Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crboyer

Crboyer

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (11/30/1); Scheduled to end 17:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Crboyer (talk · contribs) – A Wikipedia user for almost 12 years. Reported multiple vandals to WP:AIV. Dealt with numerous vandalism sprees. Corrected typos when I spot them. I make up for my mistakes when I make them. If I acted terribly, I'll answer for that. I'm very active throughout most of the day. I hope to help. Crboyer (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: Find vandals and block them.

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

A: Find vandals, revert their edits and report them to WP:AIV. I've reported multiple vandals to WP:AIV.

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: The users that have caused me problems the most are problematic vandals. Special:Contributions/Sotosbros being one notable example, a user who made multiple misinformation edits and reverted them with glaring hostility. I reported Sotosbros and their socks to AIV, I asked one administrator for help blocking a few, I told them to stop a few times by pointing out their edits contradicted factual evidence. They wouldn't listen and it caused me stress. They've since been indefinitely blocked and stopped socking. In the future, I won't let a blatantly hostile vandal like that bother me.

There's also the "Putin Pooted" vandal, a troll spreading childish nonsense on Russia-related articles like 2014 Winter Olympics. They've also been bugging me personally on my talk page. I got my talk page protected for a while and my sandbox and its talk page (other avenues they've bugged me at) protected indefinitely. I also reverted their edits multiple times and reported their socks. I will continue to revert their trolling in the future and not respond to their gibberish.

---

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 Ritchie333

4. Do you think it's acceptable for an administrator to tell other editors to "get lost" and to "grow up and find something else to do"?

A: No, and I don't think it's appropriate for other users to act this way. If I become an administrator or am turned down, I will work to minimize this behavior. Especially when it's dealing with users who feed on animosity.

Additional question from Power~enwiki

5. If you were an un-involved admin, what action would you have taken against the recent vandalism on American Sniper?

A: Due to the user's history, I would've blocked any sock of theirs' on sight. This is the same user that's gone after anything Russia related since 2014 (see 2014 Winter Olympics) and has gone after me personally. They are WP:NOTHERE to be constructive, so it's best to minimize their damage.

More specifically: would you have used a range-block here? How long a block would you have applied? Was page-protection also necessary? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

A range-block was appropriate considering how fast they change IPs. No more than a month (a week at least) would be an appropriate length. Page protection is to be double sure the user won't slip by and find a new range to play with.

Additional question from TonyBallioni

6. What would you do if while going about your everyday editing you ran across an article that had been created in 2007 but had just been tagged for speedy deletion?

A: It depends on why the article is tagged. I'll have to read the article to see if the article was properly tagged for that reason. An article that was lifted from an obituary without sourcing it (WP:G12) needs to go, as does an article that promotes a hoax movie (WP:G3) (See the one AFD discussion I participated in, Chappie 2). A page that disparages some random person (WP:G10), calling them names and accusing them of terrible things, if it hasn't already been deleted since 2007, has to go now. In short, once I look over the article, I'll make the call. If the tagging was clearly a vandalistic work (Cow Cleaner 5000 and their socks' attempts to delete Weekly Shonen Jump), I will treat the tagging as vandalism.

Additional question from TonyBallioni

7. Can you give a few examples of what you would and wouldn't consider to be a credible claim of significance for a living person?

A: A credibly significant person is someone like a politician, entertainer, or a valedictorian, someone who made the news for their accomplishments. If they can be verified by enough sources, they are credibly significant. But if someone claims to have made pigs fly, or the sky fall, I won't believe it until I see it. Therefore, they can't be credibly significant.

Additional question from My name continues to not be dave

8. I've already voted, but here goes: Are you happy to perform other admin duties other than anti-vandalism when it is necessary for you to do so, or will you self-restrict yourself to working just in the field of anti-vandalism?

A: ::A: I think anti-vandalism is what I'm good at right now. If I need to do anymore administrator duties, drop me a line.

Additional question from FlyingAce

9. Do you think all types of disruptive editing should be treated as vandalism? Why or why not?

A: No. If a user is acting out of inexperience, they shouldn't be treated as vandals. I had input on Sulima Coat of Arms on April 2016 due to a user's relative inexperience. I also stopped a disruptive user on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice by pointing out that the facts they were introduced applied to the following film. But if a user is acting disruptive over a very rapid amount of time, they have to be stopped.

Additional question from User:Boing! said Zebedee

10. I think you have missed some subtleties and show some lack of deeper understandings in your answers to questions 5, 6 and 7. Would you care to re-examine them, think about them more deeply (maybe read up on the appropriate policies), and perhaps expand on your answers?

A: I have rephrased my answers above. Am I allowed to do that?

Sure, it's what I'd hoped you might do.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support I have no problem with admins just doing one thing. You can do whatever tickles ya fancy here. Be nice to see more folks at AIV; we can see a net positive here. Clean block log, edit summaries are good, been here long enough, doesn't care about the recent AfD fad here since he has apparently only voted once :P Yeah, yeah. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Weak Support I've always thought that editors who nominate themselves for any position of "Power" (ie admin, crat, rollback) to be crass and overly confident, but I feel like I am, in this case, comfortable with the user after seeing some of his past work. In addition, vandalism is a huge problem lately, and having an admin dedicated almost solely to reverting it would be great. However, I think that admins who focus solely in one area are sometimes more of a liability than an aid sometimes, so I think that the user should branch out. I would also like to see more content on the user's userpage. Until these concerns are fixed, I will not fully support, but I suppose my vote still counts. MasterMetalhead309 18:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead309 (talk • contribs)
3. Moral support this will not pass, nor should it, but I do wish to convey to the candidate that I am not the least bit bothered if he tells a vandal to "grow up." If he speaks harshly to a vandal on occasion, that is a trivial matter. Respected admins have been known to be far less gracious to legitimate, non–vandal editors. Lepricavark (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Tentative support - am not swayed by question 4 if that is the worst example of incivility. The candidate answers the questions succinctly and honestly and to the point. I think the candidate has a good chance of being a net positive (though, yes, I would have like to have seen more content). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support. I don't really mind if admins have a narrow focus of activity. I also think a couple examples of mild incivility, over a 12-year history, toward obvious vandals are not that big a deal. When vandals get indeffed, people are basically telling them to "get lost" anyway, just in a more formal way. Smooth alligator (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support - Sensible reports to RFPP and AIV, suggesting that they would be able to properly use the sysop bit. Not a perfect candidate, but we shouldn't be requiring perfection for admins. I would challenge opposers to find actual evidence that the candidate does not understand policies here, rather than just opposing based on statistics. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Challenge accepted. See my analysis of some answers to question in my Oppose below, where the lack of at least CSD policy understanding seems very clear to me. (I think there's insufficient understanding of other things too, but I think CSD stands out.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

7. Moral support Mahveotm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.37.52 (talk • contribs)
8. Support per Ajraddatz. Perfection is not required in an admin. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   I don't want to stick the knife in any more than necessary, but a key part of an admin is communication, and this candidate seems to have very little (as pointed out by the oppose from Boing! said Zebedee, amongst others). Being able to communicate effectively and field queries is not perfection, it's standard expectation. I'll also add they didn't transclude their RfA correctly, and I did it for them, thinking they at least deserved a fair crack at the whip. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

9. Support. I suppose this might be a throwaway vote, because this RfA does seem to be in trouble early on, but I'm in favor of being rude to vandals and to COI SPAs who register for the sole purpose of advertising and promotion, and I support a certain amount of on-the-job learning as well. I think if this RfA does pass, Crboyer will become a good administrator. – Athaenara ✉ 01:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
10. Support I have no problem with an admin leaving the summary of "grow up" or even "get lost" to an obvious 2-bit vandal. Currently the community has no issue with established users/admins telling established users to "piss off" on at elast 5 separate occasions and "go annoy someone else". Personally I would wish for some vague ES like rvv, but I find that a minor point. You've got the time and the edits, and rollbacker isn't a hat too scoff at. Like Not-dave I have no issue with SP-admins, Once you get the tools I am very sure you will get some scope creep and end up doing more mopping as you see work needing to be done and get a feel for it. You extensively use edit summaries, and I have no doubt you can differentiate between acceptable edits and the reverse, so the low amount of approves in your counter doesn't disturb me. I'd like to see some more AfD Participation (I reload Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs every evening and grab 4 or 5. Candidate scored 550 on adminscore.L3X1 (distænt write) 02:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

    Support per Metalhead309. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmei (talk • contribs) 03:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

    You already !voted under your now blocked account above. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

    Struck duplicate !vote per above as user notes here they were Metalhead309 prior to their account being compromised. -- Dane ^talk 04:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

11. Support. Based on the candidates edit history, I think they are an experienced vandal fighter, and more admins blocking vandals is definitely a good thing. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the answers to my questions don't leave me with a lot of confidence that they will handle the delete button appropriately. In the case of the 2007 question, I'm worried because with few exceptions (such as G12 that we haven't caught for years, which is very rare but does happen), an article that has been in Wikipedia for 10 years will never be uncontroversial to delete without discussion or the opportunity for someone to object. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I feel quite strongly that administrators need to treat people with respect -- even those who have temporary lapses in judgement. So, as much as I respect the candidate's hard work on anti-vandalism patrol, I must regretfully oppose. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose The candidate has made only one article - Keith Robinson (actor), not a good example of anything. A single vote on AfD for a very obvious speedy delete. A single SPI filing, even though he is a self-proclaimed vandal fighter. There is clear evidence of alot of repetitive reversion of vandalism but no wider interaction with Wikipedia and therefore no real experience. I am concerned that this editor is too focused on a single issue, and that he would be unable to properly ground decisions to block people, unable to properly assess their net value to wikipedia, and could easily judge a situation incorrectly. The blocking power being the only tool he has an apparent interest in, yet I do not believe this candidate is ready for it. Dysklyver 19:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose You've only created one article in your tenure, it appears, and although I understand that standards were that much lower regarding referencing (particularly regarding BLPs) in 2006, I think article creation is pretty important- if only for purposes of illustrating an understanding of what causes issues and how people react to them. However, I respect that not every editor feels the same way re. content creation, so let's have a look at the need for the tools the candidate presents us with. The answers to the questions are generally weak, being mostly a vague handwaving towards "blocking vandals" etc. This is the deal-breaker though, and certainly an elephant in the room; the only area of maintenance the candidate wants to get involved in is vandal fighting (fair play to them on that)- yet I see only one AfD !vote! I'm hoping that Xtools' are playing up; if not, then this seems to be a candidate- pace- who wants to block vandals but has actually never indicated any material interest in the subject, and, more, has absolutely no means of showing the community that they understand what is required in the area. — fortunavelut luna 19:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose I don't like to oppose, but there is simply a lack of experience in enough admin areas to be able to make an informed decision in this case. Also, I don't think the candidate understood question #4, so I think more work in other areas and then maybe try again in 6 months or a year.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose I have no particular objection to a pure vandal fighter admin, but I'm definitely concerned with just how specialized Crboyer appears to be. I see one AfD !vote ever, no CSD log, and the responses to questions suggest little familiarity with the deletion process. I'm not aware of any content creation credits (DYK, GA, FA, etc.) that Crboyer can claim, and with only two mainspace page creations, I'm not confident on that end. As I say above, though, I have no particular objection to a pure vandal fighter admin: It's entirely possible for me to support someone with little experience outside vandal fighting provided there's a clear need and the proper temperament. I'm just not seeing that here. The get lost edit summary mentioned above, though it was clearly in response to blatant vandalism, doesn't really fit with my conception of a pure vandal fighter admin's temperament. As a final point, I place great emphasis on how candidates present themselves in RfA, because this shows the seriousness with which they take the responsibility of becoming an admin. I believe prep for RfA should include reviewing past RfAs and ensuring responses to the standard questions are well considered and insightful. I'm just not seeing that here, and I believe casualness towards the RfA process is a poor indicator of reliability in a future administrator, particularly given the great difficulty the community has with revoking administrative user rights. I'm sorry, but I must oppose. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Addendum: The response to Q9, frankly, misunderstands the policy definition of vandalism badly enough that I believe it constitutes independent grounds for opposing, especially given Crboyer's desire to be an anti-vandalism admin. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

7. Oppose Only created one article after being registered since 2005 and little participation to none at AfD. From 2005 to 2008, the nominees editing history is far from active. At most, at least 30 edits in 2007, and I'm rounding off that number. The remaining years to now are just reverting vandalism and reporting vandals, but not much to none in other wiki activities such as move discussions. With all this, I think this nominee has little understanding of wiki policies. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose - does not meet my my RfA criteria, which while strict, are far from being the most demanding among those that are often practiced by RfA voters. Created articles consist of a single totally unreferenced BlP and a DAB page; it's my contention that if a user wants to police pages, they should know how to produce them. The candidate's intended sphere of admin activity is too limited to demonstrate a need for the full set of tools, and does not provide any insight to their qualities of judgement in situations that traditionally require admin intervention or closure. While I have absolutely nothing against against self noms, this one is the shortest self nom I believe I have ever seen from an established editor for a serious attempt at RfA, and to me it imparts an over-confidence such as : I don't need to say more because this will be enough for me to pass anyway. Clearly the advice page at WP:RFAADVICE was not studied, which while not obligatory, IMO is the minimum any candidate should do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Add: When I began typing this, it was only the second 'oppose'. Looks like while I was typing and the ensuing multiple nedit coflicts , several other users got in quicker with very much the same rationales as I have mentioned here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Crboyer is clearly a committed long-term contributor to Wikipedia and is at the front line of anti-vandal defence, and I offer my recognition of and thanks for that. But I'm just not seeing the level of involvment in admin areas for me to assess their level of experience and understanding of such things. The answers to questions are weak too, and do not show the depth of understanding of things like blocking and deletion that I would want to see. After 2 bites at questions 5, 6, and 7, here are some important things the candidate appeared to overlook but which I think are important:

   5) That vandalism came from multiple IP addresses, but the answer was essentially just "I would've blocked the user on sight". But how? I would have expected to see some mention of a range block - as power~enwiki has since pointed out (and knowledge of the IPv6 /64 range allocation would have been a bonus, but not required for a pass).

   6) In addition to TonyBallioni's point, speedy deletion is not decided on whether there's sourcing (no sources are needed at all to avoid speedy deletion) or just generally on "otherwise appropriate for Wikipedia". There is no mention of the actual speedy deletion criteria at all in the answer - which I tried to hint at in my Q10 in which I suggested reading actual policies (and which the speedy response suggested did not happen).

   7) There are a couple of reasonable examples given, but I think a proper understanding would have mentioned notability policy, WP:A7 policy and Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. I'd like to see an understanding that "a credible claim of significance" does not need to satisfy notability requirements, but I'd like to have seen thoughts along the lines that it needs to be something that, with further research, would could plausibly contribute to notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Had they gone to ORCP they would've got a 0/10 and with good reason - No experience at all with AFD which is crucial here - If you're going to delete articles etc then you're gonna need a damn good understanding of these policies first which you obviously haven't got as you've only made one edit to AFD in the 6-7 years of editing here, Although they've participated at AIV it's not been all that much tbh, in short they have no experience in the admin areas and have no experience with deletion policies either, IMHO I'm not seeing any need for the tools. –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

    Slight amendment - I stated above "they have no experience with deletion policies" - I assumed they'd know more about deletion policies etc through XfD however as they've done CSD work they may already have "good experience" with it so on that point I probably shouldn't of jumped the gun on that so my apologies. –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

11. Oppose - The candidate is a one trick pony, with a temper (though per Q4 they at least acknowledge this). An admin with a temper who wants primarily to use the block button is a disaster waiting to happen. The candidate has already admitted they've been harassed in Q3; with the tools they'll get harassed even more, burn out, and retire. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
12. Oppose - not ready yet, sorry. GiantSnowman 19:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Other editors have made good arguments above. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Per what I have read above. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 20:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
15. Sorry but you do lack the necessary breadth of experience to become an admin. I appreciate your long tenure and your efforts fighting vandalism. I hope you continue to do so no matter how this ends up. Like many other editors that have commented here I also have no problem with how you responded at Harvey Weinstein. I have seen much worse from generally respected admins. I think it is a bit unfair to draw the conclusion that you have a temper from those edits. AIRcorn (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
16. Oppose due to lack of AfD experience and content creation. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 21:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
17. Oppose with regret. This editor has done good work but they do not currently have the breadth and depth of experience necessary for this job. I would encourage them to read some of the other RfA's to get an idea what people are looking for in terms of standards and spend a year or so working on those areas before re-applying. They may also wish to peruse my criteria, which unfortunately they do not meet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
18. Oppose This editor still has a lot to learn and should come back when they gain more experience. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
19. Oppose I believe participation in AFD is essential for aspiring admins to build up policy knowledge and understand consensus. Just one AFD debate in 12 years is unbelievable. I've been here a similar amount of time, consider myself only an occasional AFD participant and even I have 80 odd. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
20. Oppose While I generally support nearly any candidate, administrators are required to explain their actions per WP:ADMINACCT. Candidate's answers to questions do not leave me with a great amount of confidence that their future answers for their actions will not also be lacking.--v/r - TP 23:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
21. Oppose Lack of necessary experience, knowledge (AFD, etc.).Equineducklings (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
22. Oppose per the points raised in the above opposes, with a particular emphasis on the lack of suitable temperament needed for the position. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
23. Oppose. The replies to the questions and the way the candidate presented himself haven't convinced me. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 00:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
24. Oppose Strongly agree with Ritchie333's bleak assessment. In addition does not appear to have read Kudpung's advice for candidates or indeed Chris troutman's, both of which I consider some of the best guides out there. No attempt to get pre RfA feedback in any forum as far as I can see. I would suggest to the candidate that they begin helping to build WP through content contributions, increase communication, just get more involved. Potential temperament issues, an apparent fixation on vandal fighting coupled with the block button is a recipe for disaster. 1 AfD discussion participation logged considering the candidates' length of tenure is completely unacceptable in a potential Admin. Reinvent your role on WP, return in a couple of years and you may have a chance. Sorry that this makes for rough reading, but I think it may be helpful in the long run. Irondome (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
25. Oppose Lack of both content creation and AfD work evidences a lack of participation to me. The fixation on fighting vandals as the only reason for adminship only further pushes me to oppose Pagliaccious (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
26. Oppose Lack of experience and sniping at vandals in edit summaries both worry me. I don't demand huge amounts of edits or experience to meet my criteria for adminship, but I am somewhat concerned when someone with very narrow experience wants to go right to blocking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
27. Oppose. I was first put off by the examples in Q4, so I went digging a little further. I found this, which while not as bad, gives the impression of a lacklustre attitude towards vandalism fighting. It'd have been a lot better if you had not left the sarcastic remark in the edit summary. Kudpung also gives very good points above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
28. Oppose: Sorry, but you'll need more experience in other areas but don't get discouraged. Fails my RFA criteria. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 02:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Being an administrator is much more than finding vandals and blocking them. Seems too focused on one specific area rather than the administrator responsibilities as a whole Brocicle (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
30. Oppose. If we had different flavors of admins, and this editor could be just a vandal-fighter...maybe. Unfortunately, though, being an admin brings with it the entire package, and I'm just not comfortable with giving this editor the tools, per the analyses offered above. I'm certain the editor presents himself in good faith, but that's just not enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I've looked at the past 1500 edits, and over half of it is reverting obvious IP vandalism on movie articles. I'm generally happy with a candidate that's primarily active in one area, and being able to appropriately issue short-term blocks to these IPs will clearly benefit the project. In this case, I agree with some of the concerns discussed in the Oppose section that this user is too focused on anti-vandalism, so I remain neutral. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• Re question 4: I think if someone pastes in an article the string FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE (repeated several dozen more times), then it's perfectly acceptable, for any kind of user, to revert it with an edit summary like grow up and find something else to do. – Uanfala 18:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oh come on guys, let the candidate answer the question :P ansh666 18:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• We're impatient! :D My name continues to not be dave (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. User:Ritchie333 you may want to refactor your question. The person writing nonstop pee poop and fart is not an “editor,” as you’ve posed in your question, but a vandal. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to hear the candidate's answer to the question. In the meantime, see WP:INSULT. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• grow up and find something else to do: Not a comment I would use on Wikipedia, (well probably not) but one which I have used 1,000s of times during a 30-year career as a teacher, lecturer, and grandparent of teenagers, and hardly an insult. Vandals like that are not editors and are most likely children who should be treated like children. Adults rarely make vandalism of this kind, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and if they do, they can expect to be treated like children. It seems to me that many people expect AGF to be applied in an almost robotic manner; unfortunately for them, most regular editors are humans. The essay was written in good faith by a user who left Wikipedia 7 years ago, who at the time had probably not experienced parenthood or a position in charge of children. Sorry, wrong essay to cite. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but I would not say that to my kids. I might say "do you think that was a good idea?" or "how do you think that made 'x' feel?" but if you tell off kids like that, they think it's okay to tell off their peers and insult them. Anyway, all I wanted to see if the candidate just needed to vent a bit, or whether he thought it was totally acceptable to be as incivil as you like to vandals. Fortunately, it wasn't the latter. If you want another essay, WP:DENY or WP:RBI might be suitable ie: don't give vandals any attention whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20::::26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Kudpung on this (and I'm pretty sure I have told petty vandals to grow up before now), and really not in the least bit bothered by that comment by the candidate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I've told them to piss off, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY is the process I've been using most these long 7 years when blocking most vandals. Vandalism is usually spontaneous and is a maturity related issue (or so I was taught for my Staatsexamen). As Wikipedia continues to grow organically, the day will come when IP editing will be subject to greater restrictions such as for example automatically under pending changes. That said, there are a lot of very young and very disruptive editors who are not vandals, but to whom I would dearly like like to suggest in strong terms that they find another hobby. You may wish to join the current discussion at the VP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• a key part of an admin is communication, and this candidate seems to have very little One might argue that a lot of users do too much communication rather than actually improving the encyclopedia. At the other extreme, there are some wikignomes who don't need to communicate much because their contributions consist of uncontroversially helpful edits. E.g., if someone makes a million edits correcting instances of "teh" to "the" or reverting unambiguous vandalism, he might not need to communicate much about that. I don't really see the need to have an admin be well-rounded if his aspirations are only to "Find vandals and block them." To me, what matters here is that his record suggests that he has prepared himself for the task he intends to use the tools for. Smooth alligator (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)