No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn}} |
||
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn|ronjohn]]=== |
|||
(rfa transclusion) |
|||
<span class="plainlinks">'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn|action=edit§ion=5}} <font color="#002BB8">Voice your opinion on this candidate</font>]'''</span> ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ronjohn|talk page]]) |
|||
⚫ | |||
'''{{RfA tally|ronjohn}}<!-- WHEN CLOSING THIS RFA, REPLACE THIS PART WITH {{subst:finaltally|SUPPORTVOTES|OPPOSEVOTES|NEUTRALVOTES|[OPTIONALMESSAGE] OR [result=successful] OR [reason=SNOW] OR [reason=NOTNOW] OR (blank)}} SEE TEMPLATE FOR MORE DETAILS -->; Scheduled to end {{<!--subst:-->RfA/time|subst={{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship||nosubst}}}}''' {{red|'''Remove the <code><!--</code> and <code>--></code> around <code>subst:</code> in the template (as well as this comment) once you transclude this request.'''}} |
|||
(rfa transclusion) |
|||
---- |
|||
====Nomination==== |
|||
(rfa transclusion) |
|||
{{User|ronjohn}} – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER [[User:Ronjohn|Ron John]] ([[User talk:Ronjohn|talk]]) 00:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
====Questions for the candidate==== |
|||
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants: |
|||
:'''1.''' What administrative work do you intend to take part in? |
|||
::'''A:''' Deletion request, vandalism discussions/request |
|||
:'''2.''' What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? |
|||
::'''A:''' During the 2008 campaign I added information regarding Senator John McCain's vote against the Martin Luther King federal holiday and I think this help inform voters. I created the [[Upromise]] page which educated people who visited the page on the company since it's advertised everywhere. I created the following notable pages: [[The Affair (1995 film)]] article, [[Media Take Out]], and [[Rhonda Cornum]]. |
|||
:'''3.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? |
|||
::'''A:''' Yes and I've allowed administrators to make decisions and followed Wikipedia guidelines |
|||
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|Question}} --> |
|||
====General comments==== |
|||
* Links for ronjohn: {{usercheck-short|ronjohn}} |
|||
* Edit summary usage for ronjohn can be found <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=ronjohn&lang=en here]</span>. |
|||
* |
|||
⚫ | |||
<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered Wikipedians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "general comments" and "discussion" sections. --> |
|||
''Please keep discussion constructive and [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review [[Special:Contributions/ronjohn|their contributions]] before commenting.'' |
|||
====Discussion==== |
|||
{{RfA/RfB Toolbox|ronjohn}} |
|||
* |
|||
=====Support===== |
|||
# |
|||
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. --> |
|||
=====Oppose===== |
|||
# |
|||
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. --> |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
|||
# |
|||
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. --> |
|||
Many years of Wikipedia page page creations and edits. Wikipedia financial donor |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn}} |
Revision as of 03:42, 27 March 2012
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mabdul | 84 | 39 | 11 | 68 | Unsuccessful | 14:31, 2 April 2012 | 0 hours | no | report |
Scottywong | 89 | 4 | 11 | 96 | Successful | 23:51, 29 March 2012 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mabdul | 84 | 39 | 11 | 68 | Unsuccessful | 14:31, 2 April 2012 | 0 hours | no | report |
Scottywong | 89 | 4 | 11 | 96 | Successful | 23:51, 29 March 2012 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.
- Scheduled to end You're almost there. All you need to do now is substitute the time parser function (it isn't as scary as it sounds, edit the page and inline comments will guide you). This will generate a fixed end time. Remove the
<!--
and-->
aroundsubst:
in the template (as well as this comment) once you transclude this request.
Nomination
ronjohn (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Ron John (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2012 (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: Deletion request, vandalism discussions/request
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: During the 2008 campaign I added information regarding Senator John McCain's vote against the Martin Luther King federal holiday and I think this help inform voters. I created the Upromise page which educated people who visited the page on the company since it's advertised everywhere. I created the following notable pages: The Affair (1995 film) article, Media Take Out, and Rhonda Cornum.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Yes and I've allowed administrators to make decisions and followed Wikipedia guidelines
General comments
- Links for ronjohn: Ronjohn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for ronjohn can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Many years of Wikipedia page page creations and edits. Wikipedia financial donor
----
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronjohn Uncomment the "There are no current nominations" message when there are no RfAs. Comment it again when another one starts.
Ready now? Take a deep breath and go!
END INSTRUCTIONS -->
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Mabdul
Final (84/39/11); ended 14:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC) - Unsuccessful because of concerns regarding the candidate's maturity and judgment, specifically those concerns related to IRC canvassing and April 1st humor activities that were seen as poorly reflecting on his ability to handle discretionary or sensitive actions that administrators are expected to perform. MBisanz talk 14:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
Mabdul (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to offer Mabdul for your consideration. I first encountered mabdul in #wikipedia-en-help, where he is a dedicated helper and a great ambassador for Wikipedia, always keeping his demeanour and showing considerable WP:CLUE. He's been with us since March 2008 and has over 24,000 edits to his name, and is a rollbacker, file mover and account creator. In terms of content, he's got 4 DYK credits and a Good Article to his name. Additional positives include OTRS access, enabled e-mail, a clean block log, and a pageful of praise for what he does.
There are several reasons why Mabdul's work on wiki is limited by not having the tools and I shan't tread on his toes in writing them all out, but an example is not being able to view deleted contributions, which obviously rules him out from helping someone with a query about a deleted page and makes more work for other admins.
Mabdul is entirely suited to being a sysop here, and his contributions in an administrative role would absolutely be a net positive for Wikipedia - I recommend him unreservedly. WilliamH (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I proudly accept. Many thanks to WilliamH for this nomination. mabdul 03:15, 26 March 2012 (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: As WilliamH already pointed out I'm a regular helper in the IRC help channel and thus the viewdel/restore option would be a great improvement for answering requests. Moreover I'm a reviewer in the articles for creation (AFC) project and I regular find articles which need a history merge (see my CSD log) or should be deleted because of a copyvio. I'm already helping with {{helpme}} requests and SPERs and would additional answer {{admin-help}} requests and WP:PERs. I'm also active at tfd and would help out there.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I have improved many web browser related articles and my GA-promoted article Arena (web browser) is likely the best article. Personyze was rescued by me in December, Teambox was completely reworked and "rescued", Jambo OpenOffice was expanded. There are many more articles which got an expansion or gnomish work on it. (like my ibid fixing I started last year)
- 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: There was a major problem at Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up violating BLP and other serious problems - the case was settled down by User:Chzz after finding that many sections were a copyright violation. The problems are listed at Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up#Removal of content. With this exception I can't remember any problematic situations.
- Question from Hipocrite
- 4. Please detail your understanding of the relationship between IRC (which you brought up in Q1) and Wikipedia. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A: IRC is a great additional tool for helping new/unexperienced users and emergiency cases. The help channel and others are linked rather often onwiki and it is sometimes easier and faster. But to be clear: I see the chat only as an additional tool and what happens in the chat has not that weight in comparison to the onwiki activities. A few weeks ago there was a big discussion/RFC at Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help if the channels should be reformed and if the responsibility of these (independent) channel should be moved to the WMF (which was refused before that RFC).
- To the admin related help which is regular asked at #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-classroom and #wikipedia-en-help is moving pages to blacklisted pages (which can be done by me through the account creation flag), history merges (mostly not asked, but founded), deleting pages for uncontroversial moves, CSD deleting, checking deleted pages (why? Is the actual draft similar? etc.) and similar ones. mabdul 18:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from Glrx
- 5. You've had some involvement with SpiderGraph chart. You deleted the additional reading section. You are interested in AfC. What other problems do you see with that article? Glrx (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Yes, I was reviewing this pages multiple times and cleaned it up. My opinion is that this article shouldn't have been accepted since I still see the problem that it lacks indendent and reliable reference, it is not encyclopedic written and needs a cleanup which was also confirmed by User:CharlieEchoTango. I stopped checking and helping this user, but left the page on my watchlist. After removing the further reading section and having to explain again why I removed this section, I lost my faith and restored the section in the hope that another user will cleanup the page in future and removed it finally from my watchlist. mabdul 18:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional question from Whenaxis
- 6. Can you explain these accusations by Logan?
- Question from Buster7
- 7. The most obvious role of an admin is conflict resolution. Many admins have very different tactics when dealing with the Drama of Conflict. What is your basic evaluation of conflict between editors? Will it be your job to discern attacker/victim and act on you discovery or to create collaboration regardless of whom did what to whom? How will you handle conflict between editors? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I generally don't want to handle controversial problems simply of my situation being a German/a non-native tongue and thus this is sometimes producing a problem of my understanding. Generally I'm trying to solve problems before they can't be solved any more (meaning banned/blocked) - trying to converter them and trying to find always a second/new solution to the problem. If there is really a blocking situation (I have to handle), I would always AGF and trying to solve the situation with a second chance (after showing the right manner of the person) / or trying to post a second solution. As I tried to explain: simply because of the my "language disability" I don't want to handle these situations and thus there might be cases which I simply left alone or request a second opinion. mabdul 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional questions from Scottywong
- 8. Please briefly summarize the canvassing guideline, and discuss why a notification included in an IRC quit message does or does not violate the guideline.
- A: In this case I would really see it is a borderline case - I was surprised that this simple link (without any comment; maybe see a log posted by anybody who was online at that time) would change the actual direction of this RFA;
- I see now that this posting of this link was actually wrong, but I want leaving some comments to my motivations to this exit-message:
- I see my freenode account (the relevant IRC account) combined to the onwiki SUL account. This account has a wikipedia cloak; easily accessible to information about my the gender, my languages I speak (wikipedia related channels I'm idling), and likely other information like my geolocation (by idling in wiki*pedia channels and getting these information; reading logs which were published by derp(an IRC/wikipedia troll) and oter informatzion I post on my related user page ). Similar as User:GiantSnowman tried to explained: this is similar to place the {{RfX-notice}} at the talkpage and user page (which is allowed) to an directly connected account and without any advice to !vote. To come back to your question: CANVAS is not always clear - I know many people who using IRC to discuss topics which need directly involvement (I know SPI cases edit conflicts, account questions [which should be handles as fast as needed], oversight cases (as described in the OS page, this is totally legit), and likely unblock/BAG requests which need simply clarification with the requester/within the group). As I tried to explain: I see the IRC as an improvement (of time) in relationship to the onwiki-discussions; but not as a replacement: only for an useful clarification/faster communication. mabdul 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 9. Would you support the on-wiki publication of IRC chat logs from various wikipedia-related IRC channels? Why or why not?
- Additional question from Thehelpfulone
- 10. When a user is nominated for adminship, they typically post
{{RfX-notice|a}}
on their user page and their user talk page. Looking at my IRC logs, I can see that your quit message was simply a link to this RfA. To be clear, there was no "Vote for me", just the link. Therefore, would I be correct in saying that your reasoning for the IRC quit message was simply to let people know that you had an RfA in progress, to a similar effect that{{RfX-notice|a}}
has, which is to let people know about it so they can vote out of their free will, as opposed to get people to support you? The Helpful One 16:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- A: Please see Q9 - I combined my (enwp) account with the IRC account (/wikipedia/mabdul) - cloak. There are other accounts having other cloaks (which are totally legit and still getting (e.g.) +av in #wikipedia-en-help ) but still are consider to the "enwp" account because of the similar/identical name. mabdul 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the double i in the cloak. Just for clarification: +av is also described at Internet_Relay_Chat#Modes and means that I automatically get "voiced" which means in #wikipedia-en-help being a helper. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Please see Q9 - I combined my (enwp) account with the IRC account (/wikipedia/mabdul) - cloak. There are other accounts having other cloaks (which are totally legit and still getting (e.g.) +av in #wikipedia-en-help ) but still are consider to the "enwp" account because of the similar/identical name. mabdul 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from 0pen$0urce
- 11.I have noticed a nearly equal amount of opposition as support. Much of the opposition seems to be related to accusations of canvasing. Some minor opposition in relation to questioning dispute resolution. Can you provide a short summary of how you would resolve a dispute between a couple of contributors and how you you would resolve a dispute between yourself in a admin role and a contributor?--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A: If I'm directly involved in the case(s), then I would ask some uninvolved experienced user (doesn't have to be an admin as long as the right isn't needed) to solve the issue or starting an RFC, open a new thread at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/MedCab or at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN. A third (or fourth or fifth, etc.) opinion is needed (and should be welcomed). All in all, if there is no solution to settle the case down, and it is always OK and good if members of a community have different opinions (similar as User:Shoessss described in the #support section,), there is a time when somebody have simply to drop the stick. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional question from Yasht101
- 12. What will you do in a case where a article is nominated for AfD and also has CSD tag on it and you are convinced that it can be deleted under CSD. So what would be your action towards the article?
- A: Of course this depends on the situation: Is the CSD "contested", a contributor send the article to AfD and simply missed to remove the CSD tag? If so, simply removing the tag (there are some exceptions). Is the article tagged as blatant hoax (G3), recreation (G4), history merge (G6), request of the creator (G7), attack pages (G10), copyright violation (G12), and in some cases as spam (G11) then delete it. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from Leaky Caldron
- 13. When you answered Q6 - Q10 did you preview/spell check/read after saving the answers you provided? You made only a single edit, indicating that you did not review in situ. There are a number (excessive in my opinion) of grammatical errors and simple typos which when combined (a) make the answers not that easy to understand (b) demonstrate simple carelessness. For example "oter informatzion" is picked up by the default editor spell checker. One of your answers (Q7) indicates that English is not your native language and you go on to say "I generally don't want to handle controversial problems simply of my situation being a German/a non-native tongue and thus this is sometime producing a problem of my understanding. Generally I'm trying to solve problems before they can't be solved any more (meaning banned/blocked) - trying to converter them and trying to find always a second/new solution to the problem." Are you saying you will be avoiding talk page discussion and if so how is that compatible with the Administrator activities you intend to be involved with? As identified in #8Neutral, is there an issue with the attention to detail you show in your written work and, if so, how will you address it?
- A: Sorry for my late response. I will try to explain my situation, although this shouldn't be considered as an excuse. Last weekend I started my vacation at my parents' home (and thus I thought I would have time), but sadly two of my father's employees got ill and thus I had to help him out. I was donating my sleep to answer questions/requests after midnight (here UTC+1). This and the combination of a computer/browser with no (English) spell checker and a keyboard which drove me crazy (my father will finally get a new one to easter) resulting in my many "typos". (As far as I remember the f, h, ctrl, and maybe other keys weren't working properly) As you already guessed I tried to use the preview function and yes I removed many typos, but I simply didn't caught them all.
- You can see here that I made 27 edits which were nearly all accepted. I clicked on the wrong time period in twinkle in the linked diff, and I know that this case needs of course only a short protection (although the page was (semi) protected because of an IP and not for the edit war). Long/Indefinite protection are only useful at high visible templates (vandalizing one page, affecting many thousands+) and persistent vandalism; "normal" pages should editable by IPs simply because this is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
- No, I don't and won't avoid any talk page discussion. Discussion is good and I have no problem getting involved into long discussions, but for many problems you don't need admin privileges.
- I made big steps learning English at Wikipedia since I'm involved in this project and I'm still learning every day! mabdul 02:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was puzzled by your answer in the 2nd paragraph above, but it appears that since I posted my question, the original #8 Neutral has been renumbered. This explains your answer about page protection. My question was intended to draw your attention to what is now numbered #7Neutral (stillnotelf - 21:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC) relating to proofreading. Do you wish to supplement your answer? Leaky Caldron 10:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I missed to check the dates, of course. As I tried to explain, this week was full of (real life) stress and under "normal" circumstances I would simply stop editing at Wikipedia because my real life is getting a higher priority than my internet life. Not responding and doing nothing at RfA is stupid and I tried to answer here within a short time period. I checked the wiktionary page, and although I notice that page didn't explained the word, I don't know how common this word is in English. legere means something like "not so formal" or casual. I'm normally more carefully and doing proofreading my edits, checking the preview and using other tools before posting, even if I have a backlog/to do list, it will be solved. I learned a few months ago that I shouldn't stress myself about any backlogs, that we don't have a deadline and that my real life simply needs more attention than my internet life. Yes communication can be tricky and is even more problematic in written form. mabdul 17:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was puzzled by your answer in the 2nd paragraph above, but it appears that since I posted my question, the original #8 Neutral has been renumbered. This explains your answer about page protection. My question was intended to draw your attention to what is now numbered #7Neutral (stillnotelf - 21:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC) relating to proofreading. Do you wish to supplement your answer? Leaky Caldron 10:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further question from Leaky Caldron
- 14. In view of your participation in several April Fools Day "jokes" today, what are your thoughts on this discussion at WP:AN[1]
- A: I !voted on some RfAs/RfB and I added the request at WP:RFP/ACC about Larry Sanger's real user account. (Diff in #Oppose) I think if the cabal wants some "fun" (some "jokes were really bad), then let them until "the normal reader" (IP, read-only) isn't affected. This German blog post is investigating in a German Wikipedia article which was "vandalized" at April Fools Day. Somehow this fact survived and the joke got somehow real (a few months later). This sounds a bit awful, because we shouldn't make news/history! As I said: some "cabal-fun" in the community can't hurt, but this shouldn't affect any real content (maybe except some things on the main page) since we might/can miss to clean up. Moreover we are writing a global encyclopedia - and we all have a different timezone... mabdul 19:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not really answered the question, which is about the discussion at WP:AN. There is widespread criticism of those who have disrupted RFA and other places today. As a serious Admin. candidate, in the final day of their request, you did not see that your involvement might be identified as rather immature disruption (after all, the stuff isn't even humorous, it just looks like a bunch of kids playing follow the leader). I think you lack sound judgement. Leaky Caldron 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a block might be much, but a final warning might be enough - the actual rules prevent us for blocking good standing users who nominate something at AfD or participated in an RfA. Moreover I really think that we should separate a) the real content and b) the organization. What I have seen this year there was really too much of "jokes" and we should gain a consensus what is ok, what is too much, or if we want to stop all activities in this area. mabdul 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I missed, I voted at the Larry Sanger AfD, but this was only by accident since I was adding some primary source to the Citizendium article. mabdul 19:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not really answered the question, which is about the discussion at WP:AN. There is widespread criticism of those who have disrupted RFA and other places today. As a serious Admin. candidate, in the final day of their request, you did not see that your involvement might be identified as rather immature disruption (after all, the stuff isn't even humorous, it just looks like a bunch of kids playing follow the leader). I think you lack sound judgement. Leaky Caldron 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I !voted on some RfAs/RfB and I added the request at WP:RFP/ACC about Larry Sanger's real user account. (Diff in #Oppose) I think if the cabal wants some "fun" (some "jokes were really bad), then let them until "the normal reader" (IP, read-only) isn't affected. This German blog post is investigating in a German Wikipedia article which was "vandalized" at April Fools Day. Somehow this fact survived and the joke got somehow real (a few months later). This sounds a bit awful, because we shouldn't make news/history! As I said: some "cabal-fun" in the community can't hurt, but this shouldn't affect any real content (maybe except some things on the main page) since we might/can miss to clean up. Moreover we are writing a global encyclopedia - and we all have a different timezone... mabdul 19:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional questions from jc37
- In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
- 15. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
- 15a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?
- A:
- 15b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?
- A:
- 15c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?
- A:
- 15d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
- A:
- 16. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
- A:
- 17. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
- A:
- 18. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
- A:
General comments
- Links for Mabdul: Mabdul (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Mabdul can be found here.
- Stats on the talkpage. WilliamH (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- As Mabdul said he didn't mind posting of IRC logs of his departure message, here it is for anyone who hasn't seen it.--v/r - TP 02:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
mabdul has quit IRC: Quit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mabdul
While the IRC "canvassing" is a valid concern, some people are opposing for the fact that he uses IRC, which a crat should interrogate if they are considered a valid reason to oppose or not. Secret account 22:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since so many people have voiced their opinion that solely giving a link to a page is canvassing, I should hope that one of them nominates
{{RfX-notice}}
for deletion otherwise one might think a bit of hypocrisy is involved. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing the point. If a candidate employs that template, there is a record of it in the candidate's contributions history. IRC is not (officially) logged and so lacks that sort of transparency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support Very helpful and technically knowledgeable editor with good judgment. No concerns he would abuse the tools. wctaiwan (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmed....err wait, wrong button. Yep, obvious support as nominator. Helpful, trustworthy, knowledgeable, clueful editor who gives me no impression he would abuse the tools. WilliamH (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Lovely bloke, sensible, and helpful. Very good with new users, which is good, because he works with them a lot (which is good because they tend to need it). Oh, and he's sensible. Did I mention that? Understands what's going on and how things work, and as such how to deal with them, when to deal with them and when instead to simply step away. Sense is good. — Isarra (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to change my reason to something more clear: Because I think he would make a good admin. Though I disagreed with his linking this on IRC as a matter of style, I also entirely disagree with those using it as evidence that he would apparently abuse the tools or something, because that just doesn't make any sense to me. — Isarra (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Per this and WilliamH commented above. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wait, you weren't one already? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust the nominator, been helpful in #wikipedia-en-help and it's an area that needs more administrators. Secret account 05:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the canvassing allegations, I don't see a violation of canvassing there. He wasn't trying to influence the discussion there saying to vote support or "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate is considered inappropriate". I don't see an mass posting, being biased, telling the RFA to an partisan audience, or secret transparency like it discusses. He probably wanted to let an editor to know that he was in RFA, he did not say vote in the quit message. There's nothing on WP:CANVASS that an candidate can't let the regular community know about an discussion isn't allowed at all. It is the exact equivalent of posting a userpage message discussing you are in RFA, which many administrators are guilty of. And contrary to popular belief, you could make enemies in IRC, not everyone is friends with each other, and I've seen a few RFAs (both passed and failed) because of the people you meet in IRC, and not because of your Wikipedia edits. It was a minor misjudgement at best. He should not get punished for an simple and policy-wise unclear mistake. Secret account 04:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An immensely helpful Wikipedian, I trust Mabdul to be an effective and fair admin. --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What the fuck? Since when is Mabdul not an administrator? Master&Expert (Talk) 07:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Duh, obviously. Mabdul knows his shit. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 09:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have seen him at AFC doing great job. Certainly Mabdul has the temperament to deal with editors specially newbies and the knowledge of Wikipedia as well. --SMS Talk 09:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - What? Mabdul isn't an admin? WormTT · (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this is so tight, I'm just going to expand here. I'm sure the 'crats can ignore this as it was after the close. Mabdul is an excellent editor, has the right temperament to be an admin, understands wikipedia policies well, is very helpful to many new users and I believe he will not abuse the tools. I honestly did think he was an admin, due to his demeanor and knowledge levels - and if an editor is indistinguishable from an admin, then a small switch to give him a few extra tools should be something that people don't even notice. I accept that he made a mistake with regard to the IRC thing, but there's a lot of IRC-related issue which have slid into this RFA, unfairly for mabdul, who has been one of the greatest credits to IRC (from what I've seen). His canvassing was, in my eyes, minor - as it was neutrally worded (just a link) and sent out to anyone who saw it, rather than to specific friends. He shouldn't have done it, it was a mistake - but when weighing that one mistake against the good he's done, this is a no brainer. Excellent editor, will make an excellent admin. WormTT · (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – definitely! Mabdul is loaded with cluefulness, extraordinarily helpful, and I particularly like the way he will go the extra mile for newbies. Giving him the tools will be an excellent move. Pesky (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for being willing to pick up the bit, and help out with mopping up. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Bah. I hate to withdraw support here, but the aprils fool joke gives me great pause. It's not so much that jokes can't be made, but to play a joke on Sanger, someone we have a very troubled relationship with, amounting to as much an attack on his person is just not the behaviour admins should have, not even on aprils fools day. I hate to oppose over a joke, especially since I love a bit of fun, but admins shouldn't be making jokes at the expense of others, not even on aprils fools day. I certainly hope this doesn't discourage mabdul to run again in a few months, as he would have much to offer as an admin, but this is just too many stupid mistakes in a row. 12:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you were an admin already! (lol) Good work at WP:AFC. Bmusician 11:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WormTT . Strong sense of Clue, and in my dealings with him he's been everything we could want in an admin. Achowat (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)WP:BLP-vio, even if funny, is enough for me to regretably not-support. Consider this neutral. A great editor, who I still believe would make a great admin, but now I'm convinced that Mabdul needs to seriously consider that, perhaps, adminship is a bigger deal than we pretend. Achowat (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all the above and I am sure the user will make a fine admin. Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—DoRD (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC) The IRC message isn't canvassing any more than an RfA notice on a userpage is, so I'm gladly restoring my original !vote. —DoRD (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC) The BLP-violating April Foolishness, though, is a deal killer. Sorry, maybe next time. —DoRD (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no questions, he deserves it -Nard 12:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seen him around a lot, and have seen nothing at all that concerns me. Lynch7 13:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 13:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I wish all RfA decisions were this easy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have mainly seen his contributions to the possibly unfree files and files for deletion discussions and he seems to be a competent user. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The reasons for adminship (answer to question 1) initially looked a little weak. However I have looked through Mabdul's contributions, and he makes many good quality CSD tags. This is a more compelling reason than the "view deletion" argument. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the answer to question 8, Mabdul acknowledges that the IRC message was against the rules. This seems to be a genuine mistake; I am prepared to assume good faith. After the mistake was pointed out to him, Mabdul admitted it. I don't expect an RfA candidate to know every guideline, but I do expect them to acknowledge mistakes. Mabdul did this. Therefore I still believe that Mabdul will be a good admin. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems to be both willing and able. Good luck. GiantSnowman 16:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Had nothing but good interactions with Mabdul. Have no doubt he will use the tools appropriately. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Moving to Neutral till canvassing incident calms down)Support - obvious.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No concerns. From my dealings with Mabdul, I have no doubt that he will be one of those admins that chips away at all the backlogs no one else wants to do. Pol430 talk to me 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Like. Whenever I've seen Mabdul around they've been pleasant, competent, and helpful. Am confident that Mabdul-with-a-mop would be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't know this user but, if WilliamH see's him fit, then so do I. I trust nominator.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 17:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Candidate has done a lot of work and won't abuse the tools. Glrx (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason to think candidate will abuse the tools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I was not canvassed, I saw this show up on RFA on my watchlist. And given the lack of information about the "irc quit message" in the opposes below, I see no reason to change my support. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've worked with Mabdul at the account creation interface and I can tell that he is a trustworthy editor. I have no doubt he will abuse the tools. -- Luke (Talk) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You "have no doubt he will abuse the tools". Are you sure? ;) Leaky Caldron 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought he was an admin already. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Per the IRC canvasing --Guerillero | My Talk 13:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems to know what he's doing! - Happysailor (Talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had many positive interactions with this user over the past year, and he's definitely trustworthy and qualified for the mop. There have been times when he's asked for admin help while accepting AfCs when there's a history conflict, so the need for the tools is clearly there as well. — The Earwig (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen 22:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely...my goodness, there have been a pretty good crop of RfA candidates lately... Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Never afraid to get his hands dirty if necessary to get the job done. :- ) DCS 23:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - With minor reservation. Mabdul can be a bit abrasive and untactful at times, but so am I, so not a problem for me. These qualities could be a hinderance as an administrator. But, I know when I am in a position of authority, I tone myself down, and act the part. I hope that will be the case. And, we all use whatever power we have sometime inappropriately, but hopefully for the greater good. :- ) DCS 16:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Clean block log, 24K edits, no indication of assholery. Carrite (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Don't see why not, plenty experienced. A412 (Talk • C) 04:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good! Lord Roem (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues, helpful, whatever "irc canvassing" stands for, someone said irc != wikipedia, so I don't really care what happened there. On wiki actions are ok. Petrb (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- --Closedmouth (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support When I was new he helped me along even as I pestered him on IRC about various policies and editing actions. He is the reason why I started at AfC and STiki which have been my primary joys in editing wikipedia. He shows courtesy and patience when confronted with users who cannot figure out some of the more technical aspects of wikipedia. He has good judgement, it would be a shame to refuse him solely for his IRC quit message. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — The editor has done useful work and I wouldn't reject him just because of the IRC message. I came here because I saw the list of open RfAs and I recognized his name due to his work with account creation. No concerns about his judgment in admin matters. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - We need more admins. No concerns about the IRC message; posting a single link to this page with no further commentary to open channels with wide audiences was at worst a very minor lapse. henrik•talk 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great editor, does a lot at AfC, and what the hell is the big deal with having a link to your RfA in a signoff message? Were people who had "Flagged revisions now!" or the equivalent in their signatures a year ago somehow canvassing then? I don't remember that ever being a problem, and it shouldn't be now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The drama raised at IRC with the use a link to RFA does not override the fact that there's no sign that Mabdul would abuse the tools, or have poor judgement in admin matters. Technically competent and pleasant interactions on several early internet articles.Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My only concern was addressed. Happily support.--v/r - TP 02:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There doesn't seem to be any real canvassing violation here, and it seems that this editor would make for a good administrator.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Érico msg 04:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks OK. GreyHood Talk 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The IRC message, while probably not wholly thought out, is really not much more canvassing than adding the "I'm undergoing an RFA!" banner to your userpage. Both have the effect of drawing your stalkers (both friends and enemies) to your RFA to vote. The main issue with the IRC notification is that not many people use IRC whereas everybody can see your userpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The whole "canvassing" situation isn't a huge issue and you are a great editor. --J36miles (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Soutenir. Exactement. Rcsprinteur (parler) 17:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I know that my thought process is influenced by my culture, yes, I live here in the United States of America, where Canvassing is done for any individual looking to move to a position that involves the community at large to assent the additional responsibilities that are provided by a Vote. Be it either a !vote or an actual counting of the individual votes. As of right now I see an editor with over 24,000 edits, Involved member of Wikipedia for just over 4 years, no blocks to their name, no civility complaints, that I can find, and has answered over 10 questions (counting subdivisions of the questions) with honesty, understanding, other than one complaint below, and clarity. Is there more we ask? Likewise, I looked at the Oppose votes and found that of the 18 Opposes only two (2) were for other reasons than Canvassing, To fully understand this majority of Opposes I first went to Canvassing to see what the policy may say and the first thing I read is; “…In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.” Have I misread the statement, or does it say; “well canvassing is OK except for RFA’s”, if it did I missed it. Also I reviewed the statements with regards to using the IRC as Canvassing sight that may only include individuals that would be sympathy to the candidate position and hence unfairly weight the outcome of an !vote and found this statement; “…Wikipedia IRC is not owned or controlled by Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It is a project run by volunteers of their own accord. The Wikipedia channels on freenode were designed by users of Wikipedia as places for Wikipedians to chat using IRC. They are casual and not logged publicly. As far as their influence on Wikipedia goes, IRC is equivalent to a conversation in a pub – the discussion may be conducted between a small numbers of people but may be overheard by hundreds, or more if the logs are published.” To my reading this is not a Cabal that may drastically change the outcome of any !Vote situation. So all in all Good Candidate that has experience, the time and the willingness to put up with this. Yes, they have my support (Yes long winded, but words a free to use :-). ShoesssS Talk 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia policy on Canvassing for RfA is clear; RfA is not a popularity poll and it should not be done, either on or off Wiki. [2] Leaky Caldron 19:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-That is an Essay, which you direct to, correct? (And not policy) or have I overlooked something? Unless I am mistaken, we follow Policy and Rules and not Essay’s and conjecture. ShoesssS Talk 19:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know as well as I do that it is an essay, one I suggest that candidates are ill-advised to disregard. WP:CAN is a behavioural guideline. Of course you and the candidate can choose to be selective. That is an option that you are fully entitled to follow. For my part canvassing is unacceptable, regardless whether it is documented as unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-That is an Essay, which you direct to, correct? (And not policy) or have I overlooked something? Unless I am mistaken, we follow Policy and Rules and not Essay’s and conjecture. ShoesssS Talk 19:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia policy on Canvassing for RfA is clear; RfA is not a popularity poll and it should not be done, either on or off Wiki. [2] Leaky Caldron 19:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have no idea what IRC is really like (it's a series of tubes, right?) but after reading all the arguments for and against the notion that the quit message posted above is worse, better or the same than the other ways RFAs are posted, it's a wash, for me. I don't care. I'm just unmoved by the whole mini-drama. mabdul's a great editor, I'm sure he'll make a fine admin, and if we oppose him this time because of this quit-message-whatever-thing, we'll just have to pass him at the next RFA, when he hasn't posted the thing, so let's give him the tools now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IRC is a very old group chat protocol similar to ICQ/MSN/Yahoo/AIM group chats (but has also the ability to do "one-on-one" chats). The chat rooms are always named beginning with an # ; So if the discussion is about a #wikipedia-XY then this is about a discussion related to the chat room #wikipedia-XY. mabdul 02:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Because I was canvassed in IRC. NOT. A quit message in IRC is the primary reason to oppose this editor being an admin? IRC is a place for people to become aware of things who don't stalk all the various overflowing incident/noticeboard around here. Any communication source can be abused, of course, but he didn't ask for people's support, and trust me, the quit message would notify any IRC enemies/opponents too. If that's the basis for the oppose votes, I add my support just to counter one of them. In addition, he appears to be a fine reasonable editor doing valuable work.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in spite of my intention to oppose. The IRC opposes are misguided; #wikipedia-en-help is a long-established mechanism for talking users through the editing process and a great way of getting notification of {{helpme}} requests; the quit message was not canvassing in my opinion. I was going to oppose on the basis of the candidate's AFD "vote didn't match result" rate of 24.4%; but my hand was stayed with a CSD success rate of better than 95% (it might even be better than 97%) and the fact that the AFD failures are heavily weighted towards keeps - so we have an editor who's tendencies fall towards keeping articles, but isn't a rabid inclusionist. CSD success indicates extremely good judgement, better than mine. Edit summary usage is 100%, with meaningful edit summaries used - signs of a good communicator. A clean block log. 23k edits, four years of service. What's not to love? Josh Parris 04:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mabdul is human and as humans, we all make mistakes. I genuinely don't feel that the IRC incident somehow proves that he'll do a poor job as an admin, like some other editors are indicating, for I don't feel it's an issue at all. Perhaps he shouldn't have linked to his RfA, but it's not as though he blatantly asked people to support him. ~dee(talk?) 12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 100% support. So what if they have canvassed? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 12:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, I could care less of what goes on in the IRC chatrooms, as what most of this
editor's opponentsRFA's opposers claim. I support based on what this editor brings to Wikipedia. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I don't think it's really fair to call people who are listed in the oppose section as opponents, honestly. I don't think anybody here would consider himself as an opponent of Mabdul :) Snowolf How can I help? 06:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting pickey with the terminology. In a proposal we have proponents (supporters) and opponenets (opposers) ;) –BuickCenturyDriver 13:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's really fair to call people who are listed in the oppose section as opponents, honestly. I don't think anybody here would consider himself as an opponent of Mabdul :) Snowolf How can I help? 06:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Can't see any real problem. Deb (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Absolutely ridiculous to bring up this IRC "canvassing" issue - if you can even call it that, good luck. This editor has been on Wikipedia now for 4 years; has a crystal clear block log; 24k edits. A small bump along the way, does not need to be magnified into something it isn't, and should not be used as means of tarnishing this editors impeccable reputation towards the encyclopedia. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think the message on IRC was a borderline call as far as canvassing goes. The problem with the make up of IRC is that it makes it (or at the very least makes it perceived to be) a non-neutral audience. I think Mabdul made the wrong call, but I note that he accepts this in his answer to question eight. I don't think we should recruit admins solely from users with "error free" histories on this project. Indeed, I think it's useful to see how prepared a candidate is to recognise a mistake and evaluate the decision making process that led to it. I am happy with the way Mabdul has done so and, on balance, believe him to be a good candidate for the extra tools. WJBscribe (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Competent user, willing to correct mistakes, and who wants to help the English Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (moved from neutral). I don't think the canvassing issue is really such a big deal. Mabdul is a good newbie helper, a somewhat thankless task at times, and I think given the admin bits he would only use them to do more good work in this area. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 19:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The more admins in IRC the better. He seems like he has the temperment for the tools.Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please explain why you consider IRC participation to be crucial? For what part(s) of the role is IRC essential? Would you oppose a candidate who was not, and had no intention of being, on IRC? Plutonium27 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you just intentionally trying to stir up trouble? Am I a bad administrator because I never go to WP:PUF or WP:RFPP? We need a variety of admins in different roles. Few administrators do everything that needs to be done, and those that do either quickly wear themselves or go insane. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that Fasttimes68's comment could be construed as "intentionally trying to stir up trouble". I hope such an accusation hasn't put him off expanding upon his views. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you just intentionally trying to stir up trouble? Am I a bad administrator because I never go to WP:PUF or WP:RFPP? We need a variety of admins in different roles. Few administrators do everything that needs to be done, and those that do either quickly wear themselves or go insane. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please explain why you consider IRC participation to be crucial? For what part(s) of the role is IRC essential? Would you oppose a candidate who was not, and had no intention of being, on IRC? Plutonium27 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have worked with Mabdul since he joined the ACC team. I have found him to be very helpful, professional and clue-full. I am having problems distinguishing the difference between having a mention of one's RfA in a quit message and having a link to "My editor review" in a signature. Yes I agree an RfA is more formal than an editor review but, canvassing does not distinguish between a question, editor review or RfA. It seems this issue is just being used as something of convenience rather a problem of issue. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Wikipedia will benefit greatly if he's given the tools. -- Ϫ 01:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problem if this user gets admin rights. Yasht101 :) 02:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per incomprehension I haven't !voted already.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 12:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support purely to offset some of the idiocy in the oppose section. Note: I neither indicated that all opposes are pointless, nor did I indicate who I refer to, and I am leaving it at that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like the positive, helpful attitude displayed at AfC and edit requests. Warden (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because I see the exit message more as exuberance than malice, and because after this community flogging I seriously doubt that you'll do anything like this ever again. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support logs show use of account creation, renames and uploads with correct FURs demonstrating wide experience. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no concerns here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Real one on April Fools Day !! Make it count :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 17:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per Graeme Bartlett. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Mabdul is an experienced, clueful and reliable editor, who has demonstrated a need for the admin tools in his day to day editing. The overwhelming majority of editors in the "Oppose" column indicate that their opposition is based on a neutrally-worded link to this RfA that Mabdul gave as his quit message in IRC. The message was unwise. But it is widely accepted that it has not had an unduly positive impact on the !voting (since few people on IRC would be unaware of an ongoing RfA anyway, & since the channels involved were sufficiently widely occupied to make the message seen by just as many potential opposers as supporters). Also, although posting the link was an error of judgement, it does not even come close to being serious enough to call into question the reliability of an editor who's widely acknowledged to be thoughtful, constructive, and calm-spirited. A significant subset of the opposers are driven by the rationale that IRC is a bad thing and therefore an Oppose helps to fight against a bad thing. IRC may or may not be a bad thing, but we should look to appoint administrators whose adminship benefits Wikipedia without being a risk to Wikipedia. The IRC storm-in-a-teacup does not change the fact Mabdul has met those criteria, and the closing bureaucrat should look dimly on shallow Oppose rationales such as "canvassing" and "per Logan". RfA does not exist as a means to indicate disapproval of IRC. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support For me, the IRC issue is of no matter - it could have attracted people wishing to oppose as readily as those wishing to support. I am not an IRC user (still don't know what it is, even, but class it with social networking and instant messaging until I find out different), so I am not here as a result of that link. I've waited until now to !vote. I nearly went neutral because of slight concerns about mabdul's command of English, but those are now resolved for me. I've found out that he combines a sense of humour with a sense of responsibility, and I see little to worry about. (As a natural worrier, if I can't see something to worry about, I worry about what I am missing...) May not be this time, but should be next, barring disasters in between times. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. When a candidate who is taking part in the RfA process is supported, the phrase "net positive" (or similar) may be used to describe them. That's how I'd look at this candidate, take all the good things that he's shown (his article work, helping new users in #wikipedia-en-help, OTRS access are some) and taking away the "bad" things, such the April Fools Day participation, and you get that Mabdul would be, in my opinion, a good addition to the team. There are users that I highly trust and whose opinion I respect that are opposing this candidate, mainly with regards to the lapse of judgement with respect to the posting of the link on the IRC quit message. I'm willing to give Mabdul the benefit of the doubt in this instance, as I don't strictly think that it classes as canvassing and from Mabdul's answers to the various questions on the matter, this does not appear to be his intention. We've all made mistakes before, although probably not at a time when we were under such a high level of scrutiny! The Helpful One 22:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per THO :-) --Addihockey10 e-mail 03:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The IRC issue was one minor mistake. Epbr123 (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mabdul was a very silly for posting that in his /quit message. Otherwise, they strike me as a mostly sensible user (he has his faults, and the /quit message is one of them) who works very hard to improve Wikipedia. I believe he will be duly chastened by the opposes. He's a safe pair of hands to wield a mop, and if he gets granted a mop, I see no reason to think he'll make a mess of actually being an admin, even though he's made a right cockup of this RfA. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- I want to be an admin so I can help out on IRC? I am strongly concerned that this user isn't aware that IRC has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise per my question. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposing before you've even posted your question? GiantSnowman 15:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. As it stands now, I'm convinced thiswise. IRC is a festering sore on the suffering body of Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unconvinced that this candidate understands the role of administrators on Wikipedia, and is instead seeking to improve his IRC standing. Hipocrite (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposing before you've even posted your question? GiantSnowman 15:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose per blatant canvassing on IRC in the quit message (including the full link to the RfA). This is unacceptable to me. Logan Talk Contributions 22:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Logan. Also, I've found this user to be abrasive at times in interactions I've had with him.~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose regrettably per Logan. Unless Mabdul can provide valid justifications, I'm going to have to oppose at this time. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Logan. Personally, I don't think IRC is worth its trouble to me anymore, but I hold nothing against users who try to help users off the wiki. But being an admin requires a special kind of judgment that I think should ask, "Hm, could this be construed as canvassing?" and answer, "Maybe and maybe not, but it would be wise just not to modify my quit message". In this case, I'm disappointed that the candidate did not maneuver wisely. Sometimes, being an admin is about not taking risks and manipulating one's circumstances correctly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I think that a prospective admin should know better than to stick a link to his/her rfa in an irc quit message.--Rockfang (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Not only blatant WP:CANVASS in the IRC messaging, but a have to seriously doubt the mindset of someone who even THINKS doing that was a good idea - clearly does not yet have the clear judgement required to be an admin (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oi ... there's no humanly-possible way that the explanation can make anyone comfortable...now he's justifying spamming his RFA, not just canvassing. I have added the work "STRONG" in front of oppose - the IRC blunder was originally probably accidental/bad judgement, now it's escalated beyond (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Logan. If you're good enough, you don't need to canvas for support. Mrlittleirish 09:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to the canvassing incident. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any way to verify the canvassing incident? Suraj T 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - clarification would be very helpful, and will probably determine the direction this RFA takes. I am leaving my !vote as support for now however. GiantSnowman 11:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the message a simple 'I am at RfA' one, or a 'Come vote for me at'? For those of us who never touch IRC, it could be interesting to know. Peridon (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was a link to this page. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a link to this page, without any comments on how the editors should !vote, on a forum that is accessible to all users (though not necessarily accessed by all users) doesn't seem to rise to the level of inappropriate disclosure of a binding discussion, per WP:CANVASS. Achowat (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - in fact, we are encouraged to advertise our RFA on our user and talk pages, a la {{RfX-notice}}. GiantSnowman 15:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite clearly factually untrue that IRC is a "forum that is accessible to all users." It is a private forum whose access can be granted or revoked at will by individuals unrelated to Wikipedia or the foundation. Long term accountability is prohibited by rule on the forum. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that IRC has the potential to devolve into a cabal, I see a general opposition to IRC being a poor rationale to oppose, given that the content wasn't anything drastically different than {{RfX-notice}}. Is there reason to believe that either (a) IRC users are more likely to !vote support or (b) users who are denied access to IRC are more likely to !vote oppose? Absent those, I fail to see how this is an attempt to subvert the consensus-building process, as WP:CANVASS pre-supposes. Achowat (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think a member of the IRC Buddies Squad is more likley to be supported by the IRC buddies? You don't think he could tell who he was targeting with his log-out message, and timed it so that his IRC enemies wouldn't see it? I mean, I guess if someone kept logs in a public space, we could evaluate. Such a shame all attempts to make IRC accountable fail. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that IRC has the potential to devolve into a cabal, I see a general opposition to IRC being a poor rationale to oppose, given that the content wasn't anything drastically different than {{RfX-notice}}. Is there reason to believe that either (a) IRC users are more likely to !vote support or (b) users who are denied access to IRC are more likely to !vote oppose? Absent those, I fail to see how this is an attempt to subvert the consensus-building process, as WP:CANVASS pre-supposes. Achowat (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a link to this page, without any comments on how the editors should !vote, on a forum that is accessible to all users (though not necessarily accessed by all users) doesn't seem to rise to the level of inappropriate disclosure of a binding discussion, per WP:CANVASS. Achowat (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was a link to this page. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 15:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the message a simple 'I am at RfA' one, or a 'Come vote for me at'? For those of us who never touch IRC, it could be interesting to know. Peridon (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - clarification would be very helpful, and will probably determine the direction this RFA takes. I am leaving my !vote as support for now however. GiantSnowman 11:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any way to verify the canvassing incident? Suraj T 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose.While I understand the desire to canvass, I understand canvassing subverts the process. The fact that it was hidden at IRC is troubling. I'd like more transparent out-in-the-open Admins. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You realise this sounds like you're saying canvassing is okay but only if done so that everyone can see it? — foxj 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review WP:CANVASS. Doing canvassing in public is less problematic than doing it in an off-venue private group, like IRC. Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Fox, I believe that canvassing, without instructions, is kinda, maybe, a little bit OK. In fact, if you ask Jimbo, he is not against canvassing...out in the open where all can see and monitor. But, I don't make the rules. I just
breakkeep them as best I can. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Fox, I believe that canvassing, without instructions, is kinda, maybe, a little bit OK. In fact, if you ask Jimbo, he is not against canvassing...out in the open where all can see and monitor. But, I don't make the rules. I just
- Please review WP:CANVASS. Doing canvassing in public is less problematic than doing it in an off-venue private group, like IRC. Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've had pleasant enough interactions with Mabdul, but canvassing in this manner is not only unacceptable, but also shows monumentally bad judgment, not only from the perspective of misunderstanding the feelings of many people about canvassing, but also from a self-serving point of view, his RfA was going to pass without any problems without this regrettable incident. Snowolf How can I help? 16:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Also, for people wondering, I can confirm that basically a single http:// link to this page was what was linked in the quit message, and nothing but that. The quit message is sent to all channels the user is in when he quits. In the case of Mabdul, I think it's around half a dozen channels, including the high traffic #wikipedia-en. On the other hand, by sending it to such broad a channel, it's unlikely to particularly alter the composition of the vote, and is not like posting a link to a semi-private channel hoping to get more supports. Snowolf How can I help? 16:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you say: This is not acceptable in first message, and in second one, you say that it wasn't really big deal? Why did you oppose then. What is difference between posting this to public channel, and posting it to your userpage? Or telling to your friends, on a public place for example. If he said: Go support me it would be inacceptable, but saying please participate on my RFA isn't wrong. In fact, I see it quite correct and fair. Petrb (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You realise this sounds like you're saying canvassing is okay but only if done so that everyone can see it? — foxj 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I'm sorry, Mabdul. I don't believe your intent was to canvass, and I think you're a promising admin candidate, but the ability to think through actions and identify what might be contentious or damaging before taking the action is an important tool for an administrator, and your IRC quit message (though apparently neutral) was one of those things that ought to have been thought through, identified as "this will probably cause drama", and avoided. I think you need to work some more on internalizing that sense of how the community views actions of various types. If you can do that, I think you'll sail through a future RFA with few problems. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Unfortunately, what Fluffernutter mentions holds quite true. It's not just about the intent (or lack of the same) to canvass, but about being able to judge good form from bad form. And Mabdul's quit-message publicizing the RfA is perhaps a momentary lack of judgment that should not have been committed, especially when the matter is about one's RfA. Twice this year, I've seen RfAs being troubled by issues of canvassing. In the previous incident, the canvasser was the nominator himself. This time, it's unfortunately Mabdul. I personally feel the community needs to adjudicate strongly on canvassing - either accept all kinds of canvassing or prohibit it completely... Apart from the canvassing issue, going through Arena (web browser), which Mabdul says is his best article, I perceive a preponderance of material based purely on primary sources, sps, questionable sources and some evidently unreliable sources (I think I also viewed somewhere within the article material based on 'Letters to the editor'; I may be wrong on this though). There are of course some definite reliable sources too; but my interest is waylaid by the emphasis on primary sources. As it stands currently overall, I have to oppose this candidacy. My apologies to Mabdul. Wifione Message 20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the sources are not the best - and there are better examples I created/expanded. Since my involvement in the AFC project I have learned many more aspects of sourcing and I know that is the hardest barrier to create a good article. I always try to find independent and reliable sources, although this is not always possible. In January I started to expand Sendo, but this article is way not finished nor is it in any way good. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The canvassing issue really makes me feel uncomfortable for a potential admin. I seldom get involved in RFAs, but I really don't like that kind of behaviour when applying for adminship. I think it was a poor decision and not reflective on the candidate as a whole but it is strong enough to make me oppose this request for adminship. Apologies.--Auger Martel (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To you and everybody else who voted oppose because of canvassing. It is merely apparent do not take their time analyzing the candidate and merely vote oppose based on other opposes if there are opposes. I find this absolutely ridiculous and absurd to vote in such a way. If you opposers were to have taken more care into researching the candidate you would have noticed that mabdul ONLY placed a link to this RfA on IRC. There were no discussions, no persuasions, no kind of talk that would try to persuade IRC viewers to vote for him or against him which is clearly not a violation of WP:CANVASS because what he did is the same as placing the {{RfX-notice}} tag on his page.—cyberpower ChatOnline 01:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My particular issue with this is not the act itself, but the thought that went into the act. Neutral, perhaps, but who would have thought having any link at all would have been a good idea? To me, and others above that have stated so, this shows a lack of sound judgment in predicting the reaction to, and consequences of, a certain action. That judgment is crucial in adminship, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, I would like to emphasize that placing {{RfX-notice}} is not the same as linking to this RfA on IRC. On Wikipedia, anyone can see the notice or find it in the history. On IRC, sharing logs is generally forbidden or at least discouraged, so transparency is decreased, and IRC has a more limited participant base than Wikipedia. For example, I would not have been aware of this incident had it not been raised here, because I do not use IRC much anymore. However, if any sort of questionable behavior had occurred on-wiki, a record of this would be preserved in the relevant page history. Therefore, I do not consider such an action on IRC akin to a similar action on Wikipedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyberpower, you're right in that Mabdul's IRC posting takes this RfA fathoms away from actual discussion on his on-wiki contributions. I suspect that's because IRC communication is specifically covered in our Inappropriate Notification guidelines, which mention that persuading [editors] to join discussions (and not necessarily soliciting support) is enough reason for IRC communications to qualify as Stealth Canvassing. A majority of our editors are not IRC users; many might not even be comfortable in using IRC and therefore would see IRC communication of topics of their interest as being deliberately one-sided. Thus, posting on IRC, where Mabdul is active, may be seen as extremely partisan and non-transparent. Some may see this as a form of votebanking, where it is expected that a majority of editors interacting with Mabdul on IRC might have a good opinion of the editor. I personally feel it's really honest and sincere of Mabdul in his answer above to accept that this IRC posting was wrong. Given his current active status on IRC, I'll be worried if in the future, admin decisions - which might require wider on-wiki discussions - are undertaken by Mabdul purely through discussions on IRC because he might perceive them to be faster. My suggestion to Mabdul would be that if this RfA succeeds, he should remember to use great discretion before using IRC on exceptional issues. If this RfA does not succeed, then he should reapply in a couple of months or three, which is not too long a time. I'll have no qualms in supporting him then. Wifione Message 03:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I can see everyone's point especially Wifione's. For this RfA I'll support because it was only a link but I will be stricter next about these things.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My particular issue with this is not the act itself, but the thought that went into the act. Neutral, perhaps, but who would have thought having any link at all would have been a good idea? To me, and others above that have stated so, this shows a lack of sound judgment in predicting the reaction to, and consequences of, a certain action. That judgment is crucial in adminship, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To you and everybody else who voted oppose because of canvassing. It is merely apparent do not take their time analyzing the candidate and merely vote oppose based on other opposes if there are opposes. I find this absolutely ridiculous and absurd to vote in such a way. If you opposers were to have taken more care into researching the candidate you would have noticed that mabdul ONLY placed a link to this RfA on IRC. There were no discussions, no persuasions, no kind of talk that would try to persuade IRC viewers to vote for him or against him which is clearly not a violation of WP:CANVASS because what he did is the same as placing the {{RfX-notice}} tag on his page.—cyberpower ChatOnline 01:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The main complaint against IRC is that it tends to favour off-wiki coordination, thereby reducing transparency. Any editor who's been around as long as Mabdul should be well aware of this and act accordingly. Pichpich (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the irc issues brings Mabdul's decision making skills into question. Sorry --Guerillero | My Talk 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I have some concerns with the level of English, for example the candidate does not appear to have understood question 10; as well as this the candidate has expressed a desire to avoid controversial situations as a result of the language barrier, and in my opinion it is essential that admins are able to deal with controversial situations with clarity. As well as this, per Logan. There is a big difference between placing an RfA notice on one's userpage (where one has to visit the candidate's userpage hence showing an interest in the candidate's wikipedia activites) and a public notice appearing to IRC users (a specific group of users are notified of the RfA regardless of whether they have actively sought information about the candidate). Mato (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose IRC? Canvassing? Either of those is enough for me. We are not desperate for new Admins, certainly not candidates so desperate to be one. Leaky Caldron 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Consolidating my opinion following answers to my Q13-14. (1) As indicated by others, there are concerns about the candidate's level of English comprehension / written work. As well as a tendency to provide tangential answers there is also the quality of simple, written English, for example in this recent example on the RFA talk page where the Neutral votes in RFA are being discussed, "Although the closing 'crat shouldn't look at the !vote ration [sic](and he is still a uman [sic] and will do this), he/she can have a more cleanup up [sic] look on the !ratio (doesn't matter in which direction)". There is no excuse for simply not re-reading and correcting basic errors after saving changes. (2) Yesterday's active participation in April Foolery while in Q14 condemning such behaviour is inconsistent. Leaky Caldron 10:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to concur that using the quit message was very very stupid. Even if it's as innocent as a userpage notice, which I believe it is; just linking to an RfA could be considered canvassing because of the audience it is shown at, even if it's not intended to draw that specific group to this RfA. However, citing 'IRC' as a reason for opposing, with all the amazing work mabdul has done there, helping newcomers out with their AFC proposals, is IMO misguided. I'm not sure what makes you think that mabdul is desperate to be an admin either: the quit message is a demonstration of poor judgement on how some things may be perceived, to an amount this RfA is clearly divided on, but not - dare I say it - prima facie evidence of power hunger. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You might call my reasoning misguided. Fortunately for me, but unfortunately for the candidate, I am utterly opposed to IRC. I do lots of amazing work off-wiki, none of which qualifies me to be an Admin. here. Please let's not debate this any further. I have opposed the candidate and given my reasons. Leaky Caldron 16:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposing a user because he devotes time and efforts to helping users on IRC is the most ridiculous oppose reason I have ever seen on these pages. Snowolf How can I help? 21:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose the candidate due to his canvassing on IRC. "I" am opposed to IRC, it follows that "I" am opposed to candidates who spend their time in that particular forum. Apologies if my initial brief opposition was unclear. On the subject of being unclear - and of far greater importance to the community - I would urge a careful reading on the candidate's rambling answer to Q8. It has some near incomprehensible explanations due to sloppy English. I expect a far higher standard from an Admin who will encounter situations where the requirement for crystal clear communication is essential. Leaky Caldron 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I" am opposed to IRC, it follows that "I" am opposed to candidates who spend their time in that particular forum.
is the honestly extremely worrying part. I oppose lots of stuff, including smoking, but I will never think it any of my business to be opposed to smokers. If you want a wiki-related example, I strenuously oppose the current rename policy, but I'd never dream of going around opposing people who perform or request such renames. The idea that your private preference regarding a specific medium should be the basis for whether, in your opinion, one should be admin or not is honestly sad and misguided. But this is clearly a pointless argument. There's many good reason to oppose any candidate, including this one, and you've listed some reasons why you feel uncomfortable with this specific user and that's all good and fine. I genuinely hope you don't think it's acceptable to oppose a user because they use IRC, Facebook, Twitter or Emails, but *shrugs*. Snowolf How can I help? 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose the candidate due to his canvassing on IRC. "I" am opposed to IRC, it follows that "I" am opposed to candidates who spend their time in that particular forum. Apologies if my initial brief opposition was unclear. On the subject of being unclear - and of far greater importance to the community - I would urge a careful reading on the candidate's rambling answer to Q8. It has some near incomprehensible explanations due to sloppy English. I expect a far higher standard from an Admin who will encounter situations where the requirement for crystal clear communication is essential. Leaky Caldron 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to concur that using the quit message was very very stupid. Even if it's as innocent as a userpage notice, which I believe it is; just linking to an RfA could be considered canvassing because of the audience it is shown at, even if it's not intended to draw that specific group to this RfA. However, citing 'IRC' as a reason for opposing, with all the amazing work mabdul has done there, helping newcomers out with their AFC proposals, is IMO misguided. I'm not sure what makes you think that mabdul is desperate to be an admin either: the quit message is a demonstration of poor judgement on how some things may be perceived, to an amount this RfA is clearly divided on, but not - dare I say it - prima facie evidence of power hunger. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I saw articles created by this user which were only 18. Out of which, most of them had notability and reference problem (excluding disambiguation pages). Though it does not affect their work as admin, I was expecting something better from an admin in the part of Articles. Yasht101 :) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- For clarification I created less than 18 (some were redirects which turned into articles) and I'm a person (as described above) who is writing about technical topics (computer/web related) but in these topics there are already (mostly) stubs which simply only need expansion. With the exception of a few topics, you will see more and more admin candidates which won't have created "so many" articles, but expanded stubs. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lately your work is focused on talk and templates. I m not saying that it is wrong. About the stub expansion, if you can expand other stubs, then why dont you do it in your own created articles. I dont mean that if the articles are created by you, then you are responsible for its maintainence, but I saw history of one article created by you with 'Notability' and 'Reference' issues, you havent edited the article since you created it. I dont find anything wrong in that but if you can expand stubs, then why cannot you make major issues such as 'Notability' and 'Reference' getting removed from your created articles. I have also seen admins with less created articles. Having less created articles is not the base of the oppose, but having issues in them is my concern. Yasht101 :) 02:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are likely talking about my articles eSVG and Hina-Di. Yes, it would be nice to get the notability or other maintain tags resolved, but in the case of Hina-Di I'm simply don't know if it is really a notable file format! All information was translated by using google and these translations were bad. I created these articles in 2008/2009 when I had simply no experience. mabdul 02:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lately your work is focused on talk and templates. I m not saying that it is wrong. About the stub expansion, if you can expand other stubs, then why dont you do it in your own created articles. I dont mean that if the articles are created by you, then you are responsible for its maintainence, but I saw history of one article created by you with 'Notability' and 'Reference' issues, you havent edited the article since you created it. I dont find anything wrong in that but if you can expand stubs, then why cannot you make major issues such as 'Notability' and 'Reference' getting removed from your created articles. I have also seen admins with less created articles. Having less created articles is not the base of the oppose, but having issues in them is my concern. Yasht101 :) 02:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Consolidating my opinion following answers to my Q13-14. (1) As indicated by others, there are concerns about the candidate's level of English comprehension / written work. As well as a tendency to provide tangential answers there is also the quality of simple, written English, for example in this recent example on the RFA talk page where the Neutral votes in RFA are being discussed, "Although the closing 'crat shouldn't look at the !vote ration [sic](and he is still a uman [sic] and will do this), he/she can have a more cleanup up [sic] look on the !ratio (doesn't matter in which direction)". There is no excuse for simply not re-reading and correcting basic errors after saving changes. (2) Yesterday's active participation in April Foolery while in Q14 condemning such behaviour is inconsistent. Leaky Caldron 10:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Unfortunately the canvassing made me oppose. In particular it might be that they did not fully read the recommended material - "Advertising" your RfA They should note that it is placed between "edit wars" and "blocks" in order of severity. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Logan. Malleus Fatuorum 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose candidate has the tenure and experience, the IRC thing on its own wouldn't have put me in the oppose column, I might have even gone as far as a weak support - admins should know and comply with unwritten rules, but I can see that IRC could be considered a neutral audience, and there is an argument that a neutral message to a neutral audience isn't itself canvassing. I'm not bothered whether a candidate has created zero articles and only improves those started by others or has started hundreds validly. But having looked through some of the editors AFC comments I'm not sure I share the impression others have of such a helpful editor "submission lacks inline citations" as a decline reason at AFC? At GA or FA of course, but at AFC? By all means show someone how to make their refs inline, but I'd be uncomfortable giving the deletion button to someone who would reject a new article because the citations are not inline. ϢereSpielChequers 08:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, it's a pretty common reason for declining AfC submissions. It's an option in the drop down menus when using the AfC tool. It's not akin to deleting an article for that reason. At AfC the option is either to decline the submission or accept it and move it to mainspace. It's better to get the user to add the inlines themselves while it's still in draft stage, rather than to move it to mainspace and either a) ask the creator to fix it up which isn't entirely likely as they often see an accepted submission as their work being completed or b) expecting someone else to do it. In AfC, the users are generally very eager to get their article accepted, so they are more willing to read the guides on inline referencing provided in the decline reason and actually learn how to do it. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 17:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not because we have such a decline reason! WP:BLP says: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. - I found (for instance) no birth date and not the date of the "tale" in the given source; at least one link was included and unrelated (or at least I didn't get it since his name isn't included). I also mentioned in an additional comment, that this person might not be notable! mabdul 02:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, it's a pretty common reason for declining AfC submissions. It's an option in the drop down menus when using the AfC tool. It's not akin to deleting an article for that reason. At AfC the option is either to decline the submission or accept it and move it to mainspace. It's better to get the user to add the inlines themselves while it's still in draft stage, rather than to move it to mainspace and either a) ask the creator to fix it up which isn't entirely likely as they often see an accepted submission as their work being completed or b) expecting someone else to do it. In AfC, the users are generally very eager to get their article accepted, so they are more willing to read the guides on inline referencing provided in the decline reason and actually learn how to do it. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 17:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Logan and LC.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Candidate's IRC activities are unacceptable. Wikipedia IRC is unacceptable. All Wikipedia-related communications should be on Wikipedia, accessible to all editors. IRC is the shadowy, clique-ridden, kiddychat-oriented antithesis of the essential need for openness and access. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And how did you, having (I presume) never been on IRC, come to know what IRC is about? Do tell me, as I've long sought omnipotence. (I've only used IRC within the past few days, for one very specific purpose that will end within a couple weeks, so I claim no knowledge of what really goes on there). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You presume that I presume about IRC? Got to admit, I do admire the nerve of such unabashed hypocritical snidery. Admins need all the tools they can get, these days. Presumably. So you see, I can't help you with your omnipotence problem personally, although I could fwd you heaps of these emails I keep getting... Plutonium27 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hypocritical? I don't demand respect from anyone, as my dealings in Indian caste articles will demonstrate (one's ego will quickly become very bruised if anticipating anything but angry rants coming their way). Snide, yes, but not hypocritical. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You presume that I presume about IRC? Got to admit, I do admire the nerve of such unabashed hypocritical snidery. Admins need all the tools they can get, these days. Presumably. So you see, I can't help you with your omnipotence problem personally, although I could fwd you heaps of these emails I keep getting... Plutonium27 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IRC is not the shadowy clique-ridden tool that you claimed to be. There were a few users who did abuse it back in 2006, and they got desysopped eventually. But I don't understand the several anti-IRC tools, he needs it for #wikipedia-en-help which is usually as backlogged with new users trying to get help with AFC submissions all the time. CharlieEchoTango left the project, so we need another administrator or two in there. That's a big need for the tools Secret account 16:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of how nice a place IRC is these days, he canvassed there which is deprecated here Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship and here Wikipedia:Advice_for_RfA_candidates. Maybe he did not read or understand that advice, or simply disregarded it. Leaky Caldron 16:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And how did you, having (I presume) never been on IRC, come to know what IRC is about? Do tell me, as I've long sought omnipotence. (I've only used IRC within the past few days, for one very specific purpose that will end within a couple weeks, so I claim no knowledge of what really goes on there). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, canvassing. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Logan.--В и к и T 16:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. (Trying to avoid repeating what everyone else have said) Well, once again IRC is demonstrated to be the source of many wiki problems. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Unlogged IRC is the antithesis of transparency, and soliciting votes through it shows questionable judgement. Skinwalker (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A dubious 'joke' whilst mid RFA shows little judgement. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was one of the relatively few good jokes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I am regretful about this !vote, but the IRC/canvassing issue and April Foolery while running for admin concern me. To be an admin, as I see it, you must not only avoid wrongdoing but the appearance of wrongdoing. Maturity is in the eye of the beholder; in my view, a bit more experience is called for before I approve a lifetime adminship on Wikipedia. I do thank the candidate for offering to serve and suggest another try later this year. Jusdafax 19:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The canvassing issue, the joke, and the many unclear responses to questions. Not comfortable supporting this candidate at this time. Perhaps in the future. --regentspark (comment) 20:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I can't support someone getting the tools when they disrupt WP during their RFA. April Fool's should be kept to the main page. SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – I can't support in light of the canvassing concerns Logan brings up. Sorry. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - unclear responses to questions, issues with IRC (and yes, I'm aware that IRC is not Wikipedia, but the candidate himself linked the two), and the recent proposal on WT:RFA all suggest that this candidate is not yet ready for adminship. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the above. Mis-use of IRC is a bog problem. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for a number of reasons: the IRC incident shows poor judgment, as does the April foolishness. Additionally, while you might say, "I generally don't want to handle controversial problems" (7A), I don't believe that it's possible for an admin to completely avoid controversy—few actions will have a unanimous consensus. Also, while your grasp of the English language is good, I'm not seeing that it's strong enough to always make yourself clear. For example, several of your answers above required multiple re-readings in order to guess what you might be trying to say. And lastly, you say that you were very busy this week (which happens to us all), but then, you had plenty of time to work on April Fool's jokes—should those really have been higher priority than answering questions about your RFA? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Making April Fools' jokes with other people's accounts does not reflect the maturity and judgment required of an administrator. Sandstein 11:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I was willing to overlook the IRC canvassing, but April Fools jokes during an RFA? Good way to demonstrate a lack of judgement and maturity. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The IRC message was ill-advised, but I do not believe that Mabdul was only seeking support votes with it, and it was not something serious enough (for me) to oppose outright. However, I think that performing April Fool's japes while going through an RfA shows unwise judgment (and that post on permissions would have been inappropriate even when someone is not up for RfA), and that combined with the aforementioned error convinces me to oppose this candidacy. I do find this a disappointment, as I do see Mabdul's name around and I think he does good work: I hope I can support him at a later date. Acalamari 12:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose! Making an April Fools joke like that shows lack of maturity, an administrator needs to be mature. Puffin Let's talk! 12:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per a great many things above. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral I really wish I could support, but I don't feel right supporting, per Logan. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ugh, I really truly hate to be here because I want to be in the support but I've seen the IRC quit message about this RFA and that gives me serious reservation. Hipocrite oppose is unconvincing. IRC is a tool and just because Hipocrite had a bad experience (because of his own fault), he shouldn't judge others who have had a more successful experience.--v/r - TP 00:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Issue addressed by Mabdul--v/r - TP 02:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bah, came here to support but the incredible lack of judgement in advertising this page over IRC has forced me to go here. — foxj 05:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral(Moved from Support till canvassing incident calms down) due to issues put in the Oppose section.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Though I would recommend any closer review the ArbCom positions gathered at WP:False consensus. I would likely support this person otherwise. Collect (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm here and not in oppose because the link in the Mabdul's IRC quit message was just that - a link, and I believe that canvassing is basically okay as long as the tone or word choice is not designed to influence voting or discussion in any way, but Mabdul should be aware that a lot of users who don't use IRC see it as cabalistic and, in some cases, a bit evil. It wasn't very well thought through. I might change my vote when Mabdul addresses people's concerns however, and if not, would likely support in future. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 23:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)moving to support. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Yes it was a mistake. As described in answer 8 I thought this would be the same as placing the rfa notice template since my IRC account is a) connected to my wikipedia profil and b) I'm only in wikipedia relevant channels. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - The IRC incident probably didn't bring any voters here who wouldn't have already come, but to post off-wiki announcements of an RfA (no matter how neutrally worded) is a lapse of judgment. And yes, IRC is most definitely off-wiki, equivalent to posting an announcement on twitter. Also, I'm a stickler for enwiki admins having a near perfect grasp of the english language, and while I understand the candidate is not a native english speaker (and I'm willing to be somewhat more lenient for that), there are still a few too many spelling and grammatical issues for me. Admins need to be able to explain things in a crystal clear fashion in the native language of the wiki. However, both the temporary lapse of judgment and the spelling/grammar issues are too minor for me to oppose. If this RfA doesn't pass successfully, I have no doubt that trying again in a few months (and being more careful on IRC) will result in a successful RfA. —SW— comment 02:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think Madbul will make a bad administrator? That he will abuse the admin tools? What I see here is an editor with an excellent command of WP policy, one that will make an excellent admin, one who made what at most could be described as a slight lapse of judgement. Well, guess what? We all do... Wikipedia needs new admins now and the increasing demands for perfection from adminship candidates will only serve to harm Wikipedia in the long run. Will smacking Madbul over the knuckles and making him wait for another six months before he starts helping out with the thankless task of clearing admin backlogs really help Wikipedia? Not a chance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I'm in the neutral section, not the oppose section. And I don't regard it as a smack over the knuckles, I see it as a wake-up call for the candidate that teaches him the level at which admins need to operate. I got a similar wake-up call 13 months ago, and it helped me. —SW— confer 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But your wake-up call was about actual stuff that one could discern was problematic from past precedent. Where's the rule that says one's IRC quit message can let friend and foe alike know the editor is currently up to RfA? Wouldn't one's friends already know when one is up at RFA?--Milowent • hasspoken 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it's important for an admin who is active on IRC to understand the difference between their off-wiki actions and their on-wiki actions, and that's what the wake-up call is about. Just because you're in the #wikipedia channel on IRC doesn't mean that you're not off-wiki, and this incident implies that Mabdul may not fully understand that distinction. You wouldn't post a link to your RfA on twitter, nor on facebook, nor would you spam it to dozens of email addresses, or hire an army of human billboards to advertise it to the world; and if you fully understood the role of IRC on Wikipedia, you wouldn't post it there either. To be clear, I agree with you that the quit message most likely didn't bring anyone here who wouldn't have found their way here otherwise, but that's not the point. —SW— confess 05:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But your wake-up call was about actual stuff that one could discern was problematic from past precedent. Where's the rule that says one's IRC quit message can let friend and foe alike know the editor is currently up to RfA? Wouldn't one's friends already know when one is up at RFA?--Milowent • hasspoken 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I'm in the neutral section, not the oppose section. And I don't regard it as a smack over the knuckles, I see it as a wake-up call for the candidate that teaches him the level at which admins need to operate. I got a similar wake-up call 13 months ago, and it helped me. —SW— confer 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think Madbul will make a bad administrator? That he will abuse the admin tools? What I see here is an editor with an excellent command of WP policy, one that will make an excellent admin, one who made what at most could be described as a slight lapse of judgement. Well, guess what? We all do... Wikipedia needs new admins now and the increasing demands for perfection from adminship candidates will only serve to harm Wikipedia in the long run. Will smacking Madbul over the knuckles and making him wait for another six months before he starts helping out with the thankless task of clearing admin backlogs really help Wikipedia? Not a chance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - The IRC incident does affect my position, but I do not feel that I can oppose this user. I have not seen the incident myself, which is one reason I would not be comfortable opposing. Also, I gather that the quit message posted was just a link - if it is deemed canvassing, it must be on the weak end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, with on-wiki opinion of IRC as it is, I would have expected a potential admin to realise to the problems this would have caused. This is a lack of judgement rather than a malicious attempt to canvass; a lack of judgement is enough to prompt my withdrawal of support, if not enough for an oppose. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I have no concerns that this user will deliberately misuse the mop. However, the response to this IRC incident has been underwhelming. I don't think the user violated WP:CANVASS, or at least not knowingly or purposefully. That said, his response to Q9 (about the IRC thing) gives me pause: the response contains a broken link to what I think was supposed to be wiktionary:legere. I'm not objecting to the probably-a-misspelling of Wiktionary as Wictinoary - I can't spell it either - but the carelessness of leaving the mistake in the message instead of proofing it concerns me. Furthermore, the actual legere page doesn't do any of the explaining he hopes it will, so it seems likely it wasn't checked either. Proofreading personal messages like this, especially when under stress, is the MOST important time to take care with what you type - it's frowned upon to go changing your comments later. Errors in articles are correctable, but errors in communication - at which an admin must excel - are sometimes irreversible. I'd prefer that an admin take more care with their messages when under stress. I won't oppose over a single instance, but I hope Mabdul may find this advice useful if this (or a later) RFA passes. (Also, I'm aware that by drawing attention to a typo, I've almost guarunteed there's one somewhere in this post...) -- stillnotelf is invisible 21:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'm not concerned by the canvassing issue. I am, however, concerned with this recent request for indefinite full protection of an article over a short-term content dispute. I would expect an admin candidate to know when to apply indefinite full vs. temporary full protection. Keeping neutral since I cannot tell if this was an unfortunate blip or something more worrying. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I think that Fetchcomms, Fluffernutter, and Wifione in the oppose section, and SW here in the neutral section, have done a good job of articulating what gives me pause. At the same time, I really do recognize that the candidate is someone with good intentions, who wishes the best for the project, and who has a good track record. I guess I come down, on balance, towards feeling somewhat like "not ready yet". I'd like to see the candidate take a few more months to work on communication and on really having mature judgment about community expectations. Do that, and I would expect a future RfA to sail through. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'm torn. The IRC quit message leaves me a little unsettled but not enough to oppose. However the idea that "I see the IRC as an improvement (of time) in relationship to the onwiki-discussions" bothers me more as I see it as a slippery slope that doesn't lead anywhere good. (I do agree that things like oversighting should be discussed off wiki for reasons of privacy.) On the positive side I admire the work and time that Mabdul puts into the help channel and I understand why the tools would be useful there. I'm also glad to hear Mabdul say he would be comfortable with a logged help channel. Cloveapple (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline Support Sadly I just can't move myself enough to support Mabdul right now. Per Fluffernutter, I don't think the intent was to canvass, and I don't agree with it being canvassing, but admins need to be able to show discretion when it comes to boderlines. I see this as a one time, never will happen again thing, so all best of wishes to Mabdul, but not today. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:25, 2 April 2012 (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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Scottywong
Final (89/4/11). Closed as successful by WilliamH (talk) at 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
Scottywong (talk · contribs) – This is my second time at RfA, and I had a slight username change since that time. My first RfA attempt can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snottywong. I have received several offers for RfA nominations, but in the end I prefer to self-nominate to avoid the politics of RfA. In my view, there were three primary reasons for the opposition to my first RfA, and I've tried to address all of them:
- ARS Opposition - Some editors thought I was unfairly critical and/or too emotional when it came to my opposition to some of the ways the Article Rescue Squadron works. In response to this concern, since my last RfA I have made a conscious reduction of my contributions to WT:ARS, I've stopped patrolling articles that are tagged for rescue, I've not participated in any arguments with ARS members, and I've even volunteered to code a bot task for the ARS which keeps track of articles that are tagged for rescue (which is no longer running since the rescue template was recently deleted).
- AfD comments and deletionism - Some editors thought my comments at some AfD's were too harsh, and that I was too deletionist to be trusted as an admin. In response to this concern, I strove to be more fair and level-headed in the AfD's to which I contributed. In AfD's in the last year, my !vote matched the eventual consensus about 85% of the time, and many of my votes were among the first votes for each AfD (in other words, I wasn't just adding pile-on votes to AfD's that already had strong consensus). Additionally, I voted "Keep" at about 18% of AfD's during this period. On average, 18.9% of AfD's close as Keep, so I think I'm squarely in the center as far as deletionism/inclusionism goes. You can find just about all of the AfD's I contributed to since my last RfA by using this link. I have edited over 1,000 AfD pages total throughout my time here.
- Divisive username - Some editors thought my previous username (Snottywong) was divisive and/or potentially could be interpreted as vulgar. Even though it was not intended as such, I have decided to be proactive and make a very minor change to assuage those concerns.
I hope you agree that I have sufficiently addressed the concerns made one year ago. Thanks for your time and consideration. —SW— converse 23:46, 22 March 2012 (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 am very familiar with the deletion processes, and could hit the ground running on closing XfD's and responding to speedy deletion and PROD requests. This is where I would likely work the most. I'm also well-versed in complex template syntax and would be capable of responding to {{editrequested}} requests on protected and/or high-use templates. Finally, being an experienced bot operator, I could respond to requests for adminbots. Most importantly, I know what I don't know, and therefore I won't go wandering recklessly into unfamiliar admin areas without having familiarized myself with their processes fully.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: The reason why I first registered an account was because there was no article on CobraNet, which is an important protocol in the industry in which I work. I spent a few months writing CobraNet and bringing it to GA. Later, I discovered the maintenance underworld of Wikipedia and took to that moreso than extensive writing. However, I still find time to write from time to time, and a short list of some articles I've written or significantly contributed to can be found on my user page. However, since my RfA last year, I've primarily delved into the realm of bots and tools, which is part of the reason why my edit count declined somewhat since the previous RfA (I'm not spending any less time on WP, but a chunk of that time is spent programming instead of editing). I now run a handful of bot tasks with User:Snotbot, and I've created some toolserver tools which are used by hundreds of users per day. My statistical analyses of various aspects of Wikipedia can be found on various pages throughout Wikipedia. I also try to help out from time to time at WP:AFC, WP:NPP, WP:GAC, and WP:3O.
- 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: It took me awhile to learn how to communicate effectively in the strange social environment of Wikipedia, but I think I've got it figured out now. Prior to my last RfA I was involved in some conflicts, some of which were perpetrated in part by me. I managed to keep them all in check, as evidenced by my clean block log, but they were still conflicts nonetheless, and unnecessary ones at that. However, since my last RfA, I can honestly say that I haven't participated in anything I would label as a "conflict". Some of this is because I've been concentrating largely on creating bots and tools (a solitary process without much potential for conflict), and some of this is because I've made a concerted effort to defuse any escalating discussions long before they rose to the level of "conflict".
- Optional questions from jc37
- In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
- 4. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
- 4a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?
- A: An editor should be blocked when it is believed that the block would prevent damage and/or disruption to Wikipedia.
- 4b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?
- A: Articles should be protected when they are being adversely affected by excessive edit warring, vandalism, or other persistent damaging/disruptive behavior. They should be unprotected once the underlying problem has been resolved. Many non-article pages (like high-use templates) are routinely protected indefinitely for various reasons.
- 4c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?
- A: A page should be speedily deleted if it strictly meets any of the various criteria listed at WP:CSD. It can be restored if it can be shown that the prior objections can be overcome.
- 4d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
- A: A rule should be ignored when it is sincerely believed that the rule is preventing the improvement or maintenance of the project.
- 5. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
- A: Evaluating a discussion for consensus is more of an art than a science. There is no step-by-step method by which you can instruct someone on how to determine consensus. With that said, consensus is evaluated primarily by judging the strength of each editor's argument, and whether or not that argument is congruous with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arguments that have no basis in policy, or that have been sufficiently refuted by other editors are generally removed from consideration. If, after removing invalid/tenuous/refuted arguments, there is a general agreement among most of the remaining editors, then a consensus has been achieved. Generally, there is no fundamental difference between evaluating consensus on talk pages, XfD's, or DRV's; except for minor adjustments for the various quirks of each area as well as their average participation rates.
- 6. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
- A: This depends largely on the specifics of the situation. If the situation is fairly tame and harmless, I might do nothing or simply encourage discussion. If the situation has progressed past 3RR, then both editors might receive either a stern warning or a 1-day block. If one of the editors is reverting a BLP violation or blatant vandalism, then they would likely receive praise while the other editor is blocked. Let me also note that it is not my intention to work in areas which require me to frequently block other editors.
- 7. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
- A: Anyone reading this right now is here because they believe in the project and want to improve it. This includes me. I'm aware of administrative backlogs that exist every day which I am capable of helping with, but don't have the tools to do so. I believe that I could improve the project more with the help of those tools.
- Additional questions from Whenaxis
- 8. Why have you participated in the request for comments on the Article Rescue Squadron, despite your history with the ARS, in close proximity to your RfA?
- A: A few reasons. Firstly, I haven't made adjustments to my behavior just because I knew I was going to make a request for adminship. Perhaps this was a mistake on my part, but I can assure you that what you see is what you get. Secondly, my history with the ARS has taught me that my previous battleground behaviors were unhelpful. So, I stopped battling, but didn't self-impose a complete topic ban on myself with respect to the ARS. I still occasionally post messages on their talk page and try to provide helpful ideas. As I mentioned in my self-nom statement, I also ran a bot task for them for awhile. I felt rather strongly that the recent RFC was misguided, and decided to post a statement on it.
- 9. In the event that someone alleges that you are abusing your administrator power, what will you do?
- A: If I felt that the accusation was genuine, I would probably start a thread at ANI asking for advice, and if others agreed that I was abusing my admin privileges, I would do whatever is required to undo what I've done. I think I have a strong track record of not having a problem with admitting when I'm wrong.
- Optional question from —cyberpower ChatOffline
- 10. Because of this discussion that took place not too long ago, I find it necessary to know if you prefer fruits or vegetables as I will basing my vote off of this.
- A: I hope that my preference for fleshy seed coverings will sway your vote.
- Additional question from Achowat
- 11. You have indicated an interest in working XfDs; as someone who is active in MFD, I would like to ask you what your opinion of WP:FAKEARTICLE is. Specifically consider the situation where User:FrankRovin has set up a page (page [[User:FrankRovin]]) that uses familiar formatting to an article. The page has an infobox, a free use picture (of Frank, or so he claims) is broken up into sections with a Table of Contents, etc. However, the content of the article is not tremendously more detailed than what one might expect from UBXs (Nationality, Country of Origin, WikiProjects, alma mater, etc), though there is a tremendous amount of it. It is written in the Third Person; for instance, there is an Education subsection that contains such phrases as "Rovin attended Cambridge University in 2002, graduating with a Masters in 2007." Do you believe WP:FAKEARTICLE applies to this situation?}}
- A: I generally fall somewhat on the liberal side when it comes to editors using their own userspace. The situation you describe is squarely in the gray area of WP:FAKEARTICLE, and could fall either way depending on the details. For instance, you mention that Frank's user page includes an infobox, however consider that {{Infobox user}} is an infobox that is designed for and apparently acceptable to be used on one's user page. Using that infobox would certainly be more acceptable than one that is designed for use in articles. In summary, it's unlikely that I would personally bring Frank's user page to MfD, I would probably just ask him to add something like {{User page}} to the top of it to make it clear that it's not an article.
General comments
- Links for Scottywong: Scottywong (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Scottywong can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- Edit stats are on the talk page. →Στc. 05:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Previous RFAs box added. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- One of our more experienced and hard-working editors, happy to support. 28bytes (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with 28bytes, and I think that the concerns from the earlier RfA have been addressed. —DoRD (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have seen this user around quite a few times and am surprised his first RfA was a bust. Plus this user likes fruit so, I hope it goes better this time.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great editor, no significant issues, great work at WP:XFD. Bmusician 00:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This user is technically savvy and will be a welcome addition to the admin-corps. He has addressed the concerns raised in his last bid for adminship. I am happy to support. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute, 100%, full support. Scottywong, Kudpung, and I did a huge amount of work together to prepare WP:ACTRIAL, and while we know what happened there he really proved his worth. He's done a tremendous amount of good, and he's fully suited for adminship. I look forward to seeing him in our admin corps. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)And as a strong agnostic myself, and a huge fan of Into Eternity, Rush, and Mayhem, I'm all on board with the userboxes being complained about in Oppose 1.[reply]
- Support I have been watching over his edits since i saw this pettish comments in RfA talkpage. I was surprised to see that acctually this user is a genuine editor and has done good edits since i have seen them atleast. I dont find anything wrong about them. Yasht101 01:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Useful editor with clue. That's what matters. Alarbus (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I think Scottywong has done a very good job at allaying the concerns expressed by the community at the previous RfA. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seen him about the place, seems to know what's up. — foxj 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I too have seen him around quite a bit, and have no doubt he'll serve the project well as an admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think he's a bit blunt at times, I think he will make an excellent administrator. Secret account 03:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I did indeed oppose Scotty's last RfA, his work since then has been exemplary. I have no concerns. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. An active and thoughtful editor who will make a good admin. A little bluntness is actually quite a useful thing. --regentspark (comment) 05:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Yes, definitely. One of the most active and famous users of Wikipedia, who can be trusted with the tool. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 05:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have encountered Scotty across AfDs, where, for a change, he's the one who's pointed out corrections to me. His contribution in AfCs is also quite sincere. Scotty should necessarily take into account the points that Keifer mentions. Unfortunately, as an admin, there is no leeway for quid pro quos in encomiums, and Scotty has to accept that without qualifications if he wishes to be an admin. I've come across Keifer and my personal opinion of him is quite positive. And I'm sure Keifer would reconsider his opposition to Scotty considering the work he's done for the project. Wifione Message 07:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I agree that Scottywong is an excellent member of the project, and his bot work has been particularly valuable. Indeed, in the previously mentioned discussion of "fruit", I was the first to welcome him back from his WikiBreak, partly to let him know that I wish him well and have a generally favorable impression of him. If he would declare that he will avoid using the tools in dealing with content-editors (and remove the "DefCon" box about new articles, which also suggests a problem still with this deletionist tendencies ...) I would weaken my opposition or even withdraw it. Wanting to become an administrator has and becoming one probably would improve the conduct of about any editor---crooked timber of humanity and all that... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Seems unually honest and honourable. Doesn't seem to bear grudges; Ive seen them defend rescue squad members with whom they've previously had extended disputes. Also technically competent and seems happy to help out any editor regardless of standing – think they'll make an excellent addition to the admin core. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Fit enough to be a admin.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 12:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Experienced in the right areas, and in general. Forthright, but not uncivil. Technically competent. High level communication skills. Helpful. Analytical. Trustworthy. These are all ticks. No big red crosses I can see, so easy to support. Begoon talk 12:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I am old fashioned and still believe that if you are trusted and technically competent to have the tools then why not... I see no reason to say no, so yes. QU TalkQu 14:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Keifer's issues are long in the past, and while I am diametrically opposed to ScottyWong both politically and theologically, that doesn't really matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - issues in the Oppose seem non-convincing. Relative lack of content creation is a small concern, but having a process-heavy Admin isn't the worst thing in the world. Achowat (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as no concerns. This editor has made invaluable contributions not only to the Wiki but toolserver as well, with multiple useful tools being available created by Scottywong. I also think the opposes are just exaggerated paragraphs of old grievances and not terribly convincing. I see nothing to make me not vote 'support'. Rcsprinter (yak) 17:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think Scotty has come a long way since his last RfA. He is a skilled and hardworking editor. He clearly has the technical know-how to be given the tools and any previous concerns I may have had about his temperament, have been overcome. Pol430 talk to me 19:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Don't see any reason not to. Head is sufficiently screwed on, won't get into anything stupid. AfD always needs more admins. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm convinced that SW has sincerely looked in the mirror since the previous RfA, and that he has the best interests of the project at heart. This is someone I trust not to overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Even though this candidate has made mistakes in the past, he has significantly adjusted his attitude that I am confident enough to support this candidate. The actions that he has undertaken since his previous RfA have shown high levels of maturity and effectively counteracts the actions of his past. At the start of the RfA, I was hesitant to support this candidate because of reasons mentioned in the Oppose and Neutral sections of this RfA as well as his previous attitude up until his previous RfA, however, now I am comfortable with vesting powerful admin tools to this candidate without a doubt in my mind. I would like to see this candidate expand further into other administrator actions that he is not so familiar with such as request for page protection and responding to the administrator's noticeboard upon the closure of this adminship. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Overall seems to be a good editor. There have been issues with conduct in the past, but most of what has been raised is not recent, suggesting that Scottywong has moved on and matured since any problems. Unless and until evidence of harassment and incivility from recent discussions is provided, I am happy to support this candidate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support despite the change in the name. Seen SW around a lot, never had a problem with them. Probably knows a damn sight more than I do about how things work in this place. If there have been issues about civility, I feel sure there won't be more than from others currently wielding mops. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why not. I've seen his signature around plenty of times and I think he'd make a great administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see any reason to oppose.--В и к и T 23:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – someone who I know will handle the tools brilliantly. Airplaneman ✈ 04:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've WikiKnown SW for around a year now, and (having done my usual thing of stalking around someone's communications contributions) I can certainly say that I've noticed a significant improvement in terms of "bluntness". SW is hugely clueful and I don't foresee any risk of the tools being abused whatsoever, which is why I'm happy to support. Just a word of advice - the "blunt instrument" is still just a tad heavy-handed occasionally, usually in situations where SW has had previous history with another user, and in those cases it seems very often six of one and half a dozen of the other, but worth considering continuing to improve in this area. It's certainly not a major problem, at all, and I'm sure SW won't mind me saying this; there's just room for a bit more polishing on this front. :o) Pesky (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Every editor makes mistakes at some point of time and Scottywong is no different. The user had been in some conflicts and disputes in the past and most of them seem to have been solved. User intends to work in some of the administrative areas of the project and should be given a chance to use these tools wisely. TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - whenever I have encountered SW on noticebiards or elsewhere I have found then to be helpful & informative, and see nothing of great concern. GiantSnowman 09:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- support I still worry about maturity issues, but on the whole find SW to have become a much more reasonable editor. The name change helped too. He's always been helpful, just occasionally very difficult. I'm seeing the helpful continue and the difficult largely fall away. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Has shown a lot of improvement since his last RfA. We all learn from experience, and I believe Scottywong, having gone through many trials and tribulations, has learned many lessons along the way on what it means to be an outstanding Wikipedian. We can confidently give him the keys to the janitor's closet. -- Ϫ 14:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Will make a fine admin. No real concerns. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After a sampling of about 200 edits throughout his career, and paying special attention to the editors bringing forward concerns in the oppose category, I agree Scotty has leveled off from where he once was. He certainly does not sugarcoat his stance on content, but plain honesty is hard to come by these days. His earlier actions aside, a proficient and active contributor. I fully support his candidacy. An Illusive Man (Contact) 20:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I do note the comments by Kiefer below, but they don't concern me to a degree that would lead to me opposing. It's a net positive thing. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 21:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You have matured so much in the past year that I am more than willing to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, and gladly. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I don't know this editor very well, I've seen him making decent comments at ANI before.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've never found SW to be an unreasonable person bumping into his comments here and there and I've got confidence that he'll be a reliable administrator. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I opposed the RfA of 13 months ago, and said then that I hoped to support in the future. I have seen significant improvement in this editor's behavior since then. I, too, like to be an early participant in AfD debates when possible, so that my opinion is not unduly influenced by those of others. His work with bots is impressive and using one of them has helped me develop useful insights into my own participation at AfD, and of the participation of others. My interactions with him have been cordial since then. Kiefer Wolfowitz raises some legitimate concerns, but given that the incident happened nearly a year ago, I will offer ScottyWong the benefit of the doubt. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I supported last time, and I see no reason not to do the same now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. While issues of civility often concern me, it is rare to a significant pattern of incivility by SW that would cause me to oppose. Great improvements since last RFA. Full support. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good editor and one who definitely has the experience needed. I'm very familiar with his work and he'll be a great addition to the admin corps. Shadowjams (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good candidate with experience in lots of areas. Happy to support an editor with whom I have agreed and disagreed so pleasantly. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Familiar with SW's work, he clearly knows his way around WP. No problems expected. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very useful contributor.Merging people in meh Chambah. (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 02:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User has overcome concerns raised in previous RFA which was in Feb 2011 and has waited for an year before coming back to RFA again.Feel the project will only gain with user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen 03:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; I think SW is competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the tools. bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose the username change equally strongly support the RFA Spartaz Humbug! 14:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A thoroughly competent editor. No reason to fear handing him the mop. Rivertorch (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has always seemed like an intelligent and adept editor to me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per previous interactions, through the work I observed attempting to put together ACTRIAL, and per a review of random contributions. I am confident that allowing SW access to the tools will prove beneficial to the encyclopedia. --joe deckertalk to me 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - "Scotty" has addressed everything that gave me pause in the last RfA (when I was neutral). --Orlady (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Will be a positive addition to the Admin Corps, although I prefer his old username.--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - See no concerns. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - use your powers for good, sir. I'll miss our old fights as you have become all too respectable. cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no more concerns. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an interesting one. I didn't really have a problem with the previous username, but I think it was one symptom of what could be called immaturity. It's not very often that an editor completely takes to heart the words of their critics and becomes not just a better editor, but even an editor almost unrecognisable from their former self. It's obvious that Scotty has matured (and perhaps mellowed) considerably since, and partly as a result of, his previous RfA, and so I think he is such an editor. He's come a long way in a year, and I think he's ready to realise the potential he always had to be a damn good admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm taking it on trust that
SnottyScottywong hasn't just changed temporarily to get this promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Support. Great user, seen a lot at AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Whenever I've seen him, he's done well. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 06:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be able to be trusted with the tools. Mrlittleirish 14:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a good user from what I've seen. Mato (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -Great responses to all the questions above, appears to have the right stuff to be an admin.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Supported last time. No reason whatsoever to change my opinion. Reyk YO! 21:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Scottywong has worked hard to address and overcome earlier concerns. I believe he has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and will do a great job helping the admin crew keep the backlogs clear. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (tentatively). Is dedicated? yes. Has technical knowhow and familiarity with the project to be of benefit? Yes. Deletion-minded mindset should not be too much of an issue as long as not closing too many AfDs in one direction. Will be barraged by DRVs if this occurs anyway. Ultimately worth a trial with the mop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Should be fine. AniMate 02:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Since his last rfa, candidate has improved. Good answers to the above information. Time to give him a shot at some janitor duties. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 04:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Though I have not interacted closely with him, I have seen Scotty doing good things here and there over the years. He strikes me as someone who would do good things with the buttons. -Pete (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 11:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Érico msg 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There has definitely been an improvement since the last RfA, and I'm hoping we'll see Scottywong continue to improve. I think Scottywong does good work, and I am happy to support his RfA. Acalamari 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems reasonable. Frank | talk 21:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good luck, hopefully you'll do well...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support lots of good work, and frankly the who the folks are in the "oppose" column speaks almost as well for this candidate as the "support" column does. :-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Helpful One 22:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- I appreciate that Scottywong has read comments at his last RfA and made some improvements. However, his statement that he has avoided conflicts since his last RfA omits his conflicts with myself, e.g. about "No one cares which version of the 2,000-year-old fairy tale you believe in": Other statements that suggest that approving his RfA would be premature: (a) "But while WikiProject Atheism is still active, shut the hell up and keep your misguided religious blubbering to yourself." (b) "Whatever. I'll let the recent additions to my userboxes speak for themselves. Thanks to Keepscases for alerting me to their existence." ScottyWong had added 4 anti-religious boxes. (c) "If you feel the need to block me, then just block me. Empty threats will not change my behavior (but then again, neither would a block)." Perhaps in 6-12 months if severe personal-attacks or personal attacks with the appearance of hostility towards groups have stopped. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'll be the first to admit that my comments were a bit over the top, I'd like to also point out that the comments were made nearly a year ago, it was an isolated incident, and the cause of my emotional over-reaction was your assertion that atheists are a hate group. I think even you'd agree that this was only a brief argument that didn't rise to the level of a "conflict". I'm sorry that our argument has caused you to believe that I am unsuitable for adminship. —SW— converse 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have confused me with Keepscases, who objected to the user-boxes, which you then added, directly to spite him and Fetchcomms. When you were still "Snottywong", in November you made personal attacks against Badger Drink in his RfC---good editor and "frankly a troll" .... who ..."seems to go out of his way to be as insulting and outrageous as possible. I can only surmise why he feels the need to do this; it could be that he just gets a kick out of watching everyone freak out whenever he lets loose, it could be that he enjoys the copious attention he gets"---- that you did not retract even after your violation of WP:NPA were pointed out. Having violated NPA so severely at a recent RfC/U, you should withdraw your nomination. Good luck in 6--12 months. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was initially going to write something very harsh, but decided a more tactful approach would help. I think the distinction between bluntness and incivility can be difficult at times, but in the case of Badger Drink's RfC I thought it was firmly in the bluntness category. Badger Drink did display every behavioral characteristic that Scottywong wrote about, so I can't see it as a personal attack. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Blade, Scottywong did violate WP:NPA by speculating about psychological problems of BadgerDrink, rather than behavior. I did not object to Scottywong's discussion of behavior, and you can see that I signed statements critical of BD's behavior (as I have when there has been discussion about improving behavior of other editors, including friends and myself 12:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was initially going to write something very harsh, but decided a more tactful approach would help. I think the distinction between bluntness and incivility can be difficult at times, but in the case of Badger Drink's RfC I thought it was firmly in the bluntness category. Badger Drink did display every behavioral characteristic that Scottywong wrote about, so I can't see it as a personal attack. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have confused me with Keepscases, who objected to the user-boxes, which you then added, directly to spite him and Fetchcomms. When you were still "Snottywong", in November you made personal attacks against Badger Drink in his RfC---good editor and "frankly a troll" .... who ..."seems to go out of his way to be as insulting and outrageous as possible. I can only surmise why he feels the need to do this; it could be that he just gets a kick out of watching everyone freak out whenever he lets loose, it could be that he enjoys the copious attention he gets"---- that you did not retract even after your violation of WP:NPA were pointed out. Having violated NPA so severely at a recent RfC/U, you should withdraw your nomination. Good luck in 6--12 months. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Opposehostile and offensive language is not the kind of thing I look for in an admin. I'll have to oppose for now.--White Shadows One eye watching you 01:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Can you tell me that, what and where offensive did Scooty write? Yasht101 02:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, please give us a diff in which Scottywong used "hostile and offensive language". Bmusician 10:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this user simply read Oppose #1 and decided to make a second oppose out of it.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 11:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I remind other editors not to pile on useless comments such as "Yeah, please give us a diff" or "then prove it and show us" when such a request has already been made? Not everyone is on Wikipedia every minute of their lives; asking thrice will not make a diff appear any faster. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to everyone if i was rude. Yasht101 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that I'm not able to be on Wikipedia as often as I used to. My opposition is based on previous encounters with Snotty (before he changed his name). I did NOT though, just join the non-existent bandwagon.--White Shadows One eye watching you 22:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to everyone if i was rude. Yasht101 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, please give us a diff in which Scottywong used "hostile and offensive language". Bmusician 10:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
#Oppose (maybe) I am not convinced it is learning from experience, as contrasted with a temporary accommodation in order to get the mop. Others have done this, though I accept it is necessary to judge each person individually.Going by overall percent agreement at AfD is not really evidence--anyone could easily show themselves in any direction desired by commenting only when there was already a clear consensus.DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- "anyone could easily show themselves in any direction desired by commenting only when there was already a clear consensus." But that's precisely what Scotty says he wasn't doing, in the nomination above. Do you dispute that statement? Begoon talk 02:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing the oppose, on the grounds that perhaps i was unfairly pessimistic DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'll be the first to admit that my comments were a bit over the top, I'd like to also point out that the comments were made nearly a year ago, it was an isolated incident, and the cause of my emotional over-reaction was your assertion that atheists are a hate group. I think even you'd agree that this was only a brief argument that didn't rise to the level of a "conflict". I'm sorry that our argument has caused you to believe that I am unsuitable for adminship. —SW— converse 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per "In AfD's [typo] in the last year, my !vote matched the eventual consensus about 85% of the time, and many of my votes were among the first votes for each AfD (in other words, I wasn't just adding pile-on votes to AfD's that already had strong consensus). Additionally, I voted "Keep" at about 18% of AfD's during this period." It seems like you are just doing what others want you to do and "among the first votes," I do not think that it's that good. We could just see your AfD edits easily. You are pointing out the obvious and it's facts that are not that helpful to know. Don't go with the flow, but be more independant (only bound to the policies). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A similar comment was made in the neutral section below, and I feel it would be best if I clarify why I decided to add those statistics to my self-nom statement. There seems to be a perception that after my last RfA, I calculated how many articles are kept at AfD on average, and then went around AfD making sure that I vote in exactly that proportion, to make everyone think I'm being a good boy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, as I was preparing for my RfA, I thought about how I could quantitatively demonstrate that my voting tendencies at AfD are centrist, not deletionist. Since I already had previously completed a study to figure out the frequency of different results at AfD, I decided to compare how often I vote to keep articles to how often articles are kept. It turned out the two percentages were very close, so I simply decided to mention that.
- I understand why the abundance of statistics may make you come to the conclusion that you did, but just because I'm aware of my voting statistics doesn't mean that I'm conspiring to manipulate them. The comment about often being among the first voters was meant to demonstrate just that; as it would be quite difficult to manipulate your voting statistics while being among the first to vote at many AfD's, while conversely it would be quite easy to do that if I just popped by at the end of AfD's that were about to snow close and add a vote.
- It may also just be that I tend to think about things mathematically more often than most other people. In any case, you're obviously free to oppose if that's how you feel, but I thought I'd attempt to clear up that misconception. —SW— express 01:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose He does some interesting technical work and seems to have mellowed a bit but his experience of the actual business of content creation still seems too small. And as he still seems to be a dogged deletionist, I don't think he can be trusted in that department. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paraguayans. That seems to be a fairly plain and simple list but his opinion is "This list is not maintainable and serves no useful purpose." As we have lists of people for just about every nationality which are clearly being maintained and finding some usage, this seems too disruptively destructive to be trusted with the delete function. And on the other side, I've observed his actions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation from time to time where his standard response seems to be "Declining submission". If he created some content himself, this negativity might be ok but it just seems to be one-way traffic. Warden (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think that a user's opinion about what should be kept and deleted is different from what they would keep and delete as admins? I mean, I regularly delete stuff I wouldn't like deleted, as an admin my job is to follow and apply the policies, whether I disagree with them is immaterial, while an AfD is based on editor's opinion and the building of consensus thru it. I really would hope that one can differ between one's own opinion, and voice it on talk pages (and AfD are discussion pages in practice) and consensus and policies, which should be applied regardless of one's own private ideas. Just my two cents. Snowolf How can I help? 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen numerous cases where an admin has ignored the consensus or lack of same and imposed their own opinion of the matter. SW seems to be strong-willed and opinionated and so seems likely to behave in this way. And when you have a rogue admin, it's just about impossible to do anything about it. Better safe than sorry. Warden (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I disagree with the approach, but it's far from being baseless, sadly. Snowolf How can I help? 19:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen numerous cases where an admin has ignored the consensus or lack of same and imposed their own opinion of the matter. SW seems to be strong-willed and opinionated and so seems likely to behave in this way. And when you have a rogue admin, it's just about impossible to do anything about it. Better safe than sorry. Warden (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as you may dislike it, a desire to work primarily on the deletion side of content is not a negative for the encyclopedia. Previous opposition has largely been because editors in good standing perceived SW to have the same sort of attitude towards deletion as you do to inclusion, namely a disruptive battleground mentality. SW has improved while you have not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 99% of the encyclopedia is still unfinished but the barriers to entry continue to rise and so the project is threatened. An admin class which is relentlessly hostile and negative is not good for Wikipedia's future. The Foundation is alive to the problem and that's why they would not implement SW's ideas about article creation. Warden (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to oppose on the grounds that you do not trust SW to obey WP's existing guidelines on content deletion then that's one thing. Opposing simply on his ideology is quite another. I would imagine that those few editors involved in the XfD process who are unfamiliar with your own history would prefer recent examples of such behaviour to consider such opposition valid. To be quite honest a large part of the reason I'm neutral is because SW (formerly, though awaiting further evidence) acted in the same sort of "bulldog" role as yourself at AfD in order to counter the formerly-prevalent case of AfD having a host of ever-present inclusionists to stifle the process on ideological grounds. In a way this was valuable, but it's something we don't expect from admins. I'd like to think (and hope to be convinced) that SW has moved on from that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletionist ideology is very relevant to this discussion because access to the delete function is at issue here. Someone who doesn't want to create content but only wants to delete it is not suitable as an admin because they lack a good appreciation of the heartache and discouragement which is provoked by such action. Why should editors volunteer to have their work sniffed at and then destroyed by someone who does no such work himself? Please see the parable of The Chicken and the Pig. Warden (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing that always gets me about this line is that anyone from high school onward who is aware of the term "editing" should surely be aware of what that entails. But never mind. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I disagree with Warden's conclusion, I think his rationale is reasonable. All he is saying, I think, is that an editor with a strong deletionist bent and little content experience may not be best suited to use the deletion tools available to an admin (or, to put it another way, you need to have created content extensively to be able to delete wisely). He isn't opposing merely on the grounds of ideological differences. --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have admins in good standing of both persuasions. Hell, we've had Arbs of both persuasions. The crucial thing is not what an editor believes: it's how that editor applies himself. "Little content experience" is an orthogonal aspect, and IMO it's primarily an issue where the candidate does not appear to be interested in content (spending all his time on user talk, or ANI), whereas SW is certainly interested in content even if his direct editing of such is less than the average candidate these days (bearing mind mind that we have plenty of admins in good standing from back when 1000 mainspace edits was considered an appropriate milestone). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why I disagree with his conclusion (or !vote). But the thought itself is not an unreasonable one and it did put a small ? in my thinking. A very small one :) --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have admins in good standing of both persuasions. Hell, we've had Arbs of both persuasions. The crucial thing is not what an editor believes: it's how that editor applies himself. "Little content experience" is an orthogonal aspect, and IMO it's primarily an issue where the candidate does not appear to be interested in content (spending all his time on user talk, or ANI), whereas SW is certainly interested in content even if his direct editing of such is less than the average candidate these days (bearing mind mind that we have plenty of admins in good standing from back when 1000 mainspace edits was considered an appropriate milestone). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I disagree with Warden's conclusion, I think his rationale is reasonable. All he is saying, I think, is that an editor with a strong deletionist bent and little content experience may not be best suited to use the deletion tools available to an admin (or, to put it another way, you need to have created content extensively to be able to delete wisely). He isn't opposing merely on the grounds of ideological differences. --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing that always gets me about this line is that anyone from high school onward who is aware of the term "editing" should surely be aware of what that entails. But never mind. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletionist ideology is very relevant to this discussion because access to the delete function is at issue here. Someone who doesn't want to create content but only wants to delete it is not suitable as an admin because they lack a good appreciation of the heartache and discouragement which is provoked by such action. Why should editors volunteer to have their work sniffed at and then destroyed by someone who does no such work himself? Please see the parable of The Chicken and the Pig. Warden (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to oppose on the grounds that you do not trust SW to obey WP's existing guidelines on content deletion then that's one thing. Opposing simply on his ideology is quite another. I would imagine that those few editors involved in the XfD process who are unfamiliar with your own history would prefer recent examples of such behaviour to consider such opposition valid. To be quite honest a large part of the reason I'm neutral is because SW (formerly, though awaiting further evidence) acted in the same sort of "bulldog" role as yourself at AfD in order to counter the formerly-prevalent case of AfD having a host of ever-present inclusionists to stifle the process on ideological grounds. In a way this was valuable, but it's something we don't expect from admins. I'd like to think (and hope to be convinced) that SW has moved on from that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 99% of the encyclopedia is still unfinished but the barriers to entry continue to rise and so the project is threatened. An admin class which is relentlessly hostile and negative is not good for Wikipedia's future. The Foundation is alive to the problem and that's why they would not implement SW's ideas about article creation. Warden (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think that a user's opinion about what should be kept and deleted is different from what they would keep and delete as admins? I mean, I regularly delete stuff I wouldn't like deleted, as an admin my job is to follow and apply the policies, whether I disagree with them is immaterial, while an AfD is based on editor's opinion and the building of consensus thru it. I really would hope that one can differ between one's own opinion, and voice it on talk pages (and AfD are discussion pages in practice) and consensus and policies, which should be applied regardless of one's own private ideas. Just my two cents. Snowolf How can I help? 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opppose - Getting called a "raging dick" by this user for fulfilling his request in his AfD didn't leave the best impression.[4] His quote was "If you weren't such a raging dick about it, I'd consider withdrawing the nomination", thereby belaboring the project's time continuing an AfD that he himself felt should've been withdrawn. Not comfortable with this person being an admin.--Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that, the comment made by SW was a long time ago. After going through his edits before their 1st RfA and after, there you can see a notable change in him. Even, probably his name was
'Snooty''Snotty' spelling mistake which is now'Scooty''Scotty' spelling mistake AGAIN. This shows that how willing this user is for improvement. By calling dick, i dont think, he ment for any kind of offence to you. Though your oppose is resonable as that comment was a bad one, still it is little rough as this user changed his attitude after unsuccessful RfA and learned a lot. Yasht101 :) 03:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] - What could "raging dick" mean? Maybe ScottyWong was referring to Lacan or Kristeva? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think
SnottyScotty was referring to Oakshade only. Because Oakshade's comment probably enraged them: These were all as easy to find as your examples. You didn't by any chance come across these and ignore them? In any event, your attempt to show these articles should be deleted because you feel no similar articles exist is only backfiring. Yasht101 :) 11:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Ah.... *Moment of clarity* "When we point at someone else, we have three fingers pointing back at ourselves." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Well said sir. That grumpy response from SW was 2 years back and since then they did make few changes in their comments. I think, both the editors are in fault in one or other way for the enraged-not-related-to-subject comments BTW, Rageaholic needs little Wikification so I have tagged it under wikify template with reason of a infobox missing Yasht101 :) 11:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah.... *Moment of clarity* "When we point at someone else, we have three fingers pointing back at ourselves." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think
- I think that, the comment made by SW was a long time ago. After going through his edits before their 1st RfA and after, there you can see a notable change in him. Even, probably his name was
Neutral
- Neutral. Scottywong has a good understanding of AfD. However his signature does not actually include his username, which can make it difficult to find his comment in a page. "SW" is not sufficiently distinctive to ease searching. I am also disappointed by the "non-apology apology" in response to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's !vote. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it help that User:SW redirects to my user page and User talk:SW redirects to my user talk page? —SW— confer 01:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I've never had anyone complain that my sig isn't the same as my username. —DoRD (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor I. -- Ϫ 01:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But wouldn't the newly created redirect be confusing if a new user called SW arrives and demand that you remove the redirect? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I could probably just created a doppelgänger account to prevent that from happening. Or, I could just change my sig to include my full name. —SW— chat 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But wouldn't the newly created redirect be confusing if a new user called SW arrives and demand that you remove the redirect? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor I. -- Ϫ 01:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Awaiting responses to my questions. Let's see the responses and I'll decide whether to support or oppose this candidate. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 01:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to have improved his attitude and behaviour in recent months, but this RfA may be too soon, and the lack of mainspace contributions is a concern. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see any admin working in deletions to have more article-writing experience; however, Scottywong has taken steps to alleviate many of the problems perceived by voters in the last RfA, and I applaud him for doing so. I may change my mind, depending on how this RfA plays out ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now. The talk page shows 20+ edits on only 4 articles, and only 2K article edits, which is less than I'd look for. Average total edits for Jan-March 2012 fewer than 200 per month, much less than 2011 average. Have seen him around being fairly abrasive. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral There was something that SW did in just the past week or two that I remember thinking, "Wow, that won't help him if he decides to run for admin." It was something that bothered me and if I could remember what it was, would probably move me to the oppose column. But since I can't recall what it was or what it was about, I'll simply go neutral with the caveat that I have some concerns about his passing.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having had any significant interactions (or any interactions at all) with the user, I was rather puzzled by the heavy emphasis on what I think are meaningless AfD vote statistics in the nomination statement. AfD is not a vote, and what should matter and be valued there are the user's comments and arguments, not what % of the time they come on one or the other side of the argument. It is rather worrying to see a (likely) future admin placing so much emphasis on this, especially given it's clear that AfD is not a vote but an occasion for consensus determination. However, the lengthy list of supports above and the lack of any mention of this issue seems to suggest that so many others did not found this reason to be worried, and likely they have had more chances to personally notice if that is indeed the approach of the user or a misplaced emphasis issue, as such I will stay neutral while voicing my concern. Snowolf How can I help? 18:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreeing with exactly your point, I did a comparatively extended look into the AfD issue - again, nothing that hasn't been said. A little heavy handed at times, but most of those times are quite a while ago. I still think despite these relatively minor etiquette issues, handing him the mop won't blow up the encyclopedia. I trust him enough to endorse him as a sysop. He hasn't done anything so controversial to throw away his positive track record overall, and I think a few people are blowing things out of proportion. Things like this are the reason I hear so many editors on IRC compare RfA to Chinese water torture. An Illusive Man (Contact) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi An Illusive Man! Please disclose all of any previous account(s), or at least whether any are blocked or facing bans of any kind. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any torture (e.g., "Chinese" (sic.) water torture) must be gentler than facing only my ferocious opposition, which encourages him to apply in 6 months! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that a RfA is a "Chinese water torture" comes from a statement that Werdna (talk · contribs) made back in 2006. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any torture (e.g., "Chinese" (sic.) water torture) must be gentler than facing only my ferocious opposition, which encourages him to apply in 6 months! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi An Illusive Man! Please disclose all of any previous account(s), or at least whether any are blocked or facing bans of any kind. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will check back and move my !vote when I have time to look into edit history. No reasons to Oppose or Support as of yet. Mrlittleirish 00:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Moving to support Mrlittleirish 14:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreeing with exactly your point, I did a comparatively extended look into the AfD issue - again, nothing that hasn't been said. A little heavy handed at times, but most of those times are quite a while ago. I still think despite these relatively minor etiquette issues, handing him the mop won't blow up the encyclopedia. I trust him enough to endorse him as a sysop. He hasn't done anything so controversial to throw away his positive track record overall, and I think a few people are blowing things out of proportion. Things like this are the reason I hear so many editors on IRC compare RfA to Chinese water torture. An Illusive Man (Contact) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I've worked with Scottywong a number of times, and I think he's one of the best editors we have out there, technically minded, hardworking and overall a great asset to the community. However, he just doesn't meet what I'm looking for in an admin - who not only has the ability (which Scotty undoubtably has) but also the temperment which would allow him or her to deal with problematic editors or difficult situations. I'm not certain that Scotty does have that temperment, and as such I cannot offer my full support. At the same time, I'm not willing to oppose this hard working editor. WormTT · (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For now. Can't remember any recent cases where SW's behaviour has left a bad taste in my mouth, and in general he's a clueful editor who has done a great deal of bridge-building in the inclusionism wars, but I'm still apprehensive of supporting a candidate who definitely wasn't suitable this time last year due to temperament and attitude concerns. And I know it's a trivial thing, and I know it shouldn't impact on someone's suitability for the mop, but I didn't even realise he'd changed his username on accounts of using a daft custom sig that hides most of it. Looking for positive reasons to support other than the mitigation of previous negatives. Not that it looks like it's going to matter at this juncture. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Others seem to have a better recent experience with the candidate than what I'm seeing looking through their contribution history. That said, we all have our off days, and I'll defer to those above who suggest that it's probably not enough to oppose - but as adminship is given indefinitely, and admins should be able to civilly communicate with others, it's definitely a concern. I hope the candidate keeps these concerns in mind for the future when they are granted the tools and responsibilities of adminship. (As it looks like they will be.) - jc37 22:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I am a little concerned about the lack of article edits, (~20% and mostly on pages they have themselves created), the large amount of involvement at ANI, and the number of times disputes have occurred.
- While I appreciate there have been efforts to improve behaviour I cannot condone a support vote at this time, especially with some of the comments in Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Proposal: Rename this project to WikiProject Rescue. I do have respect for them though and so am not voting oppose. If something can convince me of reasons for those recent off-hand comments I would consider voting support. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not part of my consideration, I would like to point out that SW is a little difficult to search for!
- Maybe that explains why SnottyWong changed his signature immediately after his failed RfA? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, not because I have any blocking concerns about this candidate, but because community norms seem to demand it. I see no participation in speedies, yet this is one of the areas in which the editor is proposing to wield the mop; this concern is partially ameliorated by a very good AfD success rate of 84.9% so judgement ought to be okay. However, this editor has in the past objected to RfAs where experience didn't match desired admin areas; by his own petard he must be hoisted. Editors in past RfAs have rejected applicants due to lack of content work, yet this editor has created four-ish non-stub articles, and none are GA or FA; there was no mention of DYK work. The lack of substantial content work is of no major concern to me; being an administrator is about administrating, but others might complain that this is an encyclopedia first, and a bureaucracy (close) second. The candidate has a clean block log, 12K edits, five years of service. I will have no complaints when this RfA succeeds, but I encourage scottywong to address concerns raised during this RfA during xis first months of adminstratorship. Josh Parris 22:36, 29 March 2012 (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.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related pages
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.