Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Connormah

Final (88/30/11); ended 10:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC) – I'm closing this as no consensus. A substantial proportion of the participants express fair concerns about Connormah's understanding of core policies – such as BLP and CSD – and the way his answers to the questions reflect on his suitability for adminship. It's my assessment that these issues and the prevalence of their mention among the opposition do not allow for a promotion. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Connormah (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honour to present to you Connormah's second request for adminship. Connormah registered his account way back in 2006 and has been mostly active since December 2008 and, in his time here thus far, he has clocked up over 16,000 edits in an impressive array of areas. He has uploaded over a thousand files under valid claims of fair use as well as many free images which he has uploaded to Commons. He is trusted with reviewer, autopatrolled and rollback rights, none of which have ever been removed from him. He has made his presence felt as a prolific vandal fighter, clocking up over 200 AIV reports, but he has proven himself to be so much more than just Cluebot, having also made well over 300 edits to WP:RPP, where he has also made comments on requests which I have found both clueful and helpful, saving time for the admin who has it review the request and his judgements on things protection expiry have rarely differed from my own. While his mainspace work is, admittedly, light, his work with images has been superb. His deleted contributions show many hundreds of spot on F5 (ununsed non-free file) taggings and he has nearly 400 edits to WP:GL/I as well as hundreds of other image-related posts scattered across the project. He has a desire to work in areas that are in constant need of willing admins so I hope the community agrees with me that he is a competent and capable editor who would make an excellent administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late Co-Nomination from Fridae'sDoom

Connormah (talk · contribs) - His dedication in his work is exemplary, he has made mistakes but judging by his willingness and eagerness it's fair to say he has learned from those mistakes, while BLPs are an issue in the matter, I don't think that is a cause for opposition, have your or I not once made a mistake like he? And if so, have we not learnt from them and fixed them? I ask you not to assert your opinion based on the trivialities of some of what he's done but by the merit of his work, his dedication to expanding Wikipedia's wealth of knowledge that we as a community have contributed to as well no doubt. It is here therefore that I would like you all to consider your votes, look at previous RfAs and think carefully as to whether or not some of his actions are a basis for opposition, because do well to consider he is not the first nor last to submit an RfA and to have made a mistake which may/may not have attracted scrutiny and criticism.

From what I've seen he will not abuse the mop and he'll make a fine admin as his predecesors. If you were in his shoes, ask yourself, "Could I do better?" Thank you. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 06:05, 15 July 2010 (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: I plan to continue what I do regularly, uploading vector versions of fairuse images if necessary, but as far as admin-related areas, I intend to block vandals if necessary on WP:AIV, maybe come by WP:RFPP once in a while, and possibly dip into WP:UAA. At the moment, I intend the delete function to perform non-controversial moves that require deleting a redirect, but that, I think is as far as I'll go with the delete function, I'm not really interested in CSD or AFD. Basically, I will try not to allow admin chores to take all of my time I would use editing, but will use them if necessary, or just to help out (eg. clearing a backlog like AIV).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am quite proud of some of the signature images I've uploaded to Wikipedia (totaling to 100+), and my particularly minor edits that include fixing/adding infoboxes, {{Death date and age}} templates. Lastly I feel that my occasional anti-vandalism work and mostly accurate AIV reports, vandal fighting can be very tedious, and can test your patience quite a lot, and I think I've been doing fine.
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 most memorable conflict I've encountered during my editing time was a heated dispute with User:David Fuchs, over inserting a vector version of a logo to replace a raster. David erroneously claimed that WP:NFCC did not allow vectors (which was apparently discussed with no consensus previously). I was faced with a touch of incivility, but I think I handled myself pretty well throughout, though my immaturity at that time was quite evident. In the future, I would have been less persistent about including the vector, and I would have discussed more, rather than edit war, as I did. An ANI thread regarding this incident can be seen here.
Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare
4. What is your opinion on the current 4 warnings then block system that we use for common vandals?
A: I, personally think 4 warnings is too much for common vandals. When warning, I usually evaluate which warning to give case by case. I think to myself "Was this a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia?" (eg - replacing a whole article with obscenities, introducing BLP violations, etc.). If the answer is yes, I usually start off with a level 2 or 3, depending on the severity. Some severe cases, I believe can warrant immediate blocks (eg, this). If the edit in question does appear to be made in good faith, I will start with a #1 warning, and maybe go to 2, but after that, I believe a more detailed explanation of why the edit is wrong is needed. Registered, new accounts that seem to deliberately vandalize should be treated more harshly - I just don't get why we should waste time with letting them vandalize 4 or more times (some AIV reports are not dealt with that swiftly), gradually rising warning levels, where, frankly the account is probably ignoring the warnings, vandalizing again after each revert. IPs, I feel should be treated in a similar manner, but blocks should vary in duration, depending on the type of IP (repeat offending school IPs should be dealt with more harshly, IMO, while non-static IPs should typically have shorter blocks).
5. Do you have any scripts that I don't have that you think would be useful for me? (Feel free to take any scripts I currently have in my monobook.js)
A: Nope, sorry :). I'm not really a script guy, I only Twinkle to help with my AIV/RFPP reports, which are somewhat time consuming to type out manually.

Additional optional questions from khfan93 (talk · contribs) (optional for a support vote, that is :) )

6. An IP is vandalising an article that is on your watchlist. You run the user with all four warning levels, and then they stop vandalizing. The following week, the user makes another malicious edit or two. Do you run them through the warning levels again, or block him/her immediatly? Justify your answer.
A: In that case, I'd issue a final warning (depending on the severity of the edit, maybe if not too severe, a level 3), and if they make another unwanted edit, it'd be a block, or warning, also depending on severity. I'd have to say that it depends though, the IP could be non-static, so it would not be an immediate block. I would, though, definitely not run through all the warning levels again, 4 warnings should be enough to get the message through, anymore violations, and a block should be put in place, duration depending on block history.
7. Do you view the glass of water that is Wikipedia as half-full or half-empty? What about the glass that is life?
A:
8. Let's say an established, friendly editor (numerous edits, many constructive, generally good rapport) suddenly begins tagging pages like United States of America, Wii, and March with {{db}} tags. How would you react in this situation?
A: Interesting one. My immediate thought (given that this is an established, friendly editor) would be to think the account could be possibly compromised. If so, I'd probably leave a kind note on on their talk page (or send an email) to ask what is going on. If the account continues, it may be appropriate to issue a warning, then, if it continues, a block to prevent any further disruption and get things sorted out, after some discussion on WP:ANI.
Additional optional question from Mono
9. Say someone asks an editor a question at their RfA about their perspective on life, and dishware. (see Q7) Do you think they are wasting the candidate's time, or do you believe that "candidate's view on life in relation to dish ware" is a viable reason to oppose a candidate?
A: Interesting question. I don't really see this as wasting time, though there could be strong arguments from both sides. I'd say that, in an administrative role, there may be some strange situations, and questions, and that you should be prepared for them. Rephrase: at an RfA, I would consider the question optional, and opt not to answer (it's up to the candidate), however, I'll maintain that I think that admins should always be willing to help and answer any questions they may get. However, I don't really see the situation you listed the best reason to oppose, but the user who opposes would be totally entitled to his or her opinion, which I would respect entirely, and not badger.
Additional optional questions from MC10
10. When, if ever, is it appropriate to indef-block a vandalizing IP editor?
A: It should be not normal to have to indef block an IP, as they are re-assigned, but if in some cases, such as a legal threat, or if the IP is a sock, an indef (or long term) may be warranted, keeping in mind that 'indefinite' does not always mean 'infinite', the block should be lifted whenever the IP is reassigned. (fixed, was typing too fast, thanks to MC10 for the note!)
I believe you mean that it should be normal to block an IP, not to indef-block an IP. IPs are almost never indefinitely blocked, because of the nature of the IPs, as IPs get rotated around, even if the IP is static, and even more so if IPs are dynamic. Range blocks can be made, but almost never should IPs be indef-blocked. Long-term blocks are recommended for long-term vandalizers. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: I feel that cool down blocks should never be used, as most likely it will anger the already angry user more, but if an angry user is being disruptive, It should be entirely appropriate to issue a block to prevent any more potential disruption.
Questions from —fetch·comms
12. What is your view on the current BLP policy? Do you think that it can be approved in any way? Why or why not
You mean "improved", not "approved", right? Nsk92 (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. —fetch·comms 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A:
13. Write a very convincing oppose against yourself for this RfA, and then write a response to it addressing the issues raised. (What reasons do you think one would oppose you for?) I'm hoping for a short paragraph of reasons one should oppose you, and a longer paragraph saying why you would be a good admin despite those things, or why they are no longer issues.
A:
Additional optional question from MuZemike
14. User:Charlie Horse has been indefinitely blocked for blatant disruption. About 1 week later, User:Hush Puppy appears and exhibits the very similar patterns of disruption as Charlie Horse. In a CheckUser request, the results come back  Possible between the two accounts. Would you still issue a block to Hush Puppy and for what reason? –MuZemike 02:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: First off, I'd like to start by saying that I don't intend to work in SPI. I think it would be appropriate to issue an indef block it as a WP:DUCK, given behavioral evidence and editing patterns are very similar to the original indef-blocked account, with the explanation noting the possible sock, however, I'm going to note again that I don't intend to work in SPI. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Groomtech
15. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A:
Additional optional two-in-one question from decltype
16. What are your selection criteria for the signatures you upload to commons? In which types of articles do you think signatures are appropriate (and why)? I'm thinking categories like politicians, writers, athletes, entertainers, scientists etc.
A: Most of the time, I'll do any signatures I can find for a specific group of politicians, or scientists, or authors for that matter (eg. Premiers of Alberta, Presidents of the United States, Presidents of Germany..etc.). Lately, I've been getting some requests, which I try and keep up with, but I sometimes get busy. I believe that the signatures add an interesting touch and connection to the articles that they are in.


General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

  • So it seems like a lot of people have an issue with my question seven. Although I understand differences of opinion, if you have them or believe I am being unreasonable, please take it to my talk page, instead of cluttering up his RfA with discussion of it. It is simply a question. --khfan93 01:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, upon reconsideration, I have revoked the second half of question seven. I apologize to Connormah for any time you may have spent determining your answer for this half. --khfan93 01:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So did I... —mono(how's my driving?) 02:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I think only Q7 is a bit ridiculous. -Tommy! [message] 10:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those opposing based on lack mainspace work do make a fair point, and I don't seek to invalidate it as an oppose rationale, but in this case, it's clear that Connormah's passion lies outside of article writing, but he has uploaded over an astonishing number of images, which can greatly improve the quality of an article, so it's not as though he has no respectable content work. I know it's not how RfA works, but it would be nice if we could evaluate him based on his strengths and not just his weaknesses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I, for one, have a problem with question # 13. It's one thing to ask candidates what their weaknesses might be. It's another to demand that they "Write a very convincing oppose against yourself for this RfA." The questioner didn't have to do this when he passed his RfA recently, and I've not seen anyone ever have to do this. I just don't feel as if this is a fair or reasonable request. Anyone else agree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stupid question that the candidate should simply choose not to answer and it's a symptom of how sick RfA is. If you want to know what a candidate's weaknesses are, just roll of your sleeves and spend an hour sifting through his contribs. But of course, that would be time consuming and complicated... No good can come out of asking classical job-interview-like questions like this, especially on a project that relies on volunteers. Pichpich (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The candidate rightly ignored this absurd question. This type of thing gives the Rfa process a bad name, in my opinion. Jusdafax 09:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little background on question 13 here: fetchcomms posted their questions (including #13) at 00:46 on the 11th, then posted an oppose vote 12 minutes later. Townlake (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've treated the 'optional' questions as optional this time around. I don't feel that a candidate should have to answer more than 15 questions in an RfA, sorry. I'm disappointed in those who chose to oppose based on this, and of course, I respect their opinions, but I don't feel it a necessity to answer all questions I get. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support Contributions come up to my standards. HJM has summarised the nom pretty concisely. Use the tools well Connormah. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maybe I'm a bit quick to jump here, but I think you've improved enough from the last one. ceranthor 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support – I trust Connormah with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I supported last time, and I will support again. Reason here. Minimac (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support About time he ran again. He does a great deal of work around here and would make a very useful admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Looks trustworthy enough to handle the mop. Jarkeld (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As nom. Best of luck to you my friend. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Well rounded and experienced. Also, the answer to question 4 is fantastic. Spot on. Wisdom89 (T / C) 09:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Seems fine for the mop. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Should be just fine. But q4 shows a little trigger-happiness. Unless the vandalism is really malicious, there's no need to block immediately. But one warning may be enough for the example you provide. Pichpich (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I'm sure they've helped me with at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop before now, and every time I look hard at image stuff they're there working hard behind the scenes. q4 is a little rouge, but not overly so. TFOWR 13:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Plenty more relevant experience since last RfA, and issues from then (which I suspect were at least partly due to rushing the Q answers a bit) look to be well in the past. Looks like another good one to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Mature and respected editor, has my support. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per Wisdom89. Also, the nomination statement is just as tacky as mine usually are. ;) Juliancolton (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good answers to questions, no reason to think user couldn't be trusted with the mop. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. T. Canens (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Good experience and answers to questions - especially Q4. There is nothing rogue about applying the "4 warnings" principle with appropriate flexibility. The answer to Q9 of course is piss-weak but since when is going a bit overboard on answering an RFA question diplomatically a sign that the candidate will not be a good admin? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A note to re-affirm my support in the dying hours of this line-ball RFA notwithstanding the many well-reasoned opposes that have come since the time of my support. Creating unsourced BLPs is a problem and it is not just an issue of "libel" (even so, innocent-looking unsourced "facts" can, in particular circumstances, be libellous). But I'm not satisfied that this problem, when all other considerations in this RFA are taken into account, is enough for me to oppose. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support —Soap— 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I originally was going to oppose because he's Canadian (Just kidding, don't hurt me). I completely agree with his statements on the 4-warning progression, and I believe he's going to do an amazing job --Fbifriday (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I thought he was already one. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 21:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I did too, NSD. Looks good to me, seems to have a clue. About Q9 (which I wrote), I was being rather sarcastic about Q7, as I was alarmed to see a question about "how candidate views life, mentioning glasses of water". —mono(how's my driving?) 21:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - I honor all who are working in fairuse images and WP:RPP. Answer to Q4 made this ol' vandal fighter grin. I welcome further discussion on this, as it may be a bit of a grey area to some of us. Best wishes, Jusdafax 21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support With a strong disagreement to Fetchcomms' oppose. No need is not a valid argument, and bandying about with talk page warnings and all that is just words. I've been an admin here for four years, the levels of warnings/immediacy of blocking is never an issue. The issues always arrive over "vested contributors". The rest is the hum of the radiator. Not a big deal with the questions, in my opinion. Keegan (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I thought you were one already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 03:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I'm satisfied with his answers and his preparation. Richwales (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I trust he won't abuse the mop, and liked the answer to Q4 in particular. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Additional issues have been raised in opposition, in view of and with respect to those issues (particularly concerns regarding BLPs) I still find that I support the RfA, on the whole, I think the nominee having mop access would be a net positive for WP. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - I do not see anything in his answers or latest contributions that put a doubt into my mind that he will abuse the tools. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 07:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I think he would make a good admin and A good Holder of the Mop. Floul1Talk To me 13:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Good involvement in WP:GL/I, WP:RPP, WP:AIV, WP:AN/I etc. Vipinhari || talk 15:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I would normally have reservations about a candidate with little obvious article creation/expansion experience. But that is more than outweighed by their excellent experience in admin areas, responses to the questions, and the literally thousands of valid files/images uploaded. WFC (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear that this candidate has demonstrated less knowledge of WP:V and WP:N than most admins. But I challenge any opposer to explain what that has to do with WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA or image related administrative areas, most or all of which would be very grateful to have this candidate's help from time to time. WFC (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've read the opposes, and find them utterly unconvincing. Candidate has experience and no serious issues with their actual actions on Wikipedia have been brought up, just vague fears based on their honest responses to vaguely worded questions. Some of the opposers really seem to be grasping at straws for reasons to oppose. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing for Q9 seems particularly absurd. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. Am tempted to use even stronger terms (laughs) but the point is made. Jusdafax 20:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I particularly like the answer to Q4. The image work is also a big plus for me, and I see nothing in the Oppose reasons that worries me unduly. From what I can see, would be a net positive as an admin, so I support. - Begoon (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support No reason to oppose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Editor seems to be a fine candidate for the adminship tools. Although I would still like to see an answer to question seven, I doubt it would change my opinion at this point. Sorry once again for any issues I may have caused with my questions. --khfan93 21:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. WeakISH Support - you're a good, dedicated editor, but be careful with that barrage of questions, they can catch even the most confident Wikipedian out, if not thought through... Orphan Wiki 22:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak Support- mostly per Beeblebrox. Reyk YO! 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Your answers make me think that you will be an excellent administrator. Coasterlover1994 00:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support for demonstrating good judgment by not answering some truly ridiculous quiz-section questions above. Townlake (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support editor seems to be very experienced and trustworthy RahulChoudhary 09:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Need new admins. User interactions seem OK. Answers to questions are fine. Fights vandals properly. Not overly concerned by content creation issues. Herostratus (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. I think that many of the concerns expressed by those who oppose or are neutral are valid issues to raise, and I take them seriously. However, I am coming down on the side of supporting, primarily because I think that it is actually a good thing to encourage administrators to specialize in a few areas of administrative work, rather than to work across the board, and also for administrators to limit the amount of time they will put into administration, in favor of continuing their regular work as editors. In the long run, that's good for the project, and I want to make the point that we often do not give that sufficient credit. In addition, I have a warm spot for the answer to Q4. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Contributions look good. Immunize Contact me Contributions 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Don't see any red flags. Access Denied(t|c|g|d|s) 17:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I find the level of restraint and judgement to be inline with what i would expect an admin to use. At this moment i can fully support. My support is also heavily based on HJ Mitchells nomination statement and observations since the last RFA. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Aiken ♫ 21:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I note the opposers valid concerns, but believe you'd be more help with the extra buttons. Pedro :  Chat  22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Noted the concerns below, but they seem rather weak to me. AniMate 03:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Tiderolls 05:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support For sure. GB86 06:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Connormah. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Experienced. If the best oppose rationale is 'Occasionally creates a few weak stubs' then I don't have a problem  Francium12  18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, that is not the best oppose rationale. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 23:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I think you can certainly help clean up wikipedia Old Al (Talk) 19:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support solid editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Kansan (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Read opposes, see little that bothers, so why not? Hobit (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I think the opposes raise some good points, but nothing that would preclude adminship. Maybe some areas to improve on after the RfA goes through? I greatly appreciate your contribution of signatures, and agree that they add a personal touch to the relevant pages. Also, in my dealings with you, I've never seen anything that would make me want to oppose. More admins at AIV would be particularly welcome. Here's hoping you pass! Throwaway85 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - can we trust him? Yes. Do I care if he won't use the tools a lot? No, because I trust him. 'Nuff said. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good god, we've gone BLP-crazy. It was five months ago, people, and he's changed his article-writing in reflection of these concerns. Not every RfA candidate is picture-perfect. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Seems fine, don't agree with opposes. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I trust this guy, he seems to have good restraint neo12345292 —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  62. Support. Definitely seems trustworthy. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Jonathunder (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I've seen the candidate around at RFPP, and they seem to know what they are doing. I'm all for good sourcing on BLPs, but I don't think that the creation of unsourced BLPs at some point in an editor's past should be seen as some sort of mortal sin. AlexiusHoratius 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And if it's worth noting (as noted below a couple times), I will, and have been sourcing all new info I've been adding in the recent past, see ([1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), and will continue to do in the future, realizing how essential it is to do so. Connormah (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Don't see why the ability to create articles has anything to do with misuse of the tools. Mlpearc Public (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support longterm user, clean block log and this RFA shows an ability to handle flak. Things change here from time to time, but an admin who responds to someone pointing out a change such as new BLPs needing a source, by changing their behaviour accordingly is OK by me. ϢereSpielChequers 19:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support ---NotedGrant Talk 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Looks good to me. Pilif12p :  Yo  23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. support- After some thought, I found I had to be in this column. Has he screwed up in the past? Yes, but who hasn't? The openness to advice and changing behaviour is good because it is done in moderation- there's no wholesale catering to what people want here, and behaviour during this RfA has been exemplary. I'm sure he'll tread carefully as an admin. sonia♫♪ 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Has necessary experience, looks good to me. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support wiooiw (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong support, and a note to the opposers that admitting you're wrong is always preferable to playing the highly frustrating "OMG BADGERING!" card. Ironholds (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - I have reviewed this candidate and the concerns of the opposition, but haven't seen anything that stops me wanting to support. Firstly, I would be interested in hearing on how the candidate's responses to the opposition, which are mostly reasonable clarifications, apologies, and requests for elaboration, can be considered "badgering". Next, while I see why users are concerned about the creation of unreferenced articles, Connormah has demonstrated more recently that he has understood the importance of referencing, and that this will not happen in the future. The ability to learn from mistakes is something which should be valued in admins. Given that Connormah has performed well in other areas where he intends to use the tools, I don't think this is a strong enough reason to deny adminship. As a whole, the candidate passes my RfA criteria fine. CT Cooper · talk 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    May I say that this comment was very well stated, and that I agree with every word. Jusdafax 17:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per my take on WP:NOBIGDEAL. I haven't seen a convincing argument that he would misuse his admin status if given to him, so support. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Seems a strong sapable editor, just the type of admin we need --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support While I respect those offering differing takes on this candidate, I have found him helpful and constructive. We all bring different skills here. I think he has shown a few of his own. I am also impressed by his resilience in fielding questions, and his general attitude. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support BejinhanTalk 03:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. All seems well. --candle•wicke 04:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support from neutral. Having re-read my own rational for !voting neutral, I find my reasons against supporting completely unconvincing.  -- Lear's Fool 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, looks fine to me. Clearly the unsourced articles are a concern, but Connormah evidently understands the concern and it's been a good few months since he last created one. All we can ask is that our editors improve on their weak points, and he's clearly already done so and is continuing to. In all other respects he seems to be a good admin candidate, and I wish him luck. ~ mazca talk 17:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. I tend to agree that the opposes are weak. Nominee is highly capable. Şłџğģő 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. After giving the opposition some very serious consideration, I'm just not convinced that Connormah does not understand BLP sufficiently enough to adequately enforce the inclusion/deletion policies. I also see no reason to believe that Connormah would not be a particularly active administrator, which in itself would not be substantial grounds for opposition on my part. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Adminship is no big deal and you clearly would not make a big mess. Basket of Puppies 23:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Meets my admin criteria. —I-20the highway 01:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support because he seems to be a good contributor and because far too many of the opposes seem to be users desperately searching for a reason to oppose. Bart133 t c @ 05:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose. I'm sorry, because you look a very good contributor, but in my opinion you might be a little block-happy if you were sysopped; I really wouldn't have opposed, if you hadn't stated your intention to work in that general area. And, furthermore, I'm a little puzzled by answer 10, when you hold that, although IPs shouldn't usually be indeffed, under certain circumstances you think that would be warranted. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) I'm changing my !vote to oppose because of the incessant badgering of anyone who opposes. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's at least one technical exception: IPs used as open proxies are usually indeffed. Pichpich (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's true; however, he specifically refers to legal threats and sockpuppetry; in those cases, if I'm not mistaken IPs are not indeffed (even if they can be blocked for long lapses of time). Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) They can be, yes, though that's fairly rare- the most problematic ones are blocked for a few years, rather like shared IPs which are {{anonblock}}ed or {{schoolblock}}ed long term. I think what Connormah is getting at is that there's a distinction between "infinte" (never, never being unblocked ever) and "indefinite", which is just indeterminate and can be useful for persistent vandals who would just wait out a short block but might get bored if there's no fixed expiry time. Also, much to my surprise when I just checked, we currently have over 20,000 indef'd IPs, though the vast majority are open proxies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring partly to WP:IPBLENGTH while answering the question, if I'm not mistaken, it says that indef blocks are sometimes mandated for certain policies, such as Sockpuppetry. (looking through the category of indef blocked IPs, I can already see a few indeffed for sock puppetry, but, as I said above, it should not be a regular thing to be indef-blocking IPs. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if you feel that way, I am just addressing comments, I wouldn't consider it 'badgering'. I respect everyone's opinion, but I feel there may have been some misunderstandings down below. Connormah (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per answer to Q9. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we reading the same question 9? Did you want to put forward your feelings about dishware? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Me, I like chert mugs and 1920's Crown Derby with chips in it. But what would that have to do with my worries about someone who does the Pavlovian through the hoop of someone's pathetically irrelevant analogy? Plutonium27 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose - I was really impressed with all the answers. Then I started checking the candidate's editing history. If those 15 easy, short, creations had been immaculate, and demonstrated a clear understanding of MOS, sourcing, and references, and didn't have any ugly tags on them , or if they had at least been been cleaned up before accepting the nom, I would have been going for a strong support. Sorry, but admins have to know how to create articles if they are going to police others.--Kudpung (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Kudpung. Vodello (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Kudpung, and per the answers to Q1, Q8, and Q10. For Q1, you don't seem to actually have a real need for the tools. You say that you do occasional vandalism/AIV work, that you don't have much interest in CSD/AfD, and I get the feeling that you don't really need the tools if you aren't going to get involved all that much. For Q8, If I were to suddenly run around CSDing major pages, you should block me right away, especially as I an an admin and any compromised admin account is major trouble. You cannot afford to leave a nice message on my talk page, email me, then warn me (unless my account is not compromised, and I have no clue what is going on other than it's seriously messed up, I doubt a warning would do much), and then wait for an ANI discussion. I would be blocking that user right away if they appeared to be compromised, and (if a sysop, crat, etc.) ask for an emergency desysop, etc. so they would not unblock themself. For Q10, I'm not sure what you mean by your answer to Q10, even after fixing it. I've personally never seen an indef on an IP, just long-term blocks (the longest being for open proxies, usually), and your comment that "'indefinite' does not always mean 'infinite', the block should be lifted whenever the IP is reassigned" makes me feel like you would indef them, and then suddenly figure out when the IP got reassigned (how would you know when that happens?) and unblock then. —fetch·comms 00:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re:Question 8 - the question was a bit vague (in what type of account was being referred to), but, yes, I would immediately block an admin/'crat that starts to CSD those types of pages. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have said as much in the answer. It's best to cover all your bases in such a vague question. Such is RfA, I suppose. —fetch·comms 01:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "He doesn't need the tools" is one of those reasons for opposing which is deprecated. We are not running out of mops. The question is, can we trust him to use it properly, or not?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to disagree. Having no particular need for the tools is a very good reason to oppose. No one has framed it as a "too many admins" situation and simple trust isn't enough. There should be positive reasons to believe that a candidate has specific work in mind and a reasonable expectation that they'll do that work and that the mop wont just be another trophy on the shelf (not to say that's what this candidate is saying). You don't get to depreciate RfA rationales just because you don't like them. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted under White Shadows' neutral !vote, I don't oppose people simply for "not needing the tools", but I don't feel comfortable supporting them generally. However, I just noted several other things I felt were issues, and that was the bulk of my oppose. —fetch·comms 17:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per fetchcomms. I think you could do it right as sysop though, but the responses to the questions changed my mind. Diego Grez ¡aprende a llorar! 01:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - per concerns raised by Salvio giuliano. -Regancy42 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (edit conflict)Weak oppose—Although I do like your answer to Q4 and your response to Q1 can be interpreted in many different ways, I am compelled to oppose citing your answers to Q8, and Q10, in which I agree entirely with fetchcomms, who said pretty much what I would've said. Kudpung also brings up a good point about articles. So how can one look at the first question's response? One way to look at it is that you do not want to use the tools. Another way to read it is that you will go on editing like you always do, but instead of bugging an admin for help like you used to, you can wield your mop. I assume you mean the latter, hence my weak and not full oppose. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 03:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Note: came back and fixed some wording that may have been confusing.[reply]
  9. Can't bring myself to support a user with such poor content creation. BigDom 08:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I think you need more work, although I've seen you do good stuff, but I really do not think you are ready for this...Modernist (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment, but would you be willing to elaborate on what you mean by 'more work'? Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been effective fighting vandalism and adding those Death date and age templates that are helpful in articles, we disagree about autographs - but I do respect the work that you have done, however I'd like to see some more copy-editing and content in articles...Modernist (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Concerned about creation of unsourced / poorly sourced biographies, including unsourced BLPs, most of them remaining decorated by maintenance templates until fairly recently (e.g this). The answer to my question wasn't quite what I was looking for, but that may be because I wasn't specific enough. decltype (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Doesn't seem too good with the artikels. Melanesian obsession (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    !vote of blocked sock puppet stricken. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, per Decltype and Kudpung. Creation of unsourced BLPs in March 2010, after the big BLP RFCs of the spring, indicates either that the user is unwilling to keep up with community norms, or has learned from his mistakes but still needs further seasoning before he would be an effective administrator. NW (Talk) 22:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've mentioned above, content building is just not a strong point for me, but I will admit that I should have worked on those articles more, and that I will work to source any new articles I make in the future, if any. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The concern raised is not a matter of content building. As an admin candidate (not a newbie) you should know that all articles should be properly referenced. See WP:REFSTART. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 00:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have though, recently been referencing all material that I've been adding, and realize that it is essential to reference all material. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. However, I would still like to see some more experience first. NW (Talk) 00:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose (mv from Neutral) On closer inspection, I am unimpressed with the answers. Answers to Q9 (see my older cmnts in Neutral) and Q8 in particular show wobbliness. The answer to Q8 is really unsatisfactory. As an admin, you have a responsibility to act, and to act quickly, if you see obvious and continuous disruption, such as somebody CSD tagging United States of America, Wii and March. You issue a quick warning and if that does not help, you block the user. As an admin, your first priority should be to stop ongoing disruption rather than worry that you might be insufficiently nice to an established user. Do that, and then post to AN/I and wherever to check if the account has been compromised or what. NuclearWarfare and Decltype also raise important point. I don't expect every RfA candidate to have a bunch of FAs/GAs, but the content that you do create needs to be brought up to par, especially in BLP cases. I have looked up, at random, at one of the articles you created, Dan Tencer. The first ref in this article is currently a deadlink to a Facebook(!) page. Also, for this BLP article more than a year ago you uploaded an image File:Dan Tencer.jpg, downloaded from a Twitter page and missing copyright permissions. When somebody finally tagged the image as CSD F9 in March 2010, you woke up and filed an OTRS ticket request. I am not sure what exactly is going on there, but you did not follow up: the ticket, apparently, could not be resolved, went stale, and the file is still missing a copyright permission several months later (and has been tagged for deletion again). You need to be more pro-active in mopping up these kinds of problems and not let them drag on for ages. Nsk92 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will address your comments Re:Tencer in the morning. The OTRS thing, was, partly a misuderstanding and mistake, I'll explain myself fully after some rest. Connormah (talk | contribs) 06:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Here is another (non-BLP) example of problematic mainspace work. You created Nelly Conway Madison on April 24, 2010. Since then and to this moment, the article remains totally unreferenced, not even a single external link. Nsk92 (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, explanation time. The image was sort of a weird case. I had received permission from Tencer himself to use the image, in an online live blog for his radio show. Now, at that time, I thought just a verbal agreement was sufficient - I was clearly wrong there. When it was tagged for deletion, yes, I realized then that an OTRS request had to be filed. I had sent an email to Tencer requesting he send an email to OTRS, but I received no reply. By that time (after a couple days with no reply), I relaize I should have tagged the image for deletion, but, yes, I made the mistake of letting it stay. As for the article, I realize my mistakes (those were created a couple months ago), and am more than willing to fix them up to meet standards. I have learned from the OTRS incident, I have successfully convinced Flickr users with images marked 'All Rights Reserved' (such as File:Neil Young - Per Ole Hagen.jpg, File:Gary Bettman.jpg, File:Ian Hislop - 2009.jpg, etc.) to release them under free licenses and email to OTRS. Those mistakes I've made in the past will not happen again. Connormah (talk | contribs) 15:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thank you for the explanation. However, I'll have to stay here, in the oppose column. All these content related issues (as well as those for your other articles, which, as Kudpung correctly observed, are often in less than satisfactory shape) should have been fixed well before this RfA, not during or after. The fact that they were not, tells me something about your sense of priorities, at least up to now, that I find troubling. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - I'm sorry, because I don't think this is a bad faith issue, but the example decltype uses above is apparently not the only one, and worrisome. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Per fetch-comms and dectype. Too worrisome, sorry. -Tommy! [message] 08:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. The low quality of the recent content contributions gives me little sense of this editor's understanding of our key policies of notability & verifiability, which makes me uncomfortable with assigning the delete function. Additionally, I am concerned by the answers to some questions, especially 8 and those relating to blocking IPs. I do not feel this editor is currently ready for adminship. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I've only just noticed but on 8 June 2010, Connormah changed the icon on Ireland-politician-stub from a shamrock to a figure draped in the Irish tricolour. Anyone editing on Ireland and Northern Ireland issues knows that flags and symbols are extremely contentious, and no changes should be made without discussion. The reason the shamrock was chosen as a compromise, was to represent those politicians from the Island of Ireland who political careers were in the 19th, 18th or 17th centuries, before the modern Irish state existed. A bit of fact checking, a post on a talk page or notice board wouldn't have gone astray. Snappy (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC) moved to neutral, done by hobit, per [11].[reply]
    I apologize, I never knew (yes, I should have checked for discussion), but I was trying to be WP:BOLD, but now I see that it's backfired, and I'm completely sorry. Now, you are entitled to your opinion, but is this just based solely on this incident? Please let me respectfully suggest that you would be being a bit unfair if it is, we all make mistakes, and this is a RfA, not an editor review. Connormah (talk | contribs) 15:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept your explanation, and at least now you are aware of this issue. As this is an RfA, I'll change my vote to Neutral. Snappy (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if that was a bit harsh. Connormah (talk | contribs) 15:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Oppose per answer to Q1. -- Jack?! 16:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak oppose per non-answer to Q.15. I would like to see candidates who have thought through the issues of admin "authority" and have a reasoned stance on the subject. Groomtech (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To also be completely fair, the question was optional, and I chose not to answer it (I feel I've answered enough questions). As stated in Q1, I do not want admin work to bog down my usual routines, I will mostly be taking part in minor admin work (clearing backlogs, helping where I can int he areas listed in Q1) at the moment. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was optional, you chose not to answer it and in turn I formed an opinion based on that choice. Groomtech (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this based solely on my option to not answer the question? Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Groomtech (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per NW: Connormah has created unsourced BLPs, e.g. Wayne Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as recently as March 2010.  Sandstein  16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, this is a bit frustrating. I have recognized my mistake, and I have been taking appropriate measures to source all content I add recently, and in the future, as I realize that it is essential to reference all material. (see above for some recent examples) Connormah (talk | contribs) 17:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but you are asking for adminship now, not "in the future". I am sure everyone who chooses to cast an oppose !vote now is fully aware of the explanation you offer above. You need not repeat it below every such !vote. It only turns people off even more. Nsk92 (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'll leave this alone for the rest of the day, perhaps I need a break. Connormah (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I fail to see how an article he created nearly 5 months ago makes him unsuitable to be an administrator. How would he be more suitable if he'd provided a source? Forgive my frustration, but this is utter nonsense. I strongly believe Connormah would make an excellent admin, but it seems people are desperately searching for reasons to prevent him maintaining the project! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    About the last line of your response, HJ… when did not being an admin prevent anyone from maintaing the project? People are opposing because they are uncomfortable with Connormah having some extra buttons right now. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 22:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Sorry Connormah, but I oppose as well, chiming in with arguments put forward by Nuke, NSK, and decltype. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. BLPs are a major deal breaker here. Weak article contributions don't help, nor do many of the arguments found in this section. AniMate 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything defamatory in those BLPs? Does writing a poorly sourced article mean he would be a bad admin? If I were to write an unsourced BLP, should I resign my admin bit or dragged to ArbCom and desysopped? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In this hypothetical situation you should resign your admin bit, because it would clearly show you have no idea how to enforce BLP which is one of our most, if not the most, important policies. AniMate 19:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absurd. BLP is there to prevent libel directed at the LP, not as something to hold over the heads of good editors and treat them like vandals. Have a look at those BLPs and tell me how much libel there is in them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly he doesn't understand our BLP, and I wonder if you do. Yes, it is there to prevent libel, and we do that by writing well sourced biographies. I can't in good conscience agree that an editor recieve extra tools when that is there idea of an acceptable biography. If you think it is okay to write unsoruced or poorly sourced bios as long as they are true, then, frankly, your promotion was done a little too hastily. AniMate 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I made an early oppose, and I don't usually come back and elaborate. However, I do seem to feel that there is a possible: ' I promise to do everything right if I am a sysop, ' crystalising here. I'm almost sure that RfA candidates should show us that they already have been doing things fairly right already, and consistently, and for a reasonable time.--Kudpung (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While everyone is entitled to their opinions, I think there should be a general rule as to voting in RfAs, it's all well and good to point out problems, but when it comes down to it ask yourself if you could do better. I mean this in all respect but quite frankly I just don't like the negativity exhibited toward Connormah, his track record is clean and he's made a few mistakes, but then hasn't every crat or sysop had the same happen to them? Comparatively every sysop at the time of their application have had some minor problems, though aren't problematic enough for cause to oppose. Now I want everyone who is judging based on what X or Y are saying but think for yourself and give a reason that is fair to Connormah and that isn't hypocritical. I will not make any further comment on the matter. And as I said I mean this in respect AniMate but I just don't like the negativity in Connormah's second RfA. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But he is doing everything right in the areas he wants to work in. Adminship isn't a reward for content writing and the bit is of no use for article writing. His AIV reports have been spot on, his RfPP requests and non-admin comments have been excellent and I think he knows the workings of RfPP better than many admins. I honestly think that some people are actively looking for reasons to oppose him and, ultimately, I think it will only be a detriment to the project not allow Connormah to further assist in its maintenance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, this RfA seems to have lots of biased votes, I was going to nominate TonyTheTiger you can see the arguments that ensued on his and my talk pages, had I nominated him people would have gone out of their way to vote against him. The exact same is happening here. At least I know Connor will pass. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to assume good faith. The opposes here are all very valid. One of the limitations of adminship is that there aren't any limitations. If you get access to the tools in one area, you have them for all areas. Looking over his work with BLPs, I do not trust his judgment and I do not think he has a very firm understanding of policy. I understand he's your friend and it is hard to see our friend's weaknesses, but I do not see any unreasonable opposes. Perhaps with some more maturity and with attempts to bulk up in the areas that he's been criticized in, Connor will indeed become an admin, next time. As it is, this isn't nearly as certain as you think. AniMate 23:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am assuming good faith, however, you're biased opposes based on a few BLP mistakes does not merit opposition. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was uncalled for. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 06:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I can't support someone who has such minimal content work, and the unsourced articles push it over the edge. It's not the specific examples, exactly, since it's not like there's any huge BLP violation, but it's the creation of such articles in general. As far as I can tell, it shows one of two things: One, candidate doesn't fully understand BLP, or two, doesn't think it is important. Neither is reassuring. C628 (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. William McKinley, Sr. has no footnotes at all; all there is is a few external links which were not formatted with Template:Cite web. Nathaniel Fillmore was even worse - only one external link. A good admin would develop these articles within his/her userspace before moving them into the mainspace. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated Nathaniel Fillmore for deletion for apparent lack of notability (the only thing of note about this man is that he's the father of a 19th century US president, and the article does not even tell us that). This apparent lack of content writing skills and familiarity with our content requirements are a real concern to me.  Sandstein  09:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As admins have the deletion button they need good judgement as to whether under current policy a subject merits an article, recent creation of articles that the community deemed unnotable would be troubling, creation of articles that merited speedy deletion would IMHO be grounds to oppose at RFA. But parents of US Presidents are currently considered worthy of articles, and I'm confident that if that we were to change that policy the candidate would respect that. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Fillmore was closed as a speedy keep in under 10 hours. ϢereSpielChequers 08:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Salvio, Q11 and some other lingering impressions from here. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, could you elaborate as to why you don't like my answer to Q11? Connormah • talk 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not confident in what you might think is "disruptive" given what else i'm seeing here at this RFA. Sometimes users can get passionate but seem like they're something far worse and an admin should have a cool hand in those situations. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And another thing, I don't mind the comments to opposers and I think dialogue is always a good idea, but adminship is an inherently "patriotic" thing in terms of the culture of Wikipedia, and patriotism requires understanding of common customs, and in this case, not commenting on RFAs is a custom. Kudos if you want to try and change it, but trailblazers always bear the wrath of traditionalists for better or for worse. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case in particular I think the question was really good. I had no idea what issue was being raised either. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely agree. I should have noticed that in my third part. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per the BLP concerns raised above; also the fact that they simply said "I should have worked on those articles more". Wikipedia is a work in progress, and they could have gone back at any time to work on an article. When asked about it, their answer was simply "I should have". Not, "I'm trying", not "I plan on fixing it". That's unsatisfactory. SwarmTalk 06:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do plan on fixing my articles - I'm searching for sources at the moment. Connormah • talk 16:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know, but I would personally prefer to see problems fixed before supporting adminship. SwarmTalk 00:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Connormah has clearly indicated his intention to clean up these articles. IMHO it'd be in everyones best interest if he were allowed to complete this work prior to being burdened with admin jobs.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. As per Kudpung. "I promise to do everything right if I am a sysop" just isn't good enough. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Oppose - I recognize the usefulness of your work in vandal-fighting and signatures etc., but I think you need a much, much better understanding of core Wikipedia policies before you can become a sysop. As per your answers above, you do not seem to fully understand WP:BLOCK, and furthermore, I have concerns about an editor with such few and mediocre content contributions working in page protection. Claritas § 00:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate as to why you assert that I don't understand the blocking policy? Thanks, Connormahtalk 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Claritas, if you were referring to the answer about indeff'ing IP's, it was just a typo, which has been fixed. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 04:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, understood. I still don't really have the confidence in you to support giving you tools, mainly due to the lack of content contributions. Sorry. Claritas § 10:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose – I would like to see just a little more experience in content-building before I am comfortable enough to support. –MuZemike 02:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Without wishing to badger, may I ask why, when Connormah'd interests and talents obviously lie elsewhere than the mainspace? This is, after all, a volunteer project, so it seems odd to require an editor to work in one area when they obviously prefer to work in another. For example, if you ever (hypothetically) submitted an RfB or stood in a checkuser/oversighter or ArbCom election, would you feel it was fair if yo were opposed because you'd spent little time around the Main Page, but obviously had done good work elsewhere- for example, your SPI work? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I would have to agree with AniMate here. BLP concerns and generally weak on content contributions. I would also like to ask where the sources are for the non-free images uploaded? (for example: [12] [13] [14] [15]). You left the field blank. If it is intentionally done so, stating that "The logo may be obtained from Super Bowl XXXII" is just lazy. —Dark 09:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I don't have a vote for you because my own position is that I'm not looking for a way to slap someone down; if you've got a sense of how you want to contribute, and you make it work, fine. But I've got an opinion: I think you should be up front about your reaction to your last RFA; it looks like you didn't like the advice you got. Looking quickly through your deleted contribs since your first RFA, I don't see a single non-image CSD tagging. The community seemed to be asking for a little broader knowledge; it looks like you've gotten more focused. Some asked for "content"; have you had any DYKs or GAs since the first RFA? - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've become disinterested with CSD, honestly, since my last RfA. I have gained a better knowledge on the CSD policy, but I am not interested in CSD tagging. Like I stated above, I'd like to limit my admin activity, if this succeeds, to AIV and RFPP, without it interfering with my regular editing. The same goes for content writing - I did do a slight expansion on George H. V. Bulyea, but after that, I feel that I'm more comfortable with performing minor edits, as I just feel content is not my forte. Not to say I won't ever attempt writing content, I'd love to do a bit of more content work in the future. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your straightforward answers. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do a full review soon. —mono(how's my driving?) 03:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (move to Oppose) I was going to support, but the answer to Q9 sort of killed it for me. I generally greatly dislike seeing the oppose !voters in RfAs being badgered. However, there is a limit to everything. If I see an RfA oppose !vote based on the fact that someone dislikes the candidate's views on dish-ware, that would certainly call for "badgering" the opposer and checking if some trolling is going on. Nsk92 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that really reason enough to stop the project from getting another admin to replace the ones who are leaving at a fast pace? Do you really feel that the project is better off without Connormah as an admin, even if you really hate the answer to Q9? Pichpich (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, in case you did not notice, this is the Neutral section, not the Oppose section. So I am not stopping the project from getting another admin any more than I would have if I never visited this RfA page at all. However, I really do dislike the answer to Q9 enough to prevent me from supporting. Admins are required to intervene when they see obvious disruption and admin candidates need to demonstrate willingness and readiness to do this. In such a case it is not good enough to say that the disrupting user is "totally entitled to his or her opinion, which I would respect entirely". Nsk92 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But here's the thing. You say you were about to support. So I that presumably means you spent some time to check the candidate's contribs and to do a little research. All looks good except a silly answer to a silly question. Changing your mind on this seems pretty shallow, no? Pichpich (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained to you my reasons rather patiently. If that is not enough for you, that is your problem. Now please re-read WP:NPA and stop badgering me. Nsk92 (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral (leaning to support) Fetchcomms makes a point in his oppose. However technically speaking, (though this is not always applied in reality) RFA's should be about whether or not you trust the person, not "This guy has W amount of edits, in X amount of time and it's been Y amount of months and Z amount of edits since his last RFA so I...." I know that if this RFA were to pass you'd likely take Fetchcomms' comments as advice so there is no real reason to oppose as long as you're willing to learn from the opposition.--White Shadows I ran away from you 01:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Although your comment doesn't seem to be directed at me, I'll just say that (no offense intended whatsoever) I don't feel comfortable supporting anybody who doesn't plan to use the tools more than just a little bit, which would make it a neutral, but from the answers I pointed out, I don't know if I would agree with your judgment on such issues. —fetch·comms 01:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that a lot. I wasn't directing that at you at all and I'm sorry if I came off that way (too bad were are all cursed to talk in text) Yes the answers to a few questions were not all that good but I have a feeling that Connormah would rightly take the comments of the opposers into mind if this RFA were to pass. As a result, I'm not going to oppose based off of an issue that would likely be resolved if he were an admin. (This may not make any since at all, but it's hard to explain through typing)--White Shadows I ran away from you 02:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do understand (and no apologies needed, it wasn't close to being rude or anything of that matter). —fetch·comms 02:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral lean oppose... Q10 and 4A are not what I'd like from an admin. While in Q4A you make a good point, and I actually agree with most of it, the immediate indef block to an account that clearly, in the past, was intent of trying to help doesn't make sense to me. IMHO, I think such vandalism may derive from a new user (edit count wise) being excited to edit semi-protected pages and considering that this user is only 14 years old, as indicated by his edit to November 2. Does that mean he shouldn't be blocked? No, not at all. I just think a jump of the gun like that is what encourages vandalism and sock puppetry in the future, because then they learn how to game the system. For Q10- believe me, it is incredibly easy to change an IP in a matter of seconds to other IPs registered from all over the world. The only time an IP should be blocked long-term or indef is one that belongs to Anonymouse.org or some other proxy IP. -Tommy! [message] 09:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to oppose
  3. Neutral I had just about decided to go with 'weak support'; however, after re-reading some of the Q&A's, I decided to go with neutral. User Kudpung makes a very compelling argument in #3 oppose above.--Hokeman (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I like his answers and appears to be an active vandal fight, but he's only had about 14 months of active contributing and doesn't meet my admin criterion for experience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Unconvincing reason for adminship (i.e. answer to question 1). Mediocre content contribution. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral for now. I like most of this but the article creation side worries me a little. I would probably support if some of those 15 articles were improved, or if a really convincing new one was created. Alzarian16 (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I had wanted to support; however, the issue regarding the BLPs in concerning. Not that they have been up to 5 months ago, but that they were not addressed before being nominated for administration. I am not opposing because I do feel that this is a good user, but I must honestly say the last bit of badgering of the opposers rational by HJ is unwarrented and kind of leaves a bad taste. It is not comparing him to a vandal and really should have been addressed with Connormah, before this went live and I don't believe this would be the issue it is now. BLPs are important and down playing others rational towards this as absurd may have an even greater negative impact. Calmer Waters 20:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good edit history, some good answers. Reservations on WP:V and WP:N grounds. Since these policy concerns do not seem to be the lynch pins of applicant's proposed use of Admin tools, I could be persuaded to vote Approve, but am not ready with the above answers. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moved to Neutral from opposed, see above Snappy. edit made by Hobit per Snappy's request, see here
    Neutral. moved to support 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC) By all accounts, Connormah would be useful over at WP:Requests for page protection, and while the article creation is a little underwhelming, the voluminous contributions in the File namespace, both here and at the commons are impressive. In light of this, I am honestly surprised at the number of users who have characterised Connormah's content contributions as "mediocre", I, for one, find these image contributions anything but.
    Regarding the BLP issue, it is certainly undesirable to have so many unreferenced articles (of any variety, but especially BLPs) in an editor's past, and I cannot help but question the judgement shown in accepting an RfA nomination without dealing with them, as this kind of thing has been fatal to RfAs before (see WP:RfA/BigDom a few months ago). I appreciate the efforts listed under User:AlexiusHoratius's support above to source content, but the referencing done there strikes me as (to be blunt) a little bit sloppy, with a number of them simply unformatted URLs. Administrators need to be comfortable and experienced with sourcing practises, especially one working with page protection were sourcing is so often the source of disputes. In short, my issue with the referencing is not that Connormah has produced unreferenced BLPs (that is a problem as an editor, not as an RfA candidate), but rather that I do not see enough demonstrated experience with good sourcing practises as yet.
    The answers to the questions are generally okay, where I might disagree they still demonstrate a thoughtful attitude toward different situations. However, they're not quite the solid indication of a comfortable familiarity with the policies that I might want. Finally, I find the breadth of experience with admin related areas a little unimpressive: some deletion discussion participation and new page patrolling would be better. In summary, there are too many concerns for me to support at this time, but enough positives to prevent me from opposing. A little bit of improvement in a few areas, and I'll support next time.  -- Lear's Fool 13:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral This is one of the more challenging nominations I've seen. On the positive side, I've seen a lot of Connormah, and everything I've seen has been positive. I understand that the word on signatures isn't valued by everyone, but I see them as a nice little touch that some will like. There's a lot of image work, so a lot of content contributions. I haven't reviewed the RPP work, but I trust that it is as described—clueful work in that area is challenging, and I want clueful sysops making the calls.
    I also know that prose contributions to the WP are both an extremely important aspects of this place, and not the strength of everyone. I respect that some feel that demonstrated expertise in writing prose is a non-negotiable requirement for sysop tools. I don't feel quite that strongly - I'm willing to accept an editor who knows their strengths and concentrates on other aspects, as long as the other aspects are exemplary, and make up for a weakness in an important area. To use a basketball analogy - can you make a basketball team if you can't hit a basket? Yes, but only if your defense is absolutely astounding.
    All of which should lead to a support, possibly weak support. However, I am stunned that an editor who has been here for years, and must be aware of the hundreds of thousands of words expressed about biographies and the need for references - could create unreferenced articles such as this and this (A bare url dropped in the reference section isn't a proper reference, it is a badly formed external link). This isn't evidence of weak content - it's actually negative content. These two entries create substantial work for someone to think through whether each pass notability, whether CSD applies, or PROD or AFD, or can one find relevant references, and write a proper article. Frankly, it would probably take less time to start from scratch. We tolerate content like that from editors with 10 edits - because we assume they will learn and become a positive contributor, as opposed to drain of resources. We don't expect material like that from editors with 10K edits. If the candidate believes that content work must be done to ever becomes a sysop, then please follow the advice we give to new editors - create an article in user space, then ask for Requests for feedback.--SPhilbrickT 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral voted oppose last time based on lack of understanding of CSD. No further understanding has been shown but Connormah has said they do not wish to take part in CSD or AfD and I am in a good mood today. Fairly recent creation of weak/unreferenced stub articles on people is a concern. Polargeo (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Connormah_2&oldid=1223235420"