in account sharing three years ago. This is just a freakin' website— time to get over it. Swarm X11|11|11 19:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. To err is human. He has certainly learned from it, and earned back the community's trust. Support. - Mailer Diablo 19:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per most of the above. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - qualified beneficial contributor with a pretty dated single issue which clearly he wouldn't repeat. If he continues to contribute in the same manner , a clear net asset. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per Swarm above, who couldn't possibly have said it any better. I understand that he did something bad but it's been three years. Seriously. Put the stick down. He's unlikely to be anything but a net-positive. Trusilver 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: I think Steve will be a great addition to the areas where he intends to work. Elockid (Talk) 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Because it seems we may be getting three administrators for the price of one. But in all seriousness, Steve is obviously qualified. Of course if he'd socked around the previous incident he'd have passed RfA two years ago. That he's taken his medicine over three years and there have, as far as I'm aware, been no like conduct issues since, suggests that it should now be left in the past. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I trust him and trust that he has learned his lesson --Guerillero | My Talk 22:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I think Steven is one of the best non admins in wikipedia Rookie1219 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Rookie1219 has been blocked as a sock of indef blocked user:Pokemonblackds. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It should at least be indented, I will leave it to someone else to judge whether it should be totally removed. Monty845 02:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: This user knows the wheels here, and what happened in the past is in the past. Thanks for answering my question! ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 23:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. From the great state of Victoria, so it's not surprising that he's a good bloke. I trust him to use the admin tools appropriately. Jenks24 (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support as I also did last time. We are all prone to occasional error and those who can admit and learn from error are valuable to the project, as are those who can forgive them. Steven's having access to the tools seems like a net positive. --John (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support From my experience Steven is an exceptional editor, my only qualm with him is the fact we both have a heterosexual man crush on Jack Bauer even though we all know Jack loves me more so he has no shot. Peter.C • talk • contribs 01:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Theres no reason to dwell on something from literally years ago. The tools can always be taken away if the user gets into mischief. --Kumioko (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. When I saw the nomination, I thought, "He's not already an admin?" I was unaware of the prior bad behavior. I would have opposed the nomination in 2009, and maybe even if he had run in 2010, but the work he's done with MedCab and DRN show a clear change towards extremely valuable and productive engagement with the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support My interactions with this user have been very positive. He does great work at the Dispute resolution noticeboard and at MEDCAB. The incident from 2008 isn't really concerning. I don't believe he would do something like that again. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support The password incident is pretty shocking stuff, a lot worse than I had expected on reading the teasers on this page. But, this mea culpa is also quite impressive and, on the balance, this is a risk worth taking. --regentspark (comment) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - What happened in '08 was bad, but I think he has made up for it, and it has been three years. Valuable contributor in a number of ways. AlexiusHoratius 04:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. The candidate is qualified. I think he's learned from past mistakes. More importantly, he has a solid track record during the past couple of years. Majoreditor (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. DRN was a pretty great idea, contribs suggest he will even more helpful in his current administrative-type task given the tools and he clearly knows how to handle himself in heated disputes. I mean, not only can he help out with mundane topics like abortion, but he has the guts to venture into Windows related disputes! Danger High voltage! 05:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. 2008 was a long time ago, as was 2009. Since then Steve has been an active and model Wikipedian. He's worked hard in the mediation area which is so desperately needed. He spearheaded DRN, which is also a great asset sure to grow in the coming years. His original crime was, if anything, being overzealous to be a part of the process. It seems he has harnessed that for the greater good, and will continue to add to our ongoing improvement. That said, he is entrusted with a good deal here, so he should know that there won't be as much slack for mischief as an admin, considering he's already been one twice! :p (note, he was not *really an admin before). Ocaasi t | c 05:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I've had excellent interactions with Steven, and I've found him to be very helpful and polite. 2008 is forever ago, and Steven seems to have learned from his mistake.~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 06:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Great candidate with track of excellent work in Wikipedia: in my opinion he has already done an admin type work. Divide et Impera (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. I see Steven everywhere and I have absolutely no reason to believe he would abuse the tools. The opposition is unconvincing - if Steve had joined the project two years ago , they'd be none the wiser. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support One of the things I most admire in Steven is his openness and honesty in dealing with the (ages-old) incident. It would have been extremely easy for him simply to have resigned from that account, created another one under another name, and just come back as someone else. In which case, nobody, as far as I can see, would have had any qualms on giving him a mop now. The fact that his honesty about the earlier incident is effectively now used against him makes me uncomfortable. We're all human, we all make mistakes (particularly in our over-zealous and impatient youth), and many of us can regret those mistakes, be honest about them, and turn over a completely new leaf. This is what Steven has done. The Steven of now has excellent interaction skills with other users, even difficult ones, and has shown superb judgment in (particularly) the Abortion debate. His work there was quite brilliant, and an example to us all in terms of patience and insight with a very tricky situation. His tagging is acceptably accurate and trustworthy, and he works hard, and well, and consistently. If he had been a new editor in the latter part of 2009, with the record he has made since then, nobody would be likely to oppose this at all. I strongly feel that it is very wrong for us to hold years'-old sins against people. People do grow; people do change. We need to accept this, and to move on, as Steven clearly has done. I don't think that there is the remotest possibility that, having worked so hard and well since then, he would abuse the mop. Time to say yes. Just adding (and I hope Steven can forgive me!) It's important to remember that he was in his teens at the time of that earlier mistake. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I think most people are probably going to disagree with me when I say this, but I don't think Steve's err in judgment in 2008 was really all that big of a deal. Yes, I do think he rightfully lost the community's trust for doing what he did. It was inappropriate for Steve to log into Chet and Peter's accounts to perform admin actions. It was also poor judgment to use another editor's account on Simple English Wikipedia despite being banned from this site for having done exactly the same thing here. But aside from those breaches of policy, Steve never did any harm to Wikipedia through his actions. And that's why I have always opposed his ban. We basically told an invaluable contributor that he's no longer welcome on Wikipedia just because he made some huge mistakes, and he remained gone for several months. He owned up to his decisions and accepted the consequences for them. There was no need to punish him any further. But that was way back in 2008; here we are in 2011. Times have changed, and so has Steve. I think he would be a huge asset as an administrator, particularly at SPI, so I'm supporting. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support after some deliberation. It is a net positive kind of thing. JORGENEV 11:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support It's been over 3 years since the incident, which had no serious long lasting effects. I notice that Coffee and PeterSymonds are both admins who regained tools after they were removed following this incident. Opposers using this as an excuse to oppose prove the classic idea at RFA that you can never be forgiven for anything on Wikipedia. Anyway, no reason why this candidate won't make a good admin. AD 11:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per above. Graham87 11:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Intelligent mediation of Holodomor. (Time served for lapse in judgment, so let's welcome back into the community.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - I've seen him around and looks like a great candidate. -- Luke (Talk) 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. He seems sufficiently experienced and a reasonable person. He did make some mistakes 2-3 years ago, but he's been quite open about them, and the other Wikipedians involved in that password sharing issue were forgiven since then. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - He seems like a great candidate and his blocks happened three years ago and everyone makes mistakes on Wikipedia. If he turned his editing around after the blocks then he is a great candidate. You can't hold someones blocks against them forever. TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support The incident that happened two years ago is two years gone, and it seems, to some level, he has regained trust in the community and has bettered himself after the fact. If anything fishy happens while he has the mop, something can always be done then. In response to Townlakes oppose, I say: The Benefits outweigh the risks. Good luck! Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. The lack of trust shown in the opposition has proven to me that there are people, who after 3 years, cannot seem to forgive an error, and who cannot look past the one bad judgement error to see the 3 solid years of contributions to this wiki. This is disgusting. Steven Zhang is a well-rounded, dedicated, extremely clueful user who made a slip up 3 years ago. It's amazing that people can't see the opportunity presented to us. We need admins. Steven is more than capable of this role. (X! · talk)  · @769  ·  17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - user didn't delete the main page. And good answers to questions. →Στc. 17:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - the fact that this user continued editing after his problems in 2008 is commendable. I'm sure most people would simply dis-own their old account and create a new account thus giving the impression of being free of any controversy. I'm sure that lots of people have done that including many admins. User seems respected and has significant support.ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Awesome guy! he Needs admin tools again! I've know him for a while and he's a really great guy. So it's a definite support from me! --Zalgo (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support .Sole Soul (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. I too have noticed this user's many helpful contributions to the Mediation Cabal and as such believe that he certainly passes the aptitude test here. SuperMarioMan 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - while a great contributor to the project, I cannot ignore what happened in 2008. I would like to see a longer history of positive contributions, and not just a few months. The answer to question 3. is also not very reassuring. Pantherskin (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfuly, Pantherskin, if I may say so, it appears from what I (have just now) read of Steven's earlier behaviour, that he has not just a few months, but years of history of positive contributions. In fact, as far as his actual contributions to the encyclopedia are concerned, there is no question that his contributions have been consistently positive. He committed an egregious violation of trust, but he did not use that access to commit any negative contribution to the encyclopedia itself (unless I'm misreading it). His actual contributions are almost universally heralded, the good faith of his intentions is recognized by almost everyone, it was only his judgement that was questioned, and that for good reason. But he has had a few years to mature and develop better judgement. Even more amazing to me is that one editor who supported him suggested he should vanish and return later to do his good work another another name. But in a tremendously brave (and mature) decision, he opted to remain with his misdeeds open to all to see. Now that's character.14:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC) HuskyHuskie (talk)
  2. Agreed - oppose for now. Maybe in another year? DS (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. No personal animosity toward the user, who is a very nice person and who I always had good interactions with, but for me, what happened, whatever long ago, makes me still very uncomfortable with the thought of this particular user being granted sysop tools. Second chances are a good thing, but certain things cannot be washed away for me. Maybe that's just me being stuck in an old mindset and not adapting to changing circumstances, I cannot tell for sure. The breach of trust in '08 and the subsequent handling are still too much on my mind, Dragonfly above me wrote "Maybe in another year?", maybe. No offense to the user, whose valuable contributions, hard work and dedication we all know. Snowolf How can I help? 14:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that both of the admins that handed in their tools ("under a cloud") as a result of this incident have since regained the mop through RfAs. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I am aware of that, but thanks for stating so for other users who may not be. Snowolf How can I help? 14:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, one is now a Steward, too and the other did not stand for RfA for restoration of his tools, ArbCom gave them back. Both got their tools back in 2009. Though I don't consider either of them relevant to this nom except to the extent they show that a user can change and rebuild their trust. Steve stands on his own. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you prefer that he stopped using the account which he was using then created a new one and pretended that nothing ever happened? Nobody would have ever known.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 18:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risks outweigh benefits. Townlake (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You could say the exact same thing about eating chocolate cake. Could you expand on this a little bit please? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be pointless. You either see the risks here or you don't. Townlake (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify them? And maybe why?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug, I support Steve 100%. But these other editors have a right to their lack of trust. It's not something they can define, it's something they feel, and they're not "wrong" to feel that way (they're just mistaken, in my judgement and the judgement of 90% of us). Let's leave them alone; if Steve's stand-up behaviour in keeping his personna publicly known since His Troubles won't convince them, nothing will. And maybe it will be good for Steve to have this as a reminder that there was a 10% minority lacking trust in him. If it keeps him humble (not an easy thing for someone with his talents), then the project is better served.HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No - My objection is along the lines of Snowolf - I cannot ignore the 2008 account sharing incident and regardless of the position of others in the community having been regranted these perms (which they should not have been - misusing the permissions which have been trusted to them once should mean you don't get them back) - It is not possible for me to say in all certainty that I'd trust this user to have this position again. Sorry.  BarkingFish  21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. Your whole oppose seems based on abuse of previously granted permissions -"(position again)"- and not wanting to give them out again; However Steven has never been an admin. Can you clarify? Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - he had an unofficial taste of mopping, but no mop of his own. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I'll clarify it. I don't trust him to have the position, period. Those who were regranted or given perms back should not have been, and this user for his part in this, should not be given them at all. BarkingFish  21:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for acknowledging you minor error [4] and clarifying your position. Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think that a well-intended gross error of judgment by a teenager should be held against them for ever more? Surely you must have been a "normal" enough teenager, yourself, to have made idiotic mistakes? "Life without parole" for the equivalent of "driving without a licence" seems a little harsh, to me. In the real world - with real lives possibly endangered by an unlicensed driver - you'd be looking at a one-year driving ban, not a lifetime one. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comparison isn't fair either. The equivalent of "life without parole" in this case is an indefinite ban from the site, which Steve is not subject to. I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but before you point out flaws in other peoples arguments, you may want to look for flaws in your own. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - The earlier incidents of course, but also other things I've personally noted in the past years that make a general impression on me. I can't support. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Snowolf put it quite well; this user's contributions may be valuable but I do not trust him with admin tools. — Manticore 15:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Seems too inexperienced. For example, he wants to be closing AFDs but he doesn't seem to have much experience of that forum. Warden (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, maybe you missed it in the nomination but Pedro mentioned how active Steve is at various fora, including AFD and I linked to Steve's Non-Admin Closures. Steve has done more at AFD than many admins; in fact, I have to say that Steve may have closed more AFD's than I have even participated in!--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    These mostly seem to be very recent - just the last few days. What I'm not seeing is any evidence of ever having contributed to such discussions. It just seems to be a performance in support of this RfA. Warden (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If Steve has been "performing" for this RfA, then his act is probably going to make this list. I understand some of these other editor's concerns, but lack of experience or activity is certainly not one of them. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Awaiting response to first half of my question. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 22:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steven_Zhang&oldid=459341361"