if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chetsford | 154 | 1 | 4 | 99 | Successful | 14:00, 11 August 2019 | 0 hours | no | report |
Bradv | 173 | 8 | 2 | 96 | Successful | 13:59, 11 August 2019 | 0 hours | no | report |
AmericanAir88 | 81 | 61 | 19 | 57 | Unsuccessful | 12:32, 11 August 2019 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chetsford | 154 | 1 | 4 | 99 | Successful | 14:00, 11 August 2019 | 0 hours | no | report |
Bradv | 173 | 8 | 2 | 96 | Successful | 13:59, 11 August 2019 | 0 hours | no | report |
AmericanAir88 | 81 | 61 | 19 | 57 | Unsuccessful | 12:32, 11 August 2019 | 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 | % | ||||
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
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
if nominations have not updated.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Chetsford
Final (154/1/4); Closed as successful by -- Amanda (aka DQ) at 14:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Nomination
Chetsford (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to present Chetsford to the community for consideration as an administrator. Chetsford is an all round user: his content contributions are second to none, with three featured articles, nine good articles, and 97 DYKs.Beyond his impressive audited content, Chet also helps the project through his work in NPP and AfC. These areas are under appreciated and take a lot of work and patience dealing with predominately new users, many of whom are unhappy with Wikipedia processes. In any situation where Chet has encountered them or another disgruntled user, I think you'll find he has responded calmly and collectedly in a way that we would expect administrators to behave.All-in-all, I think Chetsford would be an ideal administrator because he has the temperament we need with an unwavering commitment to improving content for our readers. I hope you will join me in supporting his RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Co-nomination
I second what Tony writes about Chetsford. While he is an outstanding content contributor (with multiple, impressive FAs, GAs and DYKs), he has also in my opinion turned out to be a most mature and stable editor over time. Probably his content focus was exemplified by his getting the autoreviewer bit just above 3 months after he started editing. The 227 articles he has created in his tenure here provide him ample breadth of experience in understanding our key guidelines and policies and also in understanding the nuances of team work, communication and conflict resolution. At the same time, his admin focus can be estimated by the actual work he continues doing in maintaining the website. Apart from what Tony writes above, in Chetsford's close to 25,000 edits till date, he has also involved rigorously in areas like AfD and CSD – his AfD match percentage (even though this is just a number) stands above 90%, not considering the no consensus closures, and he has an as impressive CSD log. I would probably look forward to his increasing involvement in admining in these areas too. I close my nomination by bringing out an example of the maturity that Chetsford has regularly displayed. In an AfD last year, where the discussion was about an article he had created, Chetsford's most balanced analysis stood more for the betterment of the quality of this project than in holding on to something he "owned". In that AfD, one of the statements he said was: "I made this early in my WP career and, had I the benefit of experience, I might have invested my energy elsewhere rather than in an article on an unindexed journal. If the decision comes down to delete, I won't be really torn up."
That, my friends, is as committed as I could probably (never) get. I hope you support this excellent candidate's request for adminship, as Tony and I excitedly do. Warmly, Lourdes 08:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination. I accept. (Also, as a customary disclosure, I have not edited for pay.) Chetsford (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Back in January Martin inquired of my interest in adminship. At the time I declined as I didn't have any compelling reason to be an admin. Since then, however, I have started to regularly observe a persistent backlog in two areas which I would like to help remedy, as well as a third area in which — while not necessarily backlogged — I think I could provide assistance.
- The first area is in RfC closures. Since I'm not very involved in contentious content areas, I try to regularly contribute to RfC closures as a non-admin and have, thus far, not had much in the way of complaints. However, an increasing number of RfC closures make specific requests for closure by an admin only. These sometimes languish in an unclosed state and I feel I could help in resolving these "admin only" closures in the same way I do for non-admin RfC closures.
- The second area is in Requests for Page Protection. We have a lot of great admins patrolling this area but it doesn't ever seem to be enough. This may be due to the fact that the encyclopedia is expanding faster than it's intaking new editors. While I believe page protection should be applied only in the most serious situations, I regularly see fairly straightforward requests for pending changes or semi-protection in response to persistent BLP vandalism from burner accounts that linger for 12 or 13 hours. This creates extra work for vandal fighters.
- Finally, I'm fairly active at AfC. During the course of new article reviewing it's not uncommon for editors to come across pages that require speedy deletion. In some cases, like G6 CSDs involving the deletion of an existing redirect to allow movement of a draft into the same space, it can be derailing for reviewers to have to wait too long for their request to be processed. Having an extra set of hands to help manage these would be helpful, I think.
- A: Back in January Martin inquired of my interest in adminship. At the time I declined as I didn't have any compelling reason to be an admin. Since then, however, I have started to regularly observe a persistent backlog in two areas which I would like to help remedy, as well as a third area in which — while not necessarily backlogged — I think I could provide assistance.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Most of what I do in terms of content contribution is in the development of new articles, versus editing existing articles. Two articles I created from scratch with which I'm particularly happy are Herman Vandenburg Ames and Helicopter 66. Working on Ames, who was an important asterisk in the life of Ezra Pound, was very enjoyable. While he was clearly notable, some of the details of his life had been lost to the sands of time so it involved a bit of detective work and a trip to the special collections room at the Van Pelt-Dietrich Library to obtain an out-of-print book. Since I don't live in Pennsylvania I had to wait until I happened to be in the area for unrelated reasons which meant it took some extra time to build this article up to FA status, but also made the pay-off especially satisfying. I also think United States Zouave Cadets, which was an all-time DYK page view leader, turned out well. It's made it to A-class but still has a bit of work before I'll be ready to submit it to FAC.
- I also enjoy creating short articles on topics that contribute to forgotten or neglected moments of pre-WP history, as our content on contemporary history often seems weighted to 2000 and later. These are sometimes on topics which will probably never be expansive enough to get to FA or GA. For instance, HPA-23, an almost forgotten episode from the early days of the AIDS epidemic. I also think I've done an okay job on short biographies of people notable for niche or highly specific achievements, such as Sara Sheffield and John Hirasaki.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I try to help as much as possible reviewing drafts at AfC so am regularly accused of incompetence by editors whose drafts I've declined. However, having once been a new editor myself I can understand, and try to empathize with, their frustration. It can be confusing for a new editor who tries to model a draft article off an existing, poorly sourced article in mainspace, only to have their draft rejected. Simply telling this person WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is rarely something they find satisfying. To the greatest extent possible I try to exhibit patience and, if all else fails, point them to other resources they could access such as WP:TEAHOUSE, or advise that they can simply resubmit for a second opinion from a different editor. Even though these recommendations are rarely actioned, I think it's important they understand that their participation at WP is not subject to the personal idiosyncrasies and whims of a single editor.
- Aside from the discontent of new editors whose articles I have declined at AfC, I have had two minor conflicts with editors regarding AfD nominations I made with which they disagreed. In both cases I found that remaining WP:CIVIL helped to avoid escalating the situation inasmuch as possible.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional question from PCN02WPS
- 4. Have you ever dealt with a problem on Wikipedia in a way that you now regret? If so, how would you now resolve the problem differently?
- A: In general, WP has not been a highly stressful activity for me and I've not encountered many situations I'd characterize as problems. However, I'd note an occasion about a year ago when an editor disagreed with several AfDs I'd made on closely related topics and felt that I was targeting articles on specific subject-matter. While that was not the case, I can appreciate that it might have appeared that way to him/her given the close proximity of several of the AfDs in question. Text kills much of the nuance in interpersonal communication and perception is as important as intent in our interactions with others. I've tried to keep that lesson in mind since. Chetsford (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from LessHeard vanU
- 5. From a perusal of your major edited articles, I hope you concur that you are an US centric contributor. How do you think you will be able to help in matters relating to non US issues (are you familiar with some of the political/cultural backgrounds to some subjects)? ps. RfA is not comfortable, but then neither is adminship sometimes - if you are able to withstand this, then you were correct in accepting the nomination.
- A: I would agree my contributions tend to edge towards topics related to the U.S., however, I also have created or significantly developed a number of non-U.S. articles such as the FA-classed Emanuel Moravec and GA-classed Government Army (Bohemia and Moravia), as well as a number of recent articles on non-American diplomats such as Peruvian ambassador to China Harold Forsyth, and articles like the Gajda Affair, German People's Radio, etc. In all these cases I have been open to feedback from those with perspectives that might offer a different worldview than my own. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it is able to corral editors from diverse backgrounds. This is an asset for editors and one I try never to under appreciate. Chetsford (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Foxnpichu
- 6. You are fairly new to Wikipedia, having only edited for 2 years (as far as I can tell, I may have made a mistake). Would you say you have gained a reasonable amount of experience in a couple of years?
- A: That's a good question and you're correct (two years and three months, to be precise). I do believe I've gained reasonable experience in that time, however, I don't anticipate there will ever come a point when I'll have learned everything there is to know about WP. More specific to the subject of RfA, I don’t anticipate entering with 100-percent competence in the use of the tools on day one. Due to that, I would always self-regulate my activity to those areas in which I was comfortable and competent. In other areas I would either defer to more experienced admins or seek counsel from them first. Chetsford (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Reyk
- 7. What is the most important policy on Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Thanks for the question. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV are both important policies. However, WP:V is what
differencesdifferentiates Wikipedia from many similar projects out there, active and inactive, that have attempted to ape it. Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC); edited 01:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: Thanks for the question. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV are both important policies. However, WP:V is what
- Additional question from RadioKAOS
- 8. How is it considered a net positive to the encyclopedia when editors specialize in a particular content or project area and their editing activity suggests that they have no clue or could care less about the encyclopedia as a whole?
- A: That's an interesting question. To (very roughly) paraphrase Aristotle, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Each editor here is a volunteer and I don't think we can demand someone who is only interested in contributing content on Wagnerian opera to also help out on the Video Games WikiProject or vice versa. I think all constructive contributions have potential to help the project, even if they're of a specialized nature. Chetsford (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
- 9. An AFD is closed 50 minutes early (that is after 167 hours and 10 minutes instead of 168 hours) and 10 editors have commented there at that point.You objected to it in this DRV .Are you stating that each and every AFD should be closed after only 168 hours only and not even one minute early then it is violation of WP:NOTEARLY or you believe that had it being open for the remaining 50 minutes would have altered the outcome of the AFD.
- A: Thank you for the question. My principal objection to the AfD close in the case you've cited was due to no consensus being reached per WP:NOTAVOTE, while the matter of WP:NOTEARLY was really secondary for me. In general, however, I think we should try to keep articles open for a full seven days as some !voters look at the AfD logs "bottom up", a point better argued by another editor later in the DRV in question. Chetsford (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
- 10. Now you stated that "I feel the close should be overturned to no consensus" (it was closed as Keep) and opened this DRV . Why were you specific here the end result or default result of both Keep and no consensus is the same the article stays.
- A: My reading of the discussion in the AfD was that it was moving along an increasingly heated trajectory that was no longer constructive. While I believed then, and still believe now, that this article does not meet our standards under WP:NCORP I didn't feel it was worth pressing the matter if there was a likelihood the discussion might become more charged, a scenario which seemed possible. A no consensus close would have left open the possibility of the question being revisited down the road when the situation had cooled. A Keep close would not have precluded that but would have made (in my opinion) such a course ill-advised as it could have made the Keep !voters feel they were being steamrolled. As I said in my response to Question 4, perception is as important as intent in our interactions with others. Chetsford (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Can you please clarify on this in a renomination it does not matter whether it is closed as Keep and No consenus ? Then why did go to DRV to get the close overturned to no consensus if it was heated ? You could have waited and renominated the article for deletion directly in due course no need for DRV . Can you please clarify whether you feel it being closed 50 minutes early would have altered the outcome of the AFD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Dolotta
- 11. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
- Additional question from Pudeo
- 12. Have you edited Wikipedia with other accounts prior to this one? --Pudeo (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: Not with other accounts, however, prior to registering I made sporadic contributions as an unregistered (IP) editor. These were mostly minor, functional edits such as punctuation correction and, in a handful of instances, insertion of a reference in places where one was lacking. I have not made any IP edits since registering an account. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from MJL
- 13. My lucky number! As I said in my support comment, I would conduct a review your work for AFC. I didn't see anything that concerned me for the last few months. Though I did find some quirks for how you went about reviewing D&D related drafts. First, here you state you are
not a fan of creating WP articles for RPG supplements...
(though would accept that on) Yet you accepted four separate articles on D&D expansions (including it).[1][2][3][4] While I agree with you accepting these articles, can you explain this discrepancy? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)- A: Hi, thanks for the question. You're correct that I am of the opinion that having a standalone article for every RPG supplement in existence is of questionable reader benefit. However, this is just personal opinion and not WP policy. The AfCs you cited seemed to meet our minimum standards for WP:N which is why I accepted them. As an AfC reviewer I don't believe I have the right to decline an article simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
- I declined Xanathar's Guide to Everything the first time it was submitted for "insufficient WP:RS to demonstrate WP:GNG" [5]. (The AfC reviewing guidelines, in my reading, preclude reviewers conducting WP:BEFORE ("If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason."), though I think others take a more liberal view. The draft was subsequently improved with RS and, when it was resubmitted, I accepted it. Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- 14. The most recent of the D&D-related articles you've reviewed is now up for deletion. As the reviewer, are you planning on voting? Sorry if these questions seem a little tough for a near-unanimous RFA. I just don't have much experience interacting with you, so these questions are just to help me get to know your thought process for AFC. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: No, I'm busy at RfA right now!
- Aside from that, though, I probably still wouldn't !vote. I don't think there's anything wrong with an AfC reviewer casting a !vote when one of the articles they've accepted goes to AfD, as occasionally happens. In this case, though, the most recent Keep !voter has made mostly the same arguments that I would and, since this is WP:NOTAVOTE, I don't think anything would be added by me simply saying "Keep per X". That said, I do commiserate with the editor who nominated it for deletion as I think the article was WP:REFBOMBed (albeit unnecessarily) which can often be a red flag. Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Ched
- 14.
Apologies for such a late question; but, have you ever edited under any other account names?sorry about that— Ched : ? — 18:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Djm-leighpark
- 15. With your acceptance of Aprimo on 1 February 2019 in my opinion a paid editor was permitted to submit at edit through AfC which you picked up 2 hours later using a method that allowed content they may have regarded as negative to Aprimo to be removed. Can you analyze actions and interventions on the Aprimo article, Talk:Aprimo page and myself and closing administrator and at User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 24#Aprimo and determine what you did both right and wrong. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 18 and also comment on the linkage of Aprimo with DoubleClick that the Paid was not included in the paid Editor's submission but was in the hidden history and which I cynically might claim a marketting person might not wish to publicise and which I added to the Aprimo article on 25 May 2019. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: As I understand your question, you are asking my opinion on the request you expressed in several deletion reviews to have a previous version of an article, which was turned into a redirect and then itself G6 CSDed in order to make way for the current version submitted via AfC, restored into your sandbox. My opinion is that you certainly have a right to make such a request. Insofar as my opinion on the decision of various admins to decline that request, I have none. I am unable to view the contents of the deleted article. Therefore, I don't feel I'm qualified to craft a fully informed opinion on the decision of the admins in question. I hope this answers your question, however, if I failed to do so please post a follow-up and I'll try to clarify my response. Chetsford (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. It's not really covered the ground I was looking for. If I WP:AGF you genuinely didn't get the crux of my question ... which may be a problem ... at worst it would be evasion of the question. I don't recall any restore to my sandbox or user area. I do see mistakes in procedure. I do see evidence of my requesting the admin for that and then quickly interjecting to thank the admin for not not doing what I requested but doing something else ... then wondering why I appeared to be narked. I'm also a little concerned eagerness to support a paid editor possibly to the extent of become non neutral. I'm really looking for a more detailed analysis of the issues that occurred here. I'm really not trying to lead here but scrutinise how well you can analyse the situation. (Your initial answer means I may form a specific senario as my 2nd question but if I do that does not replace this question). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not entirely clear what your follow-up question is, however, I will say in response to your statement that it is absolutely true a large proportion of articles submitted through AfC are from both disclosed and undisclosed WP:PAID editors. Our current policy not only permits, but indeed encourages, PAID editors to submit article creation requests through AfC and I have approved many such requests. Until our policy changes to prohibit AfC submissions by PAID editors I will continue to accept such articles when they meet our standards for WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. I will also continue to decline those articles which don't, to caution editors responsible for undisclosed PAID submissions, and to add Template:Connected contributor (paid) to pages I accept in which the creators are unambiguously PAID editors. However, as I said in response to question 13, I don't believe I have the right to create more rigorous article acceptance standards than the community has created and then to apply those personal standards in article reviewing. I am obligated to either follow policy, to try to amend the policy, or to choose not to participate in that particular aspect of WP if to do so would create unbearable discomfort for me. In the specific case you cited, the article submission met our N, V, and NPOV standards and the editor had disclosed their affiliation in the manner described by WP:DISCLOSEPAY.
- I will acknowledge that I am aware there are a few AfC reviewers who do not take this approach and decline all PAID submissions. I don't agree with this from a policy perspective, as it is not supported by our policy. I also don't agree with this from a practical perspective as we have seen it doesn't actually stop PAID editing, it simply pushes it underground and outside our already limited ability to regulate through the AfC process. Community-supported technical remedies to slow the insertion of unsuitable material are great, and I fully supported implementation of WP:ACREQ. Remedies of a purely philosophical nature are not great, particularly when they're unsupported by policy and are selectively applied by individual editors as an expression of their personal preferences or ideals. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I'm not getting what I'm looking for but I am willing to accept it is how I have posed this question. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. It's not really covered the ground I was looking for. If I WP:AGF you genuinely didn't get the crux of my question ... which may be a problem ... at worst it would be evasion of the question. I don't recall any restore to my sandbox or user area. I do see mistakes in procedure. I do see evidence of my requesting the admin for that and then quickly interjecting to thank the admin for not not doing what I requested but doing something else ... then wondering why I appeared to be narked. I'm also a little concerned eagerness to support a paid editor possibly to the extent of become non neutral. I'm really looking for a more detailed analysis of the issues that occurred here. I'm really not trying to lead here but scrutinise how well you can analyse the situation. (Your initial answer means I may form a specific senario as my 2nd question but if I do that does not replace this question). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: As I understand your question, you are asking my opinion on the request you expressed in several deletion reviews to have a previous version of an article, which was turned into a redirect and then itself G6 CSDed in order to make way for the current version submitted via AfC, restored into your sandbox. My opinion is that you certainly have a right to make such a request. Insofar as my opinion on the decision of various admins to decline that request, I have none. I am unable to view the contents of the deleted article. Therefore, I don't feel I'm qualified to craft a fully informed opinion on the decision of the admins in question. I hope this answers your question, however, if I failed to do so please post a follow-up and I'll try to clarify my response. Chetsford (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Djm-leighpark
- 16. As an administrator you pick up a CSD:G6 request from a AfC reviewer wishing to promote Draft:X to article space but is prevented by an existing article X which has substantial history. (Aside: As it happens the draft was created by paid editor Y but completely rewitten by paid editor Z just four hour before but its unclear if you would have known of checked this). What would your actions be and are there any alternatives to AfC for this content change and what would be the advantages of those. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: Thank you for the question. A G6 speedy deletion can't be used simply to vacate space that contains an article in order to move an identically named article into that space. It can only be used to vacate a page containing a redirect which is blocking a move (along with a few other situations). Therefore, my action would be to decline the speedy deletion request and to, instead, recommend the draft be renamed per WP:PARENDIS prior to acceptance. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thankyou for that answer. I would like to drill down on the case where page X is a redirect rather than an article .... I believe there may be (at least) three cases ... (1) the redirect does not have a major history, (2) the redirect has a major page history but not marked R with history and (3) the redirect is marked R with history. In the first case CSD:G6 obviously applies ... but do you agree both the other cases are within the remit of CSD:G6 ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the second two cases could be speedily deleted under G6. While we do not have specific preservation policies that cover this scenario, our norms and practices suppose that the deleting admin in cases such as this would preserve non-trivial history by archiving it to a talk namespace and then linking that archive from the new article's talk page. Of course, there are also several valid reasons a deleting admin might elect not to do this. Chetsford (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your response. If one follows WP:G6 and the link to [[6]] in the senario (which is a guideline page) I seem to see the answer However, if the target page title has a major history it should never be simply deleted, as we need to retain such page histories for proper copyright attribution. ... I note the bolded never and it details 3 ways for dealing with the senario. Your answer Yes, the second two cases could be speedily deleted under G6 seems at variance with the never ... can you explain this apparent discrepency ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't see a discrepancy. Archiving content to a talk namespace and linking that archive to the new article's talk page, the method I described in my response above, is in fact one of the three methods listed in the link you posted by which content can be preserved. Chetsford (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thankyou for that response I will accept that direction ...
but I see the never as requiring history retention by default unless a good reason is not for not so doing.Would you care to expand on Of course, there are also several valid reasons a deleting admin might elect not to do this thus overriding the guidelines and would you expect such a reason to be given if the guidelines were overridden?Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Struck continuation of line of questioning as candidate has already shown good faith in answering quite near to the end of the scrutinisation window
- Thankyou for that response I will accept that direction ...
- A: Thank you for the question. A G6 speedy deletion can't be used simply to vacate space that contains an article in order to move an identically named article into that space. It can only be used to vacate a page containing a redirect which is blocking a move (along with a few other situations). Therefore, my action would be to decline the speedy deletion request and to, instead, recommend the draft be renamed per WP:PARENDIS prior to acceptance. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for Chetsford: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Chetsford can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Per my nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Per co-nom. Lourdes 13:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I've known about Chetsford for ages. Strong candidate, extremly industrious and well worth admission to the corps. scope_creepTalk 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- An editor I have come across numerous times. Every encounter has been positive. My experience of them echoes the comments by the nominators. Seeing them standing is enough to renew my faith in Wikipedia. A wholehearted Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well rounded editor who will be an asset to the community as a sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - This user seems to have the judgment, integrity, and commitment needed to be a good admin. I've only a passing familiarity with his or her work but what I have seen has been uniformly of average to superior quality. Michepman (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Yes, yes, yes to another helping hand at RfPP. You’ve also written some great articles.—NØ 14:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Seems like a great addition Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support good answer to Q4, learns and improves from past experiences. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I am impressed with their content contributions in particular, but also their work closing RFCs and a desire to close more as an admin. I’ve closed my share too and am all too familiar with this admin only desire for a closer, so happy to give my support to one willing to work on this backlog with demonstrated level headed experience doing so. Good luck. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support From my perspective, would be a good addition to the admin group. I support individuals who are careful about their interactions with others and are willing to thoughtfully take a close look at their own behavior. Glennfcowan (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. per nomination statements. I surprisingly haven't seen this editor before at AFC and will double check their record their to make sure the support is well-founded, but I have no reason to believe it will be anything less than great. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Satisfied with the answer to my question. Thank you for your response, and I wish you luck. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Chetsford will be an excellent addition to our admin corps. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nominators, plus sensible answer to Q6. I have no concerns about the perceived focus on US topics mentioned in Q5 - a particular interest in one subject area will do no harm to our coverage in other areas. We may need more admins with an interest in non-US topics, but there's no cap to the number of editors we promote, there's no point in barring people with an interest in US topics. (Plus, if Chetsford is writing FAs on non-US topics, it's a bit of a non-issue anyway...) GirthSummit (blether) 17:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom and own research. Easily trustable with the tools. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - admirably meets all the requirements for being an all round admin. Two years with this kind of engagement, especially to NPP, is more than enough to gain the required experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nomination, net positive! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per my criteria, a valued content creator. GregJackP Boomer! 19:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Jianhui67 T★C 19:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. No concerns whatsoever. I'm confident he will make a fine admin. -- Ϫ 19:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was impressed by the candidate's nomination of Dream Pod 9 for AfD and, to get a bad non-admin close overturned, at deletion review. Obviously has the intelligence and judgement to perform administrative functions. On the negative side, the first sentence of Government_Army_(Bohemia_and_Moravia)#Operations starts with "Prior to...". "Before..." is simpler and should be preferred. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I think you are ready. CLCStudent (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, no concerns. bd2412 T 20:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, no concerns; have shown the skill to use the tools, and the temperment to apply them properly. Britishfinance (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support with no qualms, and a good couple of uses for the toolset. J947's public account 21:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support very prolific. (Also on a tangent, approved my first ever article via the AfC process). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Talk page archives are filled with evidence of patience and courtesy. I did see a few more RfC concerns than Q1 led me to expect, but on the whole Chetsford looks to be a strong addition to the admin corps. MarginalCost (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Chetsford, you weren't on my radar, but for one of the only times in memory, your answers to the above-posed questions were so ideal as to be enough despite that. Thank you for your work on the project! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Will be a good addition to our admin team.--Darwinek (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support ~SS49~ {talk} 22:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Looks good! -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Again, no use wasting bytes, so per everyone above. Squeeps10 23:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Well-rounded, trustworthy editor who will help in needed areas, with lots of content creation to boot. Will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns and doubt they'll break anything. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. No problems here. TheEditster (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like the answers to questions 4 and 7. Questions 5 and 8 are egregious and should be reconsidered. Airbornemihir (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Terrific candidate. Kurtis (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Agreed, promising candidate. El_C 01:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Won't break Floq's new record, but possibly should. Hope you manage to do what you set out to do next, which seems to be becoming a respected admin closer. Looking good so far! 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I see nothing to indicate that the candidate would abuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 01:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- support per nominator statements and other rationales stated above. More than meets my standards.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I know Chetsford's work through his involvement with Wikiproject Military history. His content work is excellent, and he has worked well in non-US content creation areas like the FA on Emanuel Moravec which I reviewed at Milhist A-Class and at FAC. From what I have seen, he has a calm and mature nature, and is teachable, responding positively to feedback. All great attributes for an admin. Has demonstrated a need for the tools, and I trust him with them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I don't have any personal familiarity with this editor, but I've not uncovered anything that gives me pause. Their record is solid with no obvious red or yellow flags. The sole oppose is unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I've dovetailed with them on some AfDs and know them to be a quality, knowledgeable user. No issues at all with giving them the mop. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I haven't had much to do with this editor in the past, but my impression has been vaguely favourable. A quick check of recent contributions and the answers to the questions makes me confident they'll be a good administrator. Reyk YO! 07:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Trusted user. FitIndia ✉ बात 08:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support: based on spotchecks and the testimony of editors above, I believe the candidate has an excellent temperament and is always civil, my number one concern in an admin. Their participation at AFD and CSD gives them a demonstrable need for the tools and the single oppose currently present does not make me believe they cannot be trusted with the mop. — Bilorv (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - if you get a co-nom from Tony and Lourdes, you must be doing something right. Looks like they meet the not-a-jerk and has-a-clue test, with excellent content creation thrown in too. Good luck to you, and thank you for your contributions to the encyclopaedia, Chetsford! — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - nothing here to worry me, good nomination and answers to questions. Hugsyrup 12:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns here, I think they'd make a good admin. –Davey2010Talk 13:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - having encountered Chetsford in the content creation area, and previously, AfC, I've always found them to be knowledgeable, to exhibit sound judgement, and to treat other users with courtesy and respect. A very useful addition, in my estimation. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support good user who will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support It looks like you started 227 pages and only one was deleted. In your 2 years on WP you made liberal use of the thank button: 1,081 times. You made approximately 10,000 edits per year (50% in the main space). I read through your responses to questions, and I also read through the support and the opposition (including provided links). It appears to me that you will be a quality WP:CIVIL administrator. You appear to have the judgement and sense to do what is right, and you also appear to be a candidate who will ask for assistance when needed, and consult policy. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Will make a great admin. Willbb234 (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support As far as I can tell, has the proper temperament, knowledge base, and has the trust of the community. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I have no concerns about the candidate. Solid contributions, has clue. Vexations (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, a good editor. No worries here - Dumelow (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- After inspecting the last year of User:Chetsford/CSD log and six months of deleted edits. Tagging Userbox:Rationalist (now at User:Chanc20190325/Userboxes/Rationalist) G2 was a blunder, but an understandable one. About the only other objection I have is that the candidate seems too cautious in tagging drafts G11 (User:Golf Pro Delivered/sandbox and Draft:Ganpat Patel are good examples), but that's better than the reverse. —Cryptic 16:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support precious bibliographies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Good content creation experience, good answers to the questions. I trust the nominator's judgement, too, and I can neither recall nor find any incidents that would be red flags. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - what's not to like? Atsme Talk 📧 18:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support all indications are they they would be a responsible admin.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: cogent, intelligent, and calm. No objections. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 20:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support gonna shamelessly borrow TonyBallioni’s RfA criteria for this nom. Chetsford isn’t a jerk, and has a clue. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A solid Editor for sure worthy of Adminship. --Giooo95 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I am aghast to realise I had not already added my name here. Candidate understood my concern, and answered comprehensively. I checked the comment to edit ratio tool, and see that they are a good communicator and getting better. Seems to be unlikely to abuse the tools. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, I liked the temperament and answers to the questions. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms. GABgab 22:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why wouldn't you? TurboSonic (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support as per noms. Loopy30 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- SUpport Chetsford requested a copy edit to Herman Vandenburg Ames, which I took up last February, and I was really quite impressed with the thought that went into the article. It was certainly one of the easier articles to copy edit. The consideration that went into crafting the article gives me confidence that Chetsford would apply the same consideration in their actions as an admin. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Chetsford is an excellent contributor whose judgement I trust. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms. signed, Rosguill talk 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good answers, qualified candidate.– Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate doing useful work. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Impressed with his temperament. – Levivich 06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I am impressed with good amount of work the candidate has shown in short period of time. He has experience in various admin related activities. I believe he will serve the community well with the tools.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. wikitigresito (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Interacted with Chetsford before and found them to be level-headed, thoughtful, and collegial. I am impressed with their body of work thus far and have no concerns with granting them the tools. Mop on. CThomas3 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms. Tolly4bolly 11:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Their comment history at ANI seem decent and no real concerns. Getting a nomination from Lourdes is very impressive as well. --Pudeo (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Will be fine. Fish+Karate 12:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support after review. No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I endorse the nomination statement. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Ditto! Will make a great admim. - Ret.Prof (talk)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Suppport No glaring reasons not to do so, lots of commentary already provided by users whom I trust explicitly. Appears to be a clear net positive. StrikerforceTalk 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I enjoyed working with Chetsford at Talk:Olivia Jade and appreciate his level-headed guidance for finding consensus.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am not sure about when did I first encounter Chestford for the first time, but this edit made their username familiar to me. I also became familiar with their activity through NPP/R. In brief, they show good knowledge of policies/guidelines, and are civil. I cant recall any red flags, or concerns. Nothing to base an oppose on, and a net positive as long as no red flags. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms. I don't see any red flags.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely no concerns. I trust Chetsford to make good use of the extra tools, and that's all that's necessary IMHO. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - seems to be a sensible and conscientious editor who will make good use of the mop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen this editor around for a while and I don't think they will abuse the tools. Chestford is a content creator and understand what we are here for in the first place. MX (✉ • ✎) 18:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I know Chetsford from DYK and I am impressed. Dr. K. 04:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support indeed. – SJ + 04:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support user can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Holy Jumping Jehosephat. Yes. – Athaenara ✉ 06:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Knowledgeable and articulate. SilkTork (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen Chetsford around and they've always made a positive impression. No concerns. 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support No red flags or reasons to oppose. Seems like a net positive to the project as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC) - Support -- I'll give a standard Fastily Why not? -- Dolotta (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - No red flags or problems that can be seen. Seems like a sensible choice. - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - No issues with user. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Support per noms, answers to questions, history of highly positive contributions, and with the easy assumption that candidate will take on board Boz's neutral comment. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -Very strong candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. How have I not already crossed paths with this editor? But everything that I see here, I like. Very articulate, and plenty of appropriate experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The answers to the questions are clear-headed in the way I want an admin to be, and from what I've seen checking their contributions and stats I'm generally very impressed. Slight shame that he votes delete so often at AfD and is less accurate when he does so than otherwise, but his judgement seems strong even then and I would fully trust him with the tools. › Mortee talk 00:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, indeed. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms and user talk archive 8 and 18. The only downside is that there seems to be no downside. — Ched : ? — 05:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Support per nomination, positive candidate.--Nahal(T) 09:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I have no concerns. Lepricavark (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Obvious support. I see no reason for this candidate not to become an admin. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 12:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A good choice for this job. Capt. Milokan (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Another pat on the back Per noms, per GregJackP, and per all the other excellent reasons people have listed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support with thanks for volunteering for the additional responsibilities. And nice to see some young blood. :) Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Good luck. Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — MRD2014 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support An all-around qualified editor. I have no qualms with adding my support to Chetsford. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Haven't run into Chetsford before but from the edits linked by other !voters I'd say this editor easily shows enough competence to be a net positive. Daß Wölf 02:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, has been here for less than three years. —Kusma (t·c) 08:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 09:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support seems reasonable. Collect (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, no concerns whatsoever, seems like right person for the right job. 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, should be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen Chetsford around DYK numerous times. In all of these instances, I've observed that he has the right demeanor when working with other editors, and is a prolific content contributor as well. epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Highly-qualified, experienced candidate, per other experienced editors above. I have no concerns that they will abuse the tools. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: I have had good interactions with the candidate through their content work, which has shown me they are level headed and committed to improving the encyclopedia. I believe that they will be a good addition the admin corps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support-- Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 06:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Great content work, seemingly good temperament and has experience in a few areas where the admin tools would benefit their work. Kosack (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Chetsford makes good contributions to articles and is very sensible, so they should make a great admin. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — kashmīrī TALK 12:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Reviewing the grounds for opposition, I see no merit at all – just a candidate engaging in the business of editing Wikipedia and providing a view to other volunteers. I actually think the candidate comes across very well in much of what I read. And this is a theme that I see elsewhere with Chetsford, so I would be happy to see them provided a mop. AGK ■ 14:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support An excellent candidate. Thanks for stepping forward to help the encylopedia in new ways. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a good candidate. ~Awilley (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support (moved from oppose) While I have some minor concerns, as I would probably have with anybody, and on review Chetsford is on net an extremely strong candidate most unlikely to abuse the tools and I believe it is fully appropriate and beneficial to Wikipedia that Chetsford be granted adminship. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I trust Tony's judgement and I see quite a few other support votes from people I know and whose judgements I trust. We need more Admins and Chetsford looks like an excellent fit. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support – I endorse the nominators' statements. – bradv🍁 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
- (Switched to Neutral)
Oppose, although regretfully; based on both my past and recent experience with this editor, I have concerns about his judgment and sincerity. I do not like to oppose editors with whom I have philosophical disagreements, unless I feel there are behavioral concerns as well. (For TL;DR skip to my summation in the last paragraph.) - Most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Pod 9, for example, in the section after the AFD's relisting, while he argued that his significant AFD activity in the area of tabletop RPGs was "certainly not personal nor does it represent more stringent standards being applied to the topic of fantasy role play", I challenged him on this assertion. His reply included "I'm actively involved in WP and specifically seek out articles other editors have slapped refimprove tags on so as to either improve or, if not possible after my best efforts, AfD. It just happens a huge percentage of articles I come across are RPG stubs. The situation is so acute that it is almost impossible to avoid." I saw no evidence that he had made any attempts to improve any articles in the topic area in question, and challenged his assertion of RPG stubs being "almost impossible to avoid", by noting that per Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts/Archive his name appeared as having started 36 AFDs between Aug 13 2018 to Nov 26 2018, and then absolutely nothing at all until June 24 of this year when he started up again; that date is significant in that it occurred right after he declined an AFC draft which I submitted on behalf of a new user on Xanathar's Guide to Everything (although after the new user improved the article further and Chetsford did accept it on June 24). After he reviewed that AFC, he immediately resumed his AFD activity in the subject area with 14 more AFDs to date; I found it hard to believe that it could simply be a coincidence that we have two time periods of heavy activity, with several months in between, and felt it likely that seeing my name again on the AFC reminded him of "unfinished business", and I found it difficult to believe that he just happened to come across this "huge percentage of articles" in the same area only in these two time periods, rather than actively seeking out RPG articles to delete. Somehow he managed to "avoid" RPG articles for seven months but now found it almost impossible to avoid them? This is why I question his sincerity, as this appears to be an attempt to conceal his motives.
- This particularly concerns me because at the DRV for the same article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 16, Chetsford felt the need to point out a statistic about me to the non-admin closer that I "have a unique view that is outside consensus 83.3% of the time" (and then suggested that I not get personal), which reminded me of past encounters where he had previously touted his own percentage on AFD and disparaged mine (which his co-nominator notes above is just a number), and while he stated that User:Chetsford/GameAFD was being kept ostensibly as a metric for his own self-improvement, that page seems to me to be more like a "scorecard" of trying to keep his game-related AFD "success" rate at the same level of his AFDs in other areas.
- But in case my concerns over his judgement are more easily dismissable (and I would note that as I wrote this, questions concerning the DP9 AFD were added above by another user), you may examine a few recent situations with other users. At this thread on his talk page[7] a rejected AFC draft by an experienced user resulted in little more than a clipped response from Chetsford, who closed off the discussion with "There's nothing more I can do for you. Best of luck." and shortly thereafter, another uninvolved editor simply moved the article to mainspace and added additional easily-found sources. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Holian when he stated that if the subject of the article had reviews of his books "in the New York Review of Books or Le Nouveau Magazine Littéraire or similar publications" he would withdraw his nomination, a fellow editor agreeing with his delete nomination challenged his assertion by noting that "WP:NAUTHOR isn't even that strict - it just needs to be non-self-published/peer-edited reviews."
- I want to sum up by saying that, although my encounters with Chetsford have not always been positive (and I am sure both of us have regrets about things we said to each other) that as a user with a two-year record, he does still have things to learn, and I do believe my concerns about his judgement are not trivial; perhaps more time and experience interacting with other editors to learn why they contribute the way they do will make him a better candidate for admin, and I doubt I would oppose him a second time. I am particularly concerned that applying stricter-than-normal standards on NPP and AFC will drive away new users and frustrate experienced ones, and if he becomes involved in closes at AFD this stricter approach will result in many challenges whereas a more sympathetic approach will result in the sort of collaboration every area of Wikipedia needs more of. BOZ (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Boz: - your oppose may be important, but on behalf of the RfA populace, I beg you to add some paragraph breaks. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- (Switched to Support)
Oppose, per answer to Q3 and relation to over interactions in February 2019 and follow ons. Concerns about judgement. And perhaps have similar feelings to those in currently voting neutral. But ... I've come to this discussion and there's been no chance for the answering of the question I've set. Against that does a lot of good work I note from time to time and if this voting was going borderline I might choose to swing it the other way. Likely to improve in time and I can be a pretty awkward customer.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)- Still even you must admit the candidate is a net positive??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- In all events I am and have always been as confident I can be of anyone he will not abuse the tools (certainly not seriously but anyone can make mistakes). Only I am perfect. I concur at the minimum at least generally with his comments about (declared) paid editors. I have minor concerns which may be unwarranted may be slightly too certain of own judgement and may be slightly too quick to dive at times and will may sometimes gloss over problems (Q3) but I may wrong in this call and certainly well insufficient to bar Chetsford from adminship. 08:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Still even you must admit the candidate is a net positive??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per the incident I assume is being alluded to in Q4 (archived here). My impression of Chetsford's conduct in that interaction was that they were on a mission to purge Wikipedia of coverage of tabletop roleplaying games because they don't care for them, and when called out on their lack of understanding of that topic they went out of their way to offend its enthusiasts, saying acutely offensive things denigrating the art embedded in RPG works (see my comment here). Rather than admit they didn't understand or appreciate the significance of the subject matter they just continued making polite but nonetheless offensive statements. I suggested at that time that they should perhaps consider not doing things that could be reasonably construed as deliberately offensive ([8]) but it seems (per their answer to Q4) they've trivialized the magnitude of this incident, and per Boz's extensive comments above it seems to be an ongoing issue. This is an editor who I am not confident will be an impartial administrator, and more importantly I am not confident they won't abuse the tools to filter content they just don't like. I realize it's too late in the process for my comments to have any effect on the outcome of this discussion and others who were involved in the incident have already commented in the neutral section, so please take my comments as advice. If you carry this attitude into your activities as an administrator, you will have many more people coming down on you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Neutral
- I tangled with Chetsford during the RPG AfD kerfuffle a fair bit. While I stand by my assertion that their suggestion that games cannot be art and should instead be treated as instructional manuals was inaccurate, this only means that I'm not likely to invite them to a board game night in my kitchen; that has no relevance on their abilities as an admin. However I suspected (and apparently correctly so) that this particular issue would come up if they put up an RfA. My interaction with Chetsford outside of that one unfortunate incident is nonexistent, and I don't feel properly qualified to state whether they'd be a good admin or not. However I don't think this one incident should block them if it is the only objection. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- This Neutral did make me chuckle (it does make Chetsford not sound great fun at parties) Nosebagbear (talk)
- Come over to my house, we're going to read instructions manuals and then move blank discs of cardboard around a larger blank square of cardboard. ;) (But only if it's prototype night.) Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- And here I was sitting with my deck of Rembrandts, Degas, Monets, thinking of the best combos Nosebagbear (talk)
- Come over to my house, we're going to read instructions manuals and then move blank discs of cardboard around a larger blank square of cardboard. ;) (But only if it's prototype night.) Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- This Neutral did make me chuckle (it does make Chetsford not sound great fun at parties) Nosebagbear (talk)
- Neutral, after discussing with Lourdes and reviewing the nomination and responses. I have to admit that I do not know the Chetsford that over 100 members of the community are supporting nearly-unanimously; the Chetsford that I have encountered seems like a completely different person. That said, I am willing to set my concerns aside as a sign of good faith that there is more to him than what I have seen. My hope remains that he will commit himself to learning to empathize with people who contribute differently than he does, to understand why they have different views about content, and to do his best to never have the level of interaction with any other editors that led me to feel the way I came to feel. I do not believe he will abuse the tools, and I hope I will be proven wrong in the assessment of his sincerity and judgment that I have built over the past year of encounters with him. BOZ (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Unaware of this editor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not confident. -- CptViraj (📧) 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
General comments
- 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.
Bradv
Final (173/8/2); Closed as successful by -- Amanda (aka DQ) at 13:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Nomination
Bradv (talk · contribs) – I nominate Bradv for adminship permissions.Uncontroversial but not dull, quiet but not afraid – Bradv has a long record of demonstrating good judgement and character. Many of you will recognise Bradv's signature as belonging with some sensible or helpful comment in a discussion. Bradv joined the community in 2008, reactivating in 2016 after a hiatus. Outside our noticeboards and processes, Bradv is usually found improving articles or participating in article-related discussions. He has wrote or significantly expanded nearly a dozen articles, mostly biographies. Bradv also has a number of specific roles, as an arbitration clerk, a talented script writer, and the operator of one bot. Brad is spending an increasing amount of time submitting requests that admins do things.I commend him to you on this basis and propose giving Bradv a mop. AGK ■ 08:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Co-nomination
Members of the community, it is my pleasure to join AGK in presenting Bradv. His contributions to Wikipedia are wide-ranging. In the content space, he has written several biographical articles about academics, as well as a GA about the children's book author Derrick Barnes. You will also frequently see Bradv reviewing article submissions at WP:AFC, patiently interacting with new editors in the process. Outside of his content work, Bradv is one of our active technical editors. His Superlinks script is a great tool to integrate into your Wikipedia workflow, especially if you seem to find yourself opening too many browser tabs. Additionally, Bradv serves as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee. In that role, Bradv also operates User:ArbClerkBot, where he is working on automating some of the more mundane procedural tasks of the arbitration process, such as noticeboard announcements.
Above all, I admire Bradv's ability to stay calm and reasonable in difficult situations. He understands that he is not infallible—if you think he has made a mistake, then Bradv will not hesitate to take a step back and talk with you about it. He will make it his goal to understand where you are coming from and reflect on his own position carefully and rationally. Some of you may remember his Strickland incident essay, which was published in the October 2018 edition of The Signpost, as a great example of this sort of introspection. For these reasons, I think Bradv will be a great administrator, and I hope that you will join AGK and me in supporting him. Mz7 (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, with gratitude for the kind things said about me by my seniors above. I'll also provide here the customary disclosure that I have never edited Wikipedia for pay, and never will. – bradv🍁 13:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I would likely continue to work in many of the areas I already do. AfC and NPP can both benefit from more editors with admin tools, especially access to deleted material. As I gain more experience I would like to help out at AIV, RFPP, and CSD. I also enjoy closing discussions, so I hope to increase my participation in this area as well. Having access to the tools would also help with my work at ArbCom, as occasionally there are pages that need to be protected or blocks that need to be issued. Regardless of what new areas I venture in, I plan to ask others who are experienced in the area for advice before taking action, and always ask for a second opinion whenever I feel unsure.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I joined Wikipedia because I believe in the idea of a collaborative encyclopedia documenting the sum of all human knowledge. I am grateful for any opportunity to help, whether it's directly related to content, helping other editors contribute productively, or doing behind-the-scenes stuff that readers will never notice. I enjoyed writing Derrick Barnes. This is not in my usual area of editing, but it was a fun article to put together and it even made it to GA status. I am also happy with the Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks script I wrote. It started as an idea by a fellow NPP reviewer, and it turned into a tool that has improved my workflow considerably in every area of the project. But my best contributions to Wikipedia are the opportunities I have had to help editors settle disagreements and edit productively. These are mostly small things, like spending extra time to close a discussion with a thoughtful rationale, providing a third opinion for two editors who are talking past each other, or helping someone write something they're passionate about. Above all, I'm proud of the encyclopedia we're building together, and I'm thrilled to be a part of it. I try to make that come through with every edit.
- 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: About a year ago I performed a routine decline of a draft article on someone who would later win a Nobel prize. This incident attracted a fair bit of criticism both on- and off-wiki, and I tried to respond to questions and comments thoughtfully and carefully. I wrote an essay about it shortly after the news broke, which I think helped to put the events in perspective and provide a way forward. The discussion around all of this had a profound effect on me as an editor, and I have certainly learned a lot from the experience. I also serve as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, a role which I have found quite rewarding. In my work as a clerk I am acutely aware of the fact that many of the people I interact with are under considerable stress, and I have tried very hard to have a calming influence at every interaction. I believe that my efforts have been well-received, and I look forward to continuing in this role, whether or not I am entrusted with the extra tools.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional question from PCN02WPS
- 4. Have you ever dealt with a problem on Wikipedia in a way that you now regret? If so, how would you now resolve the problem differently?
- A: I referenced this essay in my answer to Q3, in which I expressed regret that I missed the opportunity to write about a Canadian physicist who would later become famous. But apart from that, there was a situation when I first started as a clerk where the conversation went a little differently than I expected. I paid close attention afterward, and now wish that I had worded things a little differently, or refrained from interacting altogether if I wasn't confident my contribution would have the desired effect.
- Additional question from LessHeard vanU
- 5. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, of course, and you are already an arb clerk and article contributor. Sysopping will potentially cut into the areas you are presently active; where do you see yourself withdrawing to any extent? ps. RfA is not comfortable, but then neither is adminship sometimes - if you are able to withstand this, then you were correct in accepting the nomination.
- A: I am hoping that I won't have to withdraw from any of the areas I currently work in, but I know that's not entirely realistic for everyone, which makes this a pertinent question. My goal in volunteering for this role is to continue to increase my level of participation in the project, and the extra tools will primarily help in the areas in which I'm already active.
- I have already !voted, but my question was primarily to make you aware that you may have to consider how to manage workloads in the future. All the best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: I am hoping that I won't have to withdraw from any of the areas I currently work in, but I know that's not entirely realistic for everyone, which makes this a pertinent question. My goal in volunteering for this role is to continue to increase my level of participation in the project, and the extra tools will primarily help in the areas in which I'm already active.
- Additional question from Reyk
- 6. What is the most important policy on Wikipedia, and why?
- A. If Ignore all rules were less provocatively named, it might be called something like "Do the Right Thing". Combined with policies like NOT, NPOV, and V, which together define the goals of the project, this really should be all we need. That said, I generally try to follow policies and guidelines quite closely, as they reflect the consensus established by many editors over the years.
- Additional question from Ritchie333
- 7. Some of your AfD !votes seem to be to be a bit slapdash and don't have as much detail as I would have expected from an experienced editor. I'm particularly thinking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The School of Artisan Food, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuelle Waeckerle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Maness (where you say the subject's own CV is "not a reliable source" whose literal reading would imply you think Maness is a compulsive liar who can't be trusted about anything), but quite a few comments seem to be little more than "Not notable, fails GNG, get rid". How much time do you spend thinking about what comments to make at an AfD, and what work do you consider doing on the article before making a decision?
- A. You've identified three very difficult AfDs that I participated in. The first is a case of undisclosed paid editing where the author has been blocked; the second was created as a copyvio, likely with a conflict of interest, which was later substantially reworked; and in the third case the author requested deletion which was largely ignored by the keep voters at the AfD. I'm still not convinced we got the last two right, and the first has not yet closed. I'm aware that not everyone has the same opinion about notability, but I try very hard to do my own research and comment based on what I feel is in the best interest of the project. I also try not to hassle people who disagree with me, as it is more important to me that we get it right than that I get my way, and we all contribute to that consensus together. To the last part of your question, I try to do a full BEFORE search before commenting, including checking the subject matter against any applicable guidelines. Editing the article itself doesn't make a subject more notable, so I don't usually take that approach unless the article is being proposed for deletion for reasons other than notability.
- Additional question from MarginalCost
- 8. You stated in your Strickland incident essay that
As an academic, the relevant guideline for establishing notability is WP:PROF. The general notability guideline does not apply to this article, but the rest of the notability guideline, including the section on requiring verifiable evidence (WP:NRV) does apply.
If a professor were to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, but did not meet any of the specific criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC, should that article be created/kept?- A. In general I would probably say yes. I know there are some editors who view WP:NPROF as both inclusive and exclusive, but I'm not aware of any broad discussion that established consensus for either position. If a biography meets the basic criteria, that is a suitable argument for inclusion in my view.
- Additional question from RadioKAOS
- 9. How is it considered a net positive to the encyclopedia when editors specialize in a particular content or project area and their editing activity suggests that they have no clue or could care less about the encyclopedia as a whole?
- A: It's probably fair to say that the encyclopedia is predominantly built by specialists who focus on particular content areas. There are plenty of obscure topic areas which I know nothing about, and I'm grateful for the contributions of the subject matter experts who do.
- Additional question from Dolotta
- 10. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
- A: I don't have a lot of experience with files. It's not an area that I have ever been drawn into, and I haven't taken the time to brush up on the relevant templates and best practices.
Discussion
- Links for Bradv: Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Bradv can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- With the reasoning in my statement. AGK ■ 08:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support all around great editor, has a clue. Praxidicae (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Very strong candidate. Knows his way around some of the back-of-house stuff, as well as how to write an article. Love to hear that he is interested in closing discussions - we could use some help in that area. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent candidate for the corps. scope_creepTalk 13:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Without doubt. Lourdes 13:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I trust them, from what I've seen. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support An excellent candidate. Thoughtful ahead of time. Reflective after the fact. These are great qualities in a sysop in my mind. Has a clear need for the tools. I am so pleased to see him here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Passes the TonyBallioni test with diamonds and oakleaves. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - very competent candidate and by being an admin could help out further. Already trusted in some high-risk areas. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very high comment to edit ratio, indicating communication is a premium tool. Is also an Arb Clerk, but never mind... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I've known Bradv for a number of years now and consider them to be a capable and competent editor. They've experience of writing content, which is always a definite advantage; they've taken Derrick Barnes to Good Article status, it's always nice to be able to judge a potential new administrator by assessing their work on a recently written/expanded BLP, it's all in order, so that's a very large plus point. There's also some DYK contributions, which are also nice - there's more to writing than just GAs and FAs, so some other contributions are good to see. Their actual administrative ability has been ably demonstrated in their ArbCom clerking, a difficult field at the best of times, but particularly challenging with the virtual collapse of the committee this year and the significant dramatic events which have unfolded during the period Bradv has been clerking. I will admit to being particularly impressed with the DeltaQuad RfB too, where Bradv politely but firmly challenged a user (Foxnpichu) for their double standards - firm but polite and fair discourse, of precisely the type that will be necessary when trying to handle a dispute with intransigent users on both sides. The sort of behaviour honed by time clerking for ArbCom, in fact. The general maintenance tasks and the ArbCom clerking will make good use of the administrative toolset. In short, Bradv is competent, polite and will use the tools, a significant asset to the community, very much a net positive for the project. Nick (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Very competent user with lots of experience, can be trusted with the mop. - ZLEA T\C 14:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Net positive for WP. Most of the areas they want to contribute in, could use some helpful admins.—NØ 14:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Seen them around, have no concerns that they'd be anything other than a net positive as an administrator. I looked into the Donna Strickland incident quite deeply after it occurred; I cannot really fault the candidate for their role in it. AfC reviewers face a consistent and daunting backlog; that the candidate made a decision based on the information they had at the time isn't black mark against them. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nominating statements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, I have seen good things, and I was particularly impressed that the candidate wrote about the Strickland incident in so much detail, and with several good ideas about improvements to our processes. —Kusma (t·c) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support learns and improves from past experiences. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Happy with what I see after reviewing the candidates contributions. Statement by nominating editors compelling, haven’t see anything that leads me to believe that the candidate would be anything but an asset with the mop and bucket. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Not so much a case of "I thought they were one", but I'd been wondering for some time why they weren't. Strong net positive, --jerk, ++clue. Let the mopping begin. CThomas3 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support no brainer candidate with clear need for tools. It'll be nice to have another admin dedicated as an arbcom clerk. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per User:Bradv/Strickland incident. I'm impressed by the amount of work that went into explaining the thought process behind a controversial decision, backed by relevant guidelines. Bradv also included what he learned from it and tangible ways to move forward and make the process, and ultimately Wikipedia, a better place. This is exactly what I'd want to see in an admin, and am enthusiastic about offering my support. Good luck! -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- While I'm not happy with AFC and its stricter standards than apply in mainspace, I'm not going to oppose a qualified candidate who is active there. Also the Strickland incident certainly means the candidate is stress tested, and lastly, I enjoyed reading Derrick Barnes. ϢereSpielChequers 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support As the nomination suggests, I've seen Bradv around the place a lot, usually making helpful comments in a polite manner. He does a lot of good work here (free plug - I particularly appreciate his 'superlinks' script), and I have no doubt that he could do good work with a mop. GirthSummit (blether) 17:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Wholeheartedly support. I've had the great pleasure to work with Bradv this year as an arbitration clerk, where he's been one of the most dedicated, thoughtful, competent, and diligent editors I've ever seen. As the clerk who facilitated the appointment and confirmation process, I know my fellow clerks and arbitrators feel the same. I know he is willing to heed advice, and I also know he's never afraid to tell me when I'm wrong. He has exactly the right temperament, experience, empathy, and broad perspective to be an administrator. Bradv has my implicit trust and I know he will be one of our very best admins. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support seems sensible/level-headed, and not seeing any compelling reason to oppose — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support . Editing has been more than just a bit sporadic over the years but it looks as if Brad will stay around if he gets the mop. Otherwise, fully qualified and trustworthy. The Signpost article is more than enough alone to demonstrate that Brad is no new kid on the block looking for something to brag about in the schoolyard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support seems sane enough. stwalkerster (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seen Bradv around for years and never in a bad way. I'm sure they can be trusted with the tools. Number 57 18:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Full of clue. Exactly the attitude we should be looking for in administrators. GoldenRing (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I've seen enough of their work around the project to implicitly trust Bradv in the tools, and I'm not concerned about the one incident in the slightest, as I would have done the same. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. (I honestly thought you were one.) Nihlus 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Even when we've disagreed, they have shown a civility and level-headedness in their deliberations. I think they will be a tremendous addition to the admin corps.Onel5969 TT me 19:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Thought they were already an admin. Based on discussions I have seen in which they have participated, they are thoughtful, knowledgeable and overall respected. S0091 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I'll be frank, already thought Bradv was an admin with their level of maturity and experience. Its my pleasure to support them for admin! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. A fellow proud Canadian! Welcome aboard :) -- Ϫ 19:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Question 7 is a good question that caused me some hesitation. But I'm with the candidate on those three AfDs. In particular I recall myself investing about 20 minutes of time doing research on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuelle Waeckerle and was planning to !vote delete before getting distracted by a waffle or something. That AfD was wrongly decided--not by the closing admin but by the community--and The School of Artisan Food is an ad that should be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Helpful and competent. Haukur (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, an asset to the project. bd2412 T 20:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, has the skill and experience, and has a strong commitment to WP. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The Strickland incident was, from my observations, very well handled by Bradv. The fact that he reflected on this very incident shows at least a level of maturity that I appreciate in people. He could've just as easily waved it off and said "I'm right" and leave it at that. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The only thing I could fault Bradv for in relation to the Strickland article is that in reaction to the statistic of 1/3 of new Nobelists not having Wikipedia entries at the time, he didn't comment on the paradox that Wikipedia, a review of knowledge, has much stricter requirements for articles on the people that research new knowledge than for film stars or people sufficiently famous-for-being-famous-and-nothing-else to be WP-notable. I don't see any easy solution to the paradox, which is why I'm only pontificating on this here rather than making a concrete proposal at WP:PROF. Getting more articles on how-many-angels-fit-on-the-head-of-a-pin-ologists who are well-known within the head-of-a-pin-ological community would not necessarily be a good development. Boud (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I have encountered him a couple of places at AfD, and I believe he has the temperament appropriate for adminship. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I tend to think the reaction to the Stricland incident on Bradv specifically is a little unfair. There should have been an article on her, but to blame Bradv for this---and to not support him as an admin because of this---I think is a stretch. Both with this and outside of this, I've always seen a level-headed, knowledgeable, skilled editor. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 21:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Finally! I'm certain Bradv will make a great admin; all my experiences with them are positive and I regard them as a highly trustworthy and reasonable editor. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly Support – I've seen Bradv around; seems to be a great person. Experienced, well-qualified candidate with no serious behavioral concerns that I've come across. I also concur with the opinions of other editors above. Bradv will make a great admin. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support with no convincing arguments in the opposition. You can't predict the future of a BLP you decline at AfC, and it was an okay decision anyway. The bar is higher at AfC than AfD. J947's public account 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support especially with two strong nominators. I'm sure Bradv will be great in an admin position. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I would have said Brad was already an admin, if someone had asked me in a closed-book exam. Clearly, from everything we read in the nom statements, and my own expericne of the editor, t ey are a clueful and experienced Wikipedian. Just the sort we need dishing out large dollops of soapy water with a nice shiny mop. — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Candidate took some heat, much of it probably unfair, for the Strickland incident, remained calmer than I probably would have, and has been reflective about it. Satisfied with response to Q8. MarginalCost (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - No qualms. An unimpeachable name to see on one's watchlist. Thanks for your service. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator. Mz7 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support ~SS49~ {talk} 22:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support No use wasting bytes, so I'll just say "Per all above (And likely per all below)". Squeeps10 23:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. This is an absolute no-brainer. I have known for quite a while now that Bradv was not an administrator (I checked), but prior I had always assumed he was. I have enjoyed working with Bradv as an editor & look forward to (hopefully) working with him as an administrator as well. Best of luck with this RfA, though I'm sure you don't need it/will be fine. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- 100% --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Easy support here. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support mainly contra User:Catfish Jim's oppose below, which I think is most unfair. Bradv got it wrong here, as he is all too well aware, but I hope most of those who have delved in the Strickland affair - not as straightforward as the press stories make it appear - agree his actions were reasonable given what he knew, & his subsequent self-examination extemplary. Where he was at fault was making a judgement call about an area he didn't know well enough to appreciate the citation index for that field, and the significance of the presidency of the Optical Society (not the non-notable fellowship). Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support – An administrator in all but name. Time to change that. Kurtis (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Was sure he was one. Exceptional candidate. El_C 01:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Diannaa and Kevin. Excellent work as an ArbCom clerk assures me that they'll do a good job with the mop. Miniapolis 01:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hell yes. SQLQuery me! 01:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- support per nominator statements and other rationales stated above. More than meets my standards. Since when do we accept information controlled by a subject as a reliable source? Please see WP:42.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Adjusting support rationale to include that of Peacemaker67-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I don't see a reason not to support. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, per nominators, and pleased to see the nomination. SarahSV (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Should have been one a long time ago. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support knows enough about content creation and our quality processes, the nominators vouch for his maturity, has demonstrated insight regarding his missteps, has an existing track record as a clerk, and has a need for the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I have told Brad off-wiki at least a few times that he should become an admin and am happy to see this RFA take form. Brad has solid character and proved himself to be trustworthy through his numerous areas of involvement on the English Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nominator and the fact that I was impressed by their maturity during the Strickland incident. It was difficult time for them but they did not falter. Bradv is an all-round qualified candidate. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thought he was one. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Ticks all the boxes. FitIndia ✉ बात 08:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support: AFC and NPP are heavily backlogged areas of the site which need the most attention and another editor working there who has the tools could make a big difference. It's an unfortunate coincidence that Bradv declined the Strickland draft, and I do think the draft was in a state to accept at the time (though I'm perhaps more of an inclusionist than most), but I do not think it reasonable to hold one false negative in their lengthy tenure against them. Quite the opposite – their Signpost essay was excellent reflection and showed remarkable restraint in not lashing out at the harsh criticism they received. Unless an opposer demonstrates any temperament concerns, I can't think of any good reasons to not trust Bradv with the tools. — Bilorv (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sure, in part for behaviour during the Strickland "affair". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Bradv has demonstrated a degree of reflection and research of Wikipedia policies that would make him an asset to the admin corps. Loopy30 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I can't say "I thought he was one already", but I have thought "Why isn't he one already?" CLUE and HERE and decorum and all that. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I honestly thought he already was an admin!, Excellent candidate, No issues here. –Davey2010Talk 13:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Editing work checks out. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good level-headed editor. The Banner talk 15:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The right temperament for the job combined with answers about content that appear passionate combined with no red flags make an easy thumbs-up from me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Apparently I'm not the only one who thought Bradv was already an admin. I'll second/third/fourth other editors who say Bradv seems to have an ideal temperament for the job: authoritative, but not authoritarian. Nblund talk 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Appreciate the willingness to reflect on his actions and carefully consider policy. Vexations (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A useful addition to his tools and to the project, thanks for your contributions Brad. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - experience speaks loudly - ditto what Nblund said. Atsme Talk 📧 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support experienced and trusted. Jianhui67 T★C 18:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Wait... you mean to tell me that you’re not an admin already? Let’s fix that. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 20:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I like what I see, the tools would be in good hands. --Giooo95 (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: a trusted contributor; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms, and because I didn't find the opposes compelling. signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, have seen Bradv around as an arbcom clerk and am sure that the candidate will be a valuable addition to the corps. GABgab 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent reflection about Strickland, wrote a Good Article, so I'm not sure how anyone can think he hasn't contributed enough content, wrote a tool, thoughtful, modest ... strong support. --GRuban (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seems pretty good TurboSonic (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I encountered Bradv early in my editing through his activity in responding to requests for third opinions, and he was one of the editors who I followed for a bit to learn how Wikipedia works as well as how to handle editing disputes. I think his thoughtfulness, temperament, and ability to explain issues in ways that deescalate tensions makes him an ideal admin candidate, further supported by his content and backroom contributions. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Will benefit the project with the tools; has my trust. SpencerT•C 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support absolutely, no reason to oppose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate with good temperament. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support consistently calm and level-headed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support lots of supporters I respect, not impressed with the opposes. Seren_Dept 05:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support – unlikely to delete the main page. – Levivich 06:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - have had good interactions with this editor. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 07:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen Bradv around a lot doing all sorts of things, and I see no problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support seems reliable wikitigresito (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support all the best with the tools. Tolly4bolly 10:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sure. Fish+Karate 12:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I endorse the nomination statement. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Ditto! Will make a great admim. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. Mkdw talk 17:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I've been impressed by Bradv on the occasions I've interacted with him. Given that we've now fallen below 500 active admins, we really need more folks of this calibre to step up. Thank you, Brad. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Self-reflection after the Strickland incident, and recent courage going to arbcom about something where he could have stayed silent both speak positively of BradV. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. See no reason to think Bradv will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- solely due to their work as Arb Com clerk. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Per their handling of the blow-back from the Strickland incident. They explained themselves with policy backed reasoning and remained calm during the criticisms levied at them. That alone shows the type of demeanor that I'm looking for in an admin. Valeince (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes SilkTork (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support No concerns from my interactions. All the best and don’t F it up ;) N.J.A. | talk 01:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I've seen Bradv around and I trust his competence. Best of luck. Daß Wölf 02:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. – SJ + 04:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support user can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support may even be overqualified. He has worked in almost all the popular admin areas and has been active for the last 18 months. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Bradv's comments on any topic show great composure, respect for policy, and courtesy to other editors. His ability to reflect on and reasonably respond to criticism is a great asset, and I'm sure he'll be a good administrator. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Surprised to see this name here, thought Brad was one already! Λυδαcιτγ 10:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Basically per Tony, but I also agree with their call in the Strickland affair. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Not convinced by the opposes and the Strickland incident is not something that should prevent Bradv from becoming an admin.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I like to cite WP:NOBIGDEAL, because I believe it's important that we have a lot more admins, and I'm inclined to support anyone who seems unlikely to misuse the tools. In this case, though, I think I need to support Bradv per the Strickland incident. If I had been responsible for such a public screw-up, something which hurt Wikipedia's reputation the way that decision did, I would probably have hid in a hole for a year. (This isn't a criticism of their rejection of the AFC - given the draft submitted, their response was reasonable.) Instead, Bradv responded thoughtfully, without getting defensive, and took this as an opportunity to reflect and grow. This, in my opinion, is precisely what we want from an admin - the ability to take criticism, and to learn from it. Guettarda (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Actually, Brad falls into the category of "I thought they were an admin already?", for me. StrikerforceTalk 15:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per many of the above. From what I've seen so far I think Bradv will use the tools wisely. 28bytes (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I had a different take of the Strickland incident than my colleague in the oppose section did, especially after the candidate's reasoned explanation of the event offered in the Signpost which helped to explain their side of the incident and which was much appreciated, demonstrating how the narrative established by the media can be suspect, and how the plain and simple truth is rarely plain and never simple. Spintendo 18:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I sympathise with you over the Strickland incident, which demonstrates a lack of understanding by the media of Wikipedia policies and notability issues. I'm sure you will make good use of the tools. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, with high enthusiasm. I've seen the candidate around a lot, and consequently am able to form a clear opinion without needing to do much research. Nothing in the oppose section raises any red flags for me. And the candidate clearly has the right kind of experience and temperament. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- This does not at all change my support, but I do feel the need to make a small caveat. I think that the candidate got some things wrong in his comments about the recent conflict here. Nothing disqualifying, but just that I disagree, and I hope that the candidate will give my concerns some thought. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw this coming and always intended to support you if you ran. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 00:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, partly per nom; no red flags or obvious problems. The oppose !votes, while valid, don't coalesce around any particular set of problems that would cause question. – SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Nick. Lepricavark (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why not? VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 12:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A good choice for the job. Capt. Milokan (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Decent answer to Q10. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support with thanks for volunteering for the additional responsibilities. Aside: The Strickland incident exposed mainstream media's, and arguably even wikipedia's, systemic gender bias but, as that of an individual volunteer, Bradv's actions were reasonable during the events and exemplary in the aftermath. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Has a clue.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, no issues with the nomination, wish Bradv continues his exemplary work. — kashmīrī TALK 19:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — MRD2014 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Bradv is an even-keeled and quality editor. I also appreciate the self-reflection in their Strickland Incident essay. All qualities to be expected of a good administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Fully qualified. His composure during the Strickland incident, where he was unfairly maligned, was quite impressive. Nobody under the sun complained that George Smith (chemist) had no Wikipedia article when he won the Nobel Prize at the same time as Strickland won hers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. A very reasonable candidate. The Strickland incident essay was a well-written response that de-escalated a high-pressure situation. — Newslinger talk 09:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Thoughtful, experienced in lots of areas, good comments here and elsewhere on notability, AfD and AfC, have seen that he is open to changing his vote at AfD when other editors present more evidence. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Reasonable. Collect (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support likely to be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A worthy candidate. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - good qualification. JohnThorne (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - At least one oppose seems to inadvertently provide evidence for support. If I were the candidate, I would reassess their original comment that brought about Oppose 7 though. Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 06:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely. Strong candidate--naturally--and no concerns. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributions. Also, I don't see a problem with Bradv's approach to the "Donna Strickland" draft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Clearly meets my criteria. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 17:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per the noms. ST47 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Sensible and communicative. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a good candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilley (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why not. Masum Reza📞 22:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Solid editor with a good record. No red or yellow flags. Clearly a net positive. The opposes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I looked first at the opposes and like Ad Orientem above saw nothing persuasive. Then the nomination statements and finally scanned through the supports. They all back my own experience with the candidate and I'm convinced he'll be a good wielder of the mop. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely JMHamo (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Has both a need for the tools and the experience needed to use them wisely. – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose You say the Strickland incident attracted a fair amount of criticism. That's one way to describe it... another would be to say it was one of the most damaging incidents in Wikipedia's history, played out in the highest-profile, international news media... "Wikipedia criticised after it emerges female Nobel laureate had page rejected", The Independent, October 5, 2018; "Donna Strickland's treatment on Wikipedia shows how women have long been excluded from science", The Independent, October 6, 2018; "For Just the Third Time in 117 Years, a Woman Wins the Nobel Prize in Physics", New York Times, October 2, 2018; "Wikipedia rejected an entry on a Nobel Prize winner because she wasn't famous enough", Quartz, October 2, 2018; "Donna Strickland had no Wikipedia page before her Nobel. Her male collaborator did.", Vox, October 3, 2018; "Nobel prize winner Donna Strickland wasn't famous enough for Wikipedia", The Times, October 4, 2018; "Physicist Donna Strickland Had to Win a Nobel Prize to Get on Wikipedia", The Observer, October 4, 2018; "Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry", The Guardian, October 4, 2018; "Wikipedia rejected an entry on a physics Nobel laureate right up until she won, saying she wasn't famous enough", Business Insider, October 4, 2018; "The Nobel prize winning scientist who wasn't famous enough for Wikipedia", The Irish Times, October 3, 2018. An administrator needs judgement and credibility, and I don't think you are suitable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as does not meet criteria. Not enough created content to be an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 19:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not the best fit. CLCStudent (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I’ve not been impressed by most of Brad’s participation at admin boards. This recent uninvolved, one sided, and unnecessary AE filing shows Brad cares more about arbitrary rules than substance. Participation in other dispute resolution areas doesn’t give me confidence. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: In the candidate's many years on the project, very few articles started (19) - and only 37.4% of edits are in the main space. I believe that an administrator needs to have more experience creating content and more experience editing in the main space. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Lightburst:, content creation lack is obviously a legitimate oppose reason, and is also one that everyone has different points on. What (rough) number of articles and editing % would be reasonable in your view? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear I would like to see at least 50% in the main space. The candidate has 11 years on the project (6 with little or no editing): If I were to pick an arbitrary number: perhaps 10 - 20 articles per year x 5 years (actively editing) - for a total of 50 - 100. Comparing the candidate to the other two RFA candidates... AmericanAir88 has been on the project for 2 years and started 41 articles. Chetsford has been on the project for 2+ years and has started 227 articles. And each of the other candidates have more than 50% of edits in the main space. Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lightburst, Xtools tells me that Bradv has 8,236 (37.4%) edits in the mainspace. This looks quite good to me. Am I missing somthing ? I have more than 22k edits in the mainspace but it still is only 41% of the total. I am sorry but I feel your criteria of 50% seems unreasonable to me. Perhaps you can add riders to your criteria to make it more realistic. BTW, a fun fact, with 1,287 (47.8%) mainspace edits even you (Lightburst) don't meet your own criteria. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neither Lightburst nor DBigXray are up for nomination here, so any figures about them are completely irrelevant. Samsara 12:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lightburst, Xtools tells me that Bradv has 8,236 (37.4%) edits in the mainspace. This looks quite good to me. Am I missing somthing ? I have more than 22k edits in the mainspace but it still is only 41% of the total. I am sorry but I feel your criteria of 50% seems unreasonable to me. Perhaps you can add riders to your criteria to make it more realistic. BTW, a fun fact, with 1,287 (47.8%) mainspace edits even you (Lightburst) don't meet your own criteria. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear I would like to see at least 50% in the main space. The candidate has 11 years on the project (6 with little or no editing): If I were to pick an arbitrary number: perhaps 10 - 20 articles per year x 5 years (actively editing) - for a total of 50 - 100. Comparing the candidate to the other two RFA candidates... AmericanAir88 has been on the project for 2 years and started 41 articles. Chetsford has been on the project for 2+ years and has started 227 articles. And each of the other candidates have more than 50% of edits in the main space. Lightburst (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lightburst, mainspace editing percentage has no clear relationship with content creation. Re-categorizing pages using AWB yields massive amounts of mainspace edits with no content creation. Brokering a compromise in a complicated edit war means a lot of talk space edits that indicate content creation, even if they mean only one article space edit. Talk space edits, however, can also be purely administrative, or can be wikiproject tagging or quality rating.in other words: without looking at what the edits are, the namespace they are in does not tell you much. —Kusma (t·c) 06:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I second Kusma--DBigXrayᗙ 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes and some people create articles almost entirely in their User space, or in Draft, and then only use one main-space edit to create an entire article. Articles created is not a metric in particular, because you might spend your time expanding stubs or polishing up poor-quality existing articles. Ultimately you need to look at the quality and nature of the content, not just raw numbers. — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I second Kusma--DBigXrayᗙ 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Lightburst:, content creation lack is obviously a legitimate oppose reason, and is also one that everyone has different points on. What (rough) number of articles and editing % would be reasonable in your view? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mr Ernie and what I consider somewhat misguided NPOV reverts in political articles. Although Bradv was not a party to the Canadian politics ArbCom case, his "not neutral" reversions were linked a few times in the Evidence page. Similarly in American politics, one reversion of "POV edits" of what seem like factual statements to me (whether undue in the article is a different question) is not good. Not a big fan of NPOV judgment. Otherwise seems like a "house candidate" who will certainly run for the ArbCom after this RfA has inevitably been closed as succesful. --Pudeo (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Inability to be questioned without taking things personally. In this afd discussion, I pointed out that Bradv should not have accused an editor of editing in bad faith when simple ignorance could've been an explanation. In response, Bradv took it as a personal attack and kept saying I was the one not assuming good faith. An admin should be able to handle discussions like this rationally and without taking personal offense. Additionally, it's important not to assume bad faith of editors when there's not substantial evidence pointing in that direction, as it can scare editors into not contributing. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think your use of the introductory phrase "shame on you" was perhaps a little strong and elicited that response. The nomination as a whole was rather lacking in WP:BEFORE, and is yet another example that makes me think that with the diversity of knowledge Wikipedia holds, we may eventually need subject-specific competence requirements to stop people from nominating things they know nothing about in addition to ones they don't like. Samsara 11:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Samsara: Reading over that again, you're right that "shame on you" was unnecessary. Nevertheless, I expected more from Bradv than what was essentially "no you". I don't think competence requirements are a good idea as "meritocracy" just ends up favoring the privileged, but that's tangential to the fact that Bradv was accusing someone of acting in bad faith without any evidence. An admin should be able to deal with perceived incompetence/other worldviews without descending into attacking people's motives. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think your use of the introductory phrase "shame on you" was perhaps a little strong and elicited that response. The nomination as a whole was rather lacking in WP:BEFORE, and is yet another example that makes me think that with the diversity of knowledge Wikipedia holds, we may eventually need subject-specific competence requirements to stop people from nominating things they know nothing about in addition to ones they don't like. Samsara 11:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mr Ernie and Pudeo. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Neutral
- I'm going to have to throw my lot in this section. You have the right noms, and you seem to have checked off all the right boxes and all, You also have a ton of support, so I'll assume that you'll breeze in with a high percentage. I'd imagine you'll be pretty much a "by the book" admin., but there's been something bothering me. That Strickland incident. It's not that incident itself, but rather the editorial you chose to write after it. I've read through that a couple times, and then I looked at the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions; specifically the #User made a mistake section. The thing is even though I can't fault you for your actions regarding the article, it's your method of explanation that troubles me.It just reads too much like a denial or a deflection of blame than any "I'm sorry" or admission of any mistake. Even if you had posted parts of that in ongoing discussions somewhere I wouldn't have thought twice about it. It was the whole matter of basically taking an ad out in the paper (Signpost) to explain why it's everybody else's fault. We have a few of those "this is what the policy says" admins about already. Now like I said, I don't see enough to oppose, and my "neutral" is more from a gut instinct than anything else. So all that being said I do wish you the best of luck with the new mop. — Ched : ? — 19:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ched, I'm not sure if this matters at all, but when I wrote that essay I didn't publicize it anywhere other than a link on my own talk page. I was not aware that it was going to be in the Signpost, and I did not write it with that audience in mind. – bradv🍁 20:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I'll speak out now as that is a point that has also bothered me. Specifically, the absence of a section in that essay called "due diligence". That, I think, is the big elephant in the room - what independent research did Bradv as the assessor of the draft do to verify whether the person might in fact be notable. Declining it only on the basis of the sources within the article is not good enough in my opinion, and this is an issue that will surface in many areas of admin work - protection, dispute resolution, deletion, you name it. We must make sure that we're not pulling the trigger against a position that is obviously the one much better supported by sources. We need to be more than clerks flipping switches. We are the last bulwark of facts not being relegated to the archives for the foreseeable future, or, in some areas where few people work, forever. So we must be prepared to make last minute checks to ensure that the decision we're enforcing "per consensus" or some other rule perceived to apply isn't insane. I write this not as a characterisation of the Strickland incident, but of issues that come up on a daily or weekly basis. The Strickland incident was simply "fortunate" in that it raised the alarm bells because it became rather obvious that the wrong call had possibly been made (again, it depends on what was available at the time, and that is not clear to me retrospectively). So for me, a clear commitment to due diligence is important in an admin, and ideally a demonstration that they will apply this. Samsara 11:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of this editor's history, so I will stay neutral on this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
General comments
Unnecessary commentary |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- 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 request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
AmericanAir88
Final (81/61/19); ended 12:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC) - This request was unsuccessful. — xaosflux Talk 12:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Nomination
AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Americanair88 as a candidate for adminship, an active, experienced, level-headed and well-rounded user who is a great asset to Wikipedia. First of all, Americanair88 (AA) is experienced in article creation and knowledgeable of the various guidelines and policies associated with it, having created 110 articles, and has improved nine articles to Good article status. AA has also demonstrated ongoing cognizance and proficiency of guidelines and policies regarding deletion, with solid experience in deletion matters, such as AfD, speedy deletion and prods. At AfD, AA is experienced and successful in performing nominations and non-admin closures, as well as in the proper ascertation of consensus required for discussion closures. If that were not enough, AA also performs maintenance work such as relistings and deletion sorting at AfD. AA also has experience in the various aspects of combatting vandalism, such finding and reverting vandalism and occasional posts to AIV. Furthermore, AA has a positive, optimistic outlook, a helpful style and demeanor, and noticeably respects and takes the views of others into consideration when collaborating or participating in discussions. I have full confidence that he would use the admin toolset judiciously. AA has ample, solid experience on Wikipedia and is dedicated to improving and maintaining various aspects of the encyclopedia; granting him the admin toolset will only serve to further enable these positive endeavors. North America1000 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is an honor to accept the nomination. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: The administrative work I intend to take part in revolves around reducing the wikipedia backlogs and helping users out. I will do anything I am asked to perform. A sector I will always attend to will be the administrative backlog. The admin backlog can fill up frequently and I will ensure that it stays in check. I would help with but not limited to the AFD, AIV, RFPP, COIN, and Admin Noticeboard. At AFD, I would ensure that my contributions and closures would be a result of a clear consensus and of proper judgement. At RFPP and AIV, I will carefully review the case presented and give a neutral/justified consensus. Using my skills gained through my recent change patrol, I will help prevent vandalism even more. All of my edits will be based on improving the encyclopedia whether it is doing copy-edit or a requested article. My main goal on my talk page is to “Ensure Wikipedia maintains top quality through discussion, hard work, and dedication.” AmericanAir88(talk) 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are when I am either reducing a backlog or honing in on a particular article. For backlog reduction, I try to focus on backlogs to reduce the workload for other users. Even something as small as typos or replacing dead links help improve the quality of Wikipedia. In my opinion, my best work is with Deep Space Homer. The article is my most edited and I am the process of getting it to FA. I have failed twice with the FA on the article and will never give up on the article. I have multiple articles that I have improved to GA and have done several GA reviews to balance the backlog. I am a very active in the AIV and anti-vandalism process. I am a recent changes patroller who seeks out vandalism and tries to safeguard wikipedia's premium work. I have tagged countless IP's with the "Shared IP tag" in order for admins to see where the IP is being used or hosted. This allows for abuse emails and blocking to be sent out more systematically. At AIV, I have nominated several users and have helped protect Wikipedia through the nominations. I frequently nominate IP's who exceed their warning allowance and who do not listen/learn from mistakes. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: On Wikipedia, discussions should never lead to conflict. Conflict only brings out the worst in someone and causes negative discussion. However, in life conflicts occur and I try my hardest to solve peacefully and logically. The only editing conflicts I have ever got close to was with a user called LegacyPac. The user supported mass deletion, foul language, and linear thinking. I have never lost my cool though and engaged in civil discussion. When Legacy nominated the American Airlines portal for deletion, I gave a justified comment and he even respected my attitude. LegacyPac has since been blocked for his behavior. I also defended the recent 2019 New York City helicopter crash article I created. I believed the article passed WP:RAPID and was able to make a consensus to keep the article. There was another instance on AFC where a user questioned two acceptances I gave. However, I had a civil conversation and we both decided that deletion would be best. I never try to make chaos, start wars, or dispute others opinions. I believe with maturity, reason, and discussion, we can create consensus in peaceful ways. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional questions from TonyBallioni
- 4. When is protection preferred to blocking?
- A: Protection on Wikipedia is to ensure that articles maintain their quality and do not get effected by vandalism or unsourced information. Through protecting a page, users can be discouraged from their "single-page attack" methods. When searching recent changes, I always assume good faith unless in a case of blatant vandalism. If an article is being temporarily vandalized as a result of current events or significant media coverage, protection is the ideal option as it can prevent unsourced and bias information from being added. Blocking users over one page or one edit may cause the editors to IP abuse the system. An example would be the page Will Roland. When I was browsing the recent changes, I spotted the Will Roland article being the subject of multiple IP abuse. It was clear that the IP's were in unison as a result of the edit content. After reverting, I submitted the page to RFPP to prevent the IP abuse from continuing to attack the page. Once the page was protected, the IP's settled down. If the users were to just be blocked, the page would still be vulnerable to vandalism from similar IP addresses. Protection helps keep the quality of articles contained. AmericanAir88(talk) 05:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- 5. How would deal with situations where you are the first administrator to review a request for administrative assistance, and you haven't encountered the situation before?
- A: When dealing with a request for administrative assistance, I will ensure that the user is satisfied with their request through proper discussion. If I had not encountered the situation, I would read up on the Wikipedia policy and ask other admins who are experienced in the area. Improving Wikipedia is a team effort and asking other admins for knowledge in the situation would strengthen my skills and help the user out in the process. I would never try to take the unknown situation on alone as the result could end up not satisfying the user. I will ensure that all requests are done with experience, consensus, and discussion. AmericanAir88(talk) 05:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Ad Orientem
- 6. Hi AA. Thank you for offering to serve as an administrator. Do you think it is ever appropriate for an admin to delete a page from the mainspace without it being first nominated for deletion via Prod, AfD or CSD? Please explain.
- A: The benefits of Prod, AfD, and CSD are that they give a user a chance to explain their case for deletion. PROD gives time for admins and interested users a chance to improve, contest, or agree with the deletion statement. CSD gives users a chance to contest or improve, while allowing admins to delete with proper jurisdiction. AfD allows for a consensus to take place before the result of the article is given. As for deletion from main space without nomination, I would say in some cases it is justified. I'll provide examples on when it is justified:
- Example 1 would be if a promotional user keeps recreating a deleted page that was deleted for A11 or vandalism. Constant page creation of an obvious non-notable topic is grounds for immediate deletion.
- Example 2 would be if there were sock accounts that would create multiple copies of pages to increase their influence. If the first copy was deleted by one of the three methods, the others should follow.
- Example 3 is threats. Obvious harm should be taken very seriously. If a user simply creates a page that contains a threat or attack, the page should be immediately taken down and the user should be reported to the proper authorities.
- These examples are on the rarer side, but can occur on an encyclopedia. In most cases, consensus and discussion needs to take place before an article is fully deleted. AmericanAir88(talk) 05:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: The benefits of Prod, AfD, and CSD are that they give a user a chance to explain their case for deletion. PROD gives time for admins and interested users a chance to improve, contest, or agree with the deletion statement. CSD gives users a chance to contest or improve, while allowing admins to delete with proper jurisdiction. AfD allows for a consensus to take place before the result of the article is given. As for deletion from main space without nomination, I would say in some cases it is justified. I'll provide examples on when it is justified:
- Additional question from DBigXray
- 7. You have mentioned that you intend to work in closing AfDs. Going through your AfD logs, I find an impressive 90% match with results. But then I see a pattern in your voting where you are seen voting on last or second last day and adding pile on votes based on WP:PERX and WP:JUSTAPOLICY e.g. [9][10][11][12]. I find this concerning especially since you have plans to close AfDs. Please elaborate on your AfD strategy in general without going into the minor details of these example AfDs.
- A: An AFD discussion is based on consensus and not votes. Almost everyday, I scout the seven day AFD lists to spot any potential closures, re-listings, or votes. When I say "per nom", I am conveying that I am strengthening the nominations opinion on the deletion discussion. If an article is a clear violation of something like NHOCKEY, the nominator can put it best. I do not use "per nom" as a way to pile on, but as a strengthener to the rationale being used. The same is for other votes I add. The votes are to clarify and strengthen the consensus. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Nsk92
- 8. Could you please comment on your username? Is your username related to American Airlines?
- A: My username is from my passion of aviation. Ever since I was a little kid, I have always loved aviation and planes. I found the name to be representative of my love for aviation. American Airlines has always been my favorite airline and I love the acronym "AA". I have never worked for or been paid to edit for American Airlines. My username is based on passion and homage to the airline. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Beyond My Ken
- 9. Also, could you please explain the significance of "88" in your username?
- A: Before Wikipedia, this username would be used for online games, account usernames, etc. Most websites only allowed you to use a username if it had a number in it. Honestly, I love the number "88" and find AA88 to be catchy. Also, just "AmericanAir" is very similar to American Airlines. The 88 gives it a personal touch. I see that some are concerned with the number "88". I can reassure you that there is no ill-intent with the number. I like the way the number looks with the acronym AA. My name is also the Dead man's hand, which I found cool as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Cryptic
- 10. What led you to tag Najmun Nafiz (an eminently A7able autobiography, written in the first person) and Bhagwan singh meena (about the same, except in broken English instead of first person) as G2 test pages, of all things?
- A:
Test pages are a sign that a user with few contributions is simply using Wikipedia to host their own articles. If I recall, both articles were written in broken English and has no citations. The articles were a test by those creators to see if their article could pass the review process.I am rewriting the answer to this question as I believe I took a wrong interpretation to G2. G2 applies to pages that are literally testing out Wikipedias functions. Test edits are permitted in sandboxes, but not in other spaces. I admit that I made a mistake for tagging those as G2. I have read more on CSD and agree that A7 should have been the proper judgement. I promise that I fully understand what G2 stands for now. A7 is usually the way to go, however when a page is created with poor English, no citations, and a user with few outside contributions, they are using the article as a web host or test page.
- A:
- 11. What speedy deletion criterion do you use for abandoned userspace drafts that haven't been edited for years?
- A: There are several criteria that can be applied to abandoned user space drafts. I participate in that backlog drive to help keep the big amount of abandoned drafts in check. It helps pave the way for drafts that are name space material. If the draft has not been edited in six months by a human and it's in user space with an "AFC submission" template or no content except the article wizard placeholder, it can be deleted under G13. If the stale draft is nothing but a complete copy and paste from a website with no additional information or sources, the unambiguous copy violation can be deleted under G12. If the user page has blatant advertising and promotional content with the user having a promotional name, it can be deleted under G11. If the user page is a clear attack or threat, it can be deleted under G10. If the user page is nothing but a non-free gallery, it can be deleted under U3. If the user requests deletion of their personal user page (rare for stale), it can be deleted under U1. If there is a user space of a user that does not exist than it can be deleted under U2. If the state user space draft is clear advertising, has promotional use, and is created by a user who has few edits outside of that draft, the user page can be nominated under U5 as a web host violation. All of these criteria are subject to fair jurisdiction and can be contested in cases where the user makes a surprise return or through the use of blanking. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from SoWhy
- 12. Seeing as communication is widely considered an important skill for all admins, can you explain why you only use edit summaries on ~75% of all edits (and ~65% of all major edits)?
- A: When editing, I try to use edit summaries as much as I can to inform the public about my certain actions. However, I am human and can forget to add a summary sometimes when I am focused on editing a page. I can be so focused on an edit sometimes that sometimes an an edit without a summary can slip out. I promise to use more edit summaries. Communication is a very important skill and if there are any doubts about edits I perform, I always ensure the doubt is settled peacefully. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from SportingFlyer
- 13. Your nomination alluded to your experience at AfD, but 40% of your AfD participation (not relisting) has come in the past month, and many of your arguments at AfD are very brief. Why should I trust you to close contentious AfDs properly?
- A: At AfD, my votes are based on judgement that I ensure is top quality. My brief arguments are usually when I agree with the nomination. Before voting, I make a commitment look up to find any possible sources or signs of notability. An example of my effort is at FitNesse, where I combed and researched for reliable sources, helping the consensus reach "Keep". Some votes may seem rapid, but all of them go through a search process. The rapid votes are usually for Afd's where: Plenty of reliable sources have been provided and the article has been improved to standards I can agree with, my search brings up no sources on any platforms, or if I agree with a policy another user stated above after doing research. I promise that all of my votes are carefully decided and that I do not edit AfD for the benefit of boosting my numbers. The reason I have participating a ton in the last few weeks is out of personal interest. I felt that I could benefit the AfD, RfD, MfD, etc projects if I gave a bit more attention to them. I told myself that I would start to scout for articles where my opinion could help gain consensus. I also have nominated a few articles in the time being that I believed violated Wikipedia guidelines such as the General Notability Guide. If granted adminship, I will ensure that all of my closures are in proper jurisdiction and that emphasis will be focused on the consensus. AfD is a reminder of the importance of consensus and teamwork, something I always pursue. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from SportingFlyer
- 14. What vandalism prevention have you done to date that you're particularly proud of?
- A: Preventing vandalism is a key component to ensuring Wikipedia’s top quality. I am a recent changes patroller who searches for vandalism, bad faith edits, and unsourced material. I am also a pending changes reviewer who ensures that only encyclopedic edits are being passed. The vandalism prevention I am most proud of is my work with users (Mainly IP's) in recent changes. Whenever I see vandalism, I revert it as soon as possible and give the user a warning. I always assume good faith and make sure to give warning before reporting. If the user continues to edits past my warnings, I report them to AIV. If the user is an IP vandal, I use the "Shared IP tag" in order for admins to see where the IP is being used or hosted. This allows for abuse emails and blocking to be sent out more systematically. My prime example of vandalism prevention would be the page Will Roland. When I was browsing recent changes, I spotted the Will Roland article being the subject of multiple IP abuse. It was clear that the IP's were in unison as a result of the edit content. After reverting, I submitted the page to RFPP to prevent the IP abuse from continuing to attack the page. Once the page was protected, the IP's settled down. The end result was a user being blocked indefinitely, some IP's being blocked temporarily, and the page being protected for a week. As of today, the article is nowhere near the amount of vandalism it used to have. I keep the page watch listed just in case. My work on that article helped crack down on a vandalism ring and kept Wikipedia safe from ill-intent. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Icewhiz
- 15. How much time do you devote to each AfD you !vote in? Could you please explain how you evaluate and article and possible sources prior to !voting?
- A: When I come across an AfD that I will partake in, I begin research and analysis immediately. I ensure that all of my votes are neutral and have supporting claims. There are some cases where the nominator has made a clear claim that is very agreeable with, but I will always make sure the guidelines users bring up are properly met or violated on the article. I will walk you through a typical deletion method I go through:
- The first step I do is read the main nomination and votes to see the building of a consensus. Reading other user's opinions helps give me a ground for research and analysis.
- The second step I do is read the main article itself to spot improper references, original research, copy-violation, or anything un-encyclopedic. This gives me the first impressions and helps further research.
- The third step I do is go through every "Find sources" topic to see if I can find reliable sources. I also search for details to satisfy certain guidelines such as NHOCKEY for a sports player. I search google, news, newspapers, scholar, WP refs, the NYT, local newspapers (if applicable), and other relevant websites. The timing of this step can vary based on the sources available. Some searches will bring up zero results, while others will contain hundreds, which I comb through to search.
- The final step I do is come up with a vote based on my research and Wikipedia guidelines. Sometimes an article will fail the GNG, while other times it is more detailed such as FOOTY. I also take into consideration WP:HEY, which can happen when a dedicated user fixes the article from its nominated state. Sometimes I even partake in trying to fix up the article by filling bare urls or copy-editing.
- Timing may vary per discussion, but I always dedicate myself to assuming good faith and researching the article. There are some cases where WP:SNOW can create a faster vote, but I never sacrifice quality for quantity. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: When I come across an AfD that I will partake in, I begin research and analysis immediately. I ensure that all of my votes are neutral and have supporting claims. There are some cases where the nominator has made a clear claim that is very agreeable with, but I will always make sure the guidelines users bring up are properly met or violated on the article. I will walk you through a typical deletion method I go through:
- Additional question from Icewhiz
- 16. Please explain your relisting of these discussions: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] in light of WP:NOQUORUM (WP:SOFTDELETE), WP:RELIST, WP:NACD, and WP:RELISTBIAS ?
- A: Relisting is an important area of the Articles for Deletion sector on Wikipedia. Relisting allows for the building of a stronger consensus and helps give more attention to AfD listings that were not noticed well. When resisting, I ensure that it is justified and is beneficial to the deletion nomination. I will go one by one with all the resisting examples you have provided for me:
- For the Tinsley Advertising, I felt a relist was appropriate as a result of no votes being issued on the subject. The article does have some mentions on Google books and WP refs, but the mentions are not enough to satisfy the GNG. The nominator also said they were "bringing it here for re-evaluation". A realist could have brought a stronger consensus, but no participation led to a soft delete with a REFUND application applying.
- For The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific, the consensus was not established throughout the users. Some votes were not substantial such as the "I Don't think..." one, while other users claimed that redirects were plausible or a separate discussion. I felt that a relist would help create a better consensus through more oversight on the discussion. A new user found sources and casted a new vote after as well, strengthening opinions for a redirect/merge.
- For The Walt Disney Company Argentina, the nomination was not well explained through Wikipedia guidelines. A few sources popped up and there was no consensus developed at all except for the nomination. The article nomination needed a relist incase of new evidence, sources, or interested user's coming. After the relist, it was relisted again with a new vote coming out recently.
- For 2008 Omloop der Kempen, there was no consensus except the nominator. A soft delete could not apply as there was a bit of mentions and that the subject was in a different language, meaning users who are native could have chimed in. The creator of the article was also banned. After the relist, the consensus moved away from deletion to a redirect, proving the relist prevented a soft delete.
- For Gharghashti, the decision to relist was a challenge. With a disambiguation and tribal names being mentioned by the nominator, a consensus was needed. There were some passing mentions, but just like with Omloop, users who are native or knowledgeable in tribal, could have chimed in. The article was also unclear if it existed. The relist led to a clear delete consensus strengthened by copied content. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- For El Gilano, there were concerns of the article possibly meeting the GNG. SportingFlyer mentioned that it passed WP:V and that a farsi-language search would be required. This thought was strengthened by PichPich backing SportingFlyer up with a language concern. As for the two above, users who are native could have chimed in. The relist led to no new votes, leading to a soft delete with a REFUND application applying.
- I promise that all of my relistings have reasoning and logic behind them. With a clear consensus, the AfD can go smoother, have less disruption, and encourage teamwork and collaboration while still maintaining Wikipedias quality. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: Relisting is an important area of the Articles for Deletion sector on Wikipedia. Relisting allows for the building of a stronger consensus and helps give more attention to AfD listings that were not noticed well. When resisting, I ensure that it is justified and is beneficial to the deletion nomination. I will go one by one with all the resisting examples you have provided for me:
- Additional question from User:Reyk
- 17. What, in your opinion, is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?
- A: In my opinion, the most important sector of policy is Conduct. Proper conduct allows for the encyclopedia to flourish through teamwork, discussion, and consensus. The most important policy in my opinion is Editing policy under conduct. The editing policy is what gives Wikipedia its foundation and growth. In order to make the encyclopedia a better place, proper jurisdiction, and sourcing is needed to ensure top quality. By adding citations and removing original content, the encyclopedia develops into a strong place of knowledge. Through proper discussion and editing, collaboration creates an encyclopedia with articles of premium quality. The entire sector of Conduct is vital to the success of Wikipedia. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Dolotta
- 18. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
- A: Honestly, my weakest area on Wikipedia is Files. I am talking about files on Wikipedia, not Commons. I am active in transferring files to the commons as part of the Wiki project and backlog drive, but I am weaker in Wikipedia files. For Commons files, I know that the licensing is proper (after a review) and how the process works. I have several files that I have successfully moved to the commons. My weakness is for Wikipedia images that are not suitable for commons. I am not the best with file endings (jpg, jpeg, etc) and can encounter trouble with sizing and such. However, I have uploaded several images to increase an articles diversity and clarity. The images I have uploaded are either requested or needed to improve clarity. I have no issues dealing with captains, alt text, and pixel size, but I am weaker in determining the best file type and licensing. When looking to upload or maintain files, I always ensure the licensing is proper. To address my weaker ability with Wikipedia files, I try to read up as much as I can and upload requested images that have valid licensing. I also will continue to add photos to the commons that are suitable to move from Wikipedia. Files may be my weakest, but I continue learn knowledge about them through research and asking. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from LessHeard vanU
- 19. Further to your answer to question 2., can you understand that someone might feel that you are slightly invested in the article Deep Space Homer? You comment that you consider two unsuccessful FA attempts a personal failure. I ask because one of the skill sets of admin work is not to be too attached to your own sysop contributions and opinions, and to allow a matter to pass resolved in a manner not in accordance with your preferences.ps. RfA is not comfortable, but then neither is adminship sometimes - if you are able to withstand this, then you were correct in accepting the nomination.
- A: I am not really attached to the article, but more take pride. I selected that article to be the goal of my first Featured Article. While I put a lot of work into the article, I always ensure I am focused on every branch of Wikipedia. I will never use bias or personal preference in any major contributions. Consensus is the building block of a fair conversation. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from PaleCloudedWhite
- 20. A hypothetical situation. An editor who you know socially contacts you offwiki and asks that you intervene at "Article X", where your friend has been reverted a couple of times by an editor who, according to your friend, is a pompous arse (or just a not very nice person - if you're unlikely to be friends with someone who regards people as pompous arses). You look at the article - which you have never edited before - and see a fairly standard content dispute. The other editor is someone you have interacted with before, and you agree with your friend's characterisation. What would you do?
- A: I would first never use foul language at all on the wiki. I will ensure that all discussions are peaceful and civil. Even though the user may have contacted me off wiki, I will head into the discussion with a completely neutral point of view. I will not be biased to the discussion just because the editor is my friend. If the other editor is someone I have interacted with before (In a bad way or good way?), I will try to assume good faith and see their point of view. I always assume good faith unless it is blatant vandalism. According to the scenario, I agree with the friends characterization meaning I will take action in a justified way. I will always ensure that the issue is solved peacefully and with proper discussion. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your reply. I have a follow-up question. If I were to put it to you that, in the situation that I described, the hypothetical friend could be viewed as stealth canvassing, and therefore being disruptive, would that make you change your answer, and if so, in what way? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging AmericanAir88, in case my follow-up question has got lost in the traffic here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would change my answer as stealth canvassing is not permitted on the encyclopedia. I would never edit on behalf of someones personal gain instead of their goal for improving the encyclopedia. All of my edits and oversight is on strengthening the encyclopedia and helping encourage civility. If the user were to constantly badger and get threatening, I would report them to the proper authorities. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: I would first never use foul language at all on the wiki. I will ensure that all discussions are peaceful and civil. Even though the user may have contacted me off wiki, I will head into the discussion with a completely neutral point of view. I will not be biased to the discussion just because the editor is my friend. If the other editor is someone I have interacted with before (In a bad way or good way?), I will try to assume good faith and see their point of view. I always assume good faith unless it is blatant vandalism. According to the scenario, I agree with the friends characterization meaning I will take action in a justified way. I will always ensure that the issue is solved peacefully and with proper discussion. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Foxnpichu
- 21. You are fairly new to Wikipedia, having only edited for 2 years (as far as I can tell, I may have made a mistake). Would you say you have gained a reasonable amount of experience in a couple of years?
- A: I would say I have definitely gained a reasonable amount of experience. When I started out, I looked at everything as an opportunity to learn. Through learning correct citations, deletion policy, various scripts, and conversing people, I have gained a ton of knowledge through my 2 years. Age on Wikipedia should not be looked at as a number, but as a timeline for experience. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from User:PeterTheFourth
- 22. Does the '88' in your username hold any particular significance?
- A: Honestly, I just like the number 88. I explain it in question 9 on how most websites require a number after just a name. I picked 88 as it flowed well with the AA acronym. I see that some are concerned with the number "88". I can reassure you that there is no ill-intent with the number. I like the way the number looks with the acronym AA. My name is also the Dead man's hand, which I found cool as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from RadioKAOS
- 23. How is it considered a net positive to the encyclopedia when editors specialize in a particular content or project area and their editing activity suggests that they have no clue or could care less about the encyclopedia as a whole?
- A: The specialized editors motives need to be more deeply explored. If they are working on the project area for their own personal gain or advertisement, it is not a net positive. If they pick one topic to edit articles on, it can help the Wikipedia. The main concept to deciding if they are a net positive is their passion. Users who are dedicated to making the encyclopedia a better place are the ones who work in all areas of expertise, are friendly, and contribute flourishing articles and edits. If a user just wants to host their own content or advertise, they do not understand what Wikipedia stands for. Passion plays a big role in editing. One thing that unites us all here is our passion for improving the encyclopedia. We are all net positives in my opinion. The people who are uncivil and violate policies are not net positives, but burdens to the generosity of people volunteering. Wikipedia is for collaboration to create articles to inform the public and create unified general knowledge. AmericanAir88(talk) 04:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question from MJL
- 24. Why do you answer questions out of order? It's a little disorientating. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: All of the questions that I answer go through a careful look over and analysis on a separate document. This is to ensure my answers are of highest quality. On some questions, it takes more time to craft an answer and I do not want to substitute quality over quantity. I guarantee that I will answer every question and hope to do so in the most mature, knowledgable, way possible. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Cthomas3
- 25. Greetings, AA, and thank you for standing for adminship. In your opinion, when is someone WP:INVOLVED, and under what conditions would you consider recusing yourself from taking administrative action? CThomas3 (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: WP:INVOLVED describes how editors should not act as administrators in disputes they are involved in. In my opinion, it is crucial to the encyclopedia that Involved admins do not take administrative action as it can be portrayed as a potential conflict of interest or canvassing. Wikipedia is always changing, and it is important for admins to work together with editors to ensure neutral, civil, and justified results and creations. As an admin, I would handle circumstances from a neutral point of view and ensure that I have no previous conflict of interest. I would never use bias to see an argument through. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- AmericanAir88, Just wanted to say thank you for answering. I know it's been a rough several days for you, and it is much appreciated. CThomas3 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: WP:INVOLVED describes how editors should not act as administrators in disputes they are involved in. In my opinion, it is crucial to the encyclopedia that Involved admins do not take administrative action as it can be portrayed as a potential conflict of interest or canvassing. Wikipedia is always changing, and it is important for admins to work together with editors to ensure neutral, civil, and justified results and creations. As an admin, I would handle circumstances from a neutral point of view and ensure that I have no previous conflict of interest. I would never use bias to see an argument through. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question from Johnsmith2116
- 26. Hello. As an administrator, would you hesitate to put page protection (at least temporary) on a page that begins to get a lot a deliberately unconstructive edits that come flooding in? For example, if a high profile sporting event has a particular athlete who is getting a lot of attention, and that athlete's Wikipedia page, upon completion of that sporting event, begins to get a lot of unconstructive edits from trolls, if called upon would you quickly put protection on that page to enable established editors to work on that page without disruption from IP users who are only there to disrupt? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: Page protection is vital to safeguarding the quality of Wikipedia articles. Some examples of when it is used are when vandals and trolls flood the page with unconstructive edits, sock account engagement, recent media attention, and current events. The decision to protect a page should be based upon the amount of edits that are unconstructive, patterns, and the amount of users. If I encountered a report of this issue, I would first investigate the edit history and see what the trolls are editing. I will first assess how many trolls there are. They will all be given appropriate warnings on their talk pages. If the unconstructive edits continue to happen through the adding of unsourced material and trolling, a page protection will be the best course of action. The protection ensures that the recent events will stay safeguarded and accurate. Before protecting any page, I will ensure it is the best course of action to perform. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, AmericanAir88. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: Page protection is vital to safeguarding the quality of Wikipedia articles. Some examples of when it is used are when vandals and trolls flood the page with unconstructive edits, sock account engagement, recent media attention, and current events. The decision to protect a page should be based upon the amount of edits that are unconstructive, patterns, and the amount of users. If I encountered a report of this issue, I would first investigate the edit history and see what the trolls are editing. I will first assess how many trolls there are. They will all be given appropriate warnings on their talk pages. If the unconstructive edits continue to happen through the adding of unsourced material and trolling, a page protection will be the best course of action. The protection ensures that the recent events will stay safeguarded and accurate. Before protecting any page, I will ensure it is the best course of action to perform. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question from Wugapodes
- 27. Thanks for putting yourself forward for adminship! Given the focus on your AfD participation, I'd like to ask about your deletion philosophy. Ignoring the cases where it is legally required, if Wikipedia is not paper why delete articles at all? Put another way, what do you see as the value of deletion? Wug·a·po·des 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: Deletion is to ensure that Wikipedia is full of articles that are top quality. Although it may not be on paper, digital storage and organized categories matter a lot on the encyclopedia. Deletion allows for users to decide on a consensus to delete an article that violates Wikipedia's notability guide or threatens the principles we all live by. If we let a spam account create something non-notable on the encyclopedia, it presents us all as allowing advertisement and not caring about the safeguard of neutral knowledge. Deletion helps us maintain Wikipedia articles that represent our website as a place of premium knowledge where anyone can edit. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question from Simonm223
- 28. What is your position regarding the link between WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP and WP:EVENTCRIT? As an admin what would you do to protect the privacy of non-notable BLPs? Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- A: On Wikipedia, it is important to ensure that all BLP's are treated with precision notability checks and sourced information. Biographies of living persons are important to the encyclopedia, but need the most careful viewing as they are subjected to vandalism and original content. For WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT, original research and routine references should be kept at minimal especially for BLP's. Just because an event is notable, does not mean the people involved in the event are notable. BLP's are also not diaries or journals, meaning that every event does not qualify for notability on individuals. Per WP:BLP1E, just because a person is on the news, does not mean they are notable for inclusion. Biographies based on events can cause disproportionate weight to the event and can dispute the neutral point of view. When a person is notable for one to a few significant events, excessive detailing can be harmful to the person (WP:AVOIDVICTIM). As an admin, I would protect the privacy of non-notable BLPs by ensuring that events are well covered and do not victimize certain people. Non-notable people are subject to deletion as they can dispute the neutral point of view on events and can cause excessive detail. A proper redirect would be more appropriate for a non-notable BLP based on an event. To protect privacy of a notable BLP event, a temporary protection can be added per a request or persistent vandalism/original content. It is important that BLP's be maintained and monitored with careful inspection and additions. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Puzzledvegetable
- 29. How do you interpret Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and how would you apply it as an administrator?
- A: I feel that "Ignore all rules" is proper policy that requires careful interpretation and judgement. According to the Wikipedia:Five pillars, "Wikipedia has no firm rules". Improving the encyclopedia should always be done with the policies in mind, but if you take good faith and have proper jurisdiction, your edit can be included. As per WP:BOLD, we as users should be courageous and take pride in our edits. As an encyclopedia that encourages expansion and collaboration, I see WP:IAR as a motivating statement for users to stand up and help improve Wikipedia. Applying it as an admin would be to use good faith and consensus to determine conclusions and decisions. Changes made on controversial articles and featured content is subject to more scrutiny, and Conflicts of Interest should be handled in the proper way. However, the policies of Wikipedia should always be kept in mind and edits that promote vandalism, spam, attack, or unsourced content will be reverted and subject to user review. Wikipedia is a site with unlimited knowledge, and users have the ability to help expand and strengthen the knowledge. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for AmericanAir88: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for AmericanAir88 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support as nominator. North America1000 04:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I, for one, welcome our new American overlords! El_C 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, I've worked with this editor on multiple occasions and from what I've seen they are qualified and have what it takes to handle and use the tools. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support good content creator, wikipedia needs more admins with content creation experience and less drama. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Just want to add that the "88" stuff is disgraceful. AA88 is under no obligation to change his username. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moral Support. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Q6 answers sound like the difference between unilateral instant speedy deletion and the two person two step 1st one CSD tags the second does the deletion. —07:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC). Per this, and User:Cryptic 02:12, 5 August 2019, I think User:AmericanAir88 needs to quickly cram WP:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I like your temperament. I thing you would have done well. A weakness with deletion policy is hurting you, I advise you try this AfD table, sort by time open, and contribute to old contested AfDs, where to do so requires the most carefully explained reasoning, including knowing when exactly something should be deleted, and on how to read consensus and policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was on the fence, but their answers to my question 5 reveals someone who is humble and knows their limitations and realizes that collegiality is key to this project, as is understanding consensus. Their example in question 4 is pretty much the poster child for protection over blocking. While they have less experience in the project areas they say they want to work in than I normally expect, someone who is willing to work with others and ask for help who is also a prolific content creator has the temperament to be a sysop, and I give them my endorsement. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Solid answer to my question (6). I have not done a forensic search through their contribs but what I have looked at shows a competent editor who has been around long enough to demonstrate a strong commitment to the project, a reasonable grasp of WP:PAG and a good temperament. No red or yellow flags. I believe AA meets my criteria for RfA and I wish them good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just a quick note to reaffirm my support. I've had a look at the various oppose votes and I don't find them persuasive. I think a few people are setting the bar a bit too high. We need to remember that we are voting on whether or not to give an unpaid volunteer a few extra tools to help out on an online encyclopedia. We are not electing a pope or president. AA is going to be fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Looking a bit deeper than the link provided I see a lot of red (article work). I'm not Simpson's fan, but Deep Space Homer is a decent article. I also see over 150 efforts at wp:cleanup which is also a great area to work. I'm not sure I'd mention a blocked user by name when they can't defend themselves, and the obsession with the Homer article gives me pause. I'm still seeing some irony in 1 airline nominating another airline. All in all, at least where I looked, this seems to be someone with a good head on their shoulders, a calm personality, and a modicum of common sense. That goes a long way with me.— Ched : ? — 06:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC) (edited 14:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)) (edited 8/5) I'm sorry, the data provided in the oppose section is more that I can go along with. I won't pile on oppose, but I can no longer support — Ched : ? — 21:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - No red flags. The answers to all the questions give me confidence. It’s also great that they have several good articles under their belt and are passionate about the project.—NØ 06:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Why not? The candidate's answers to the questions are excellent. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)- Moved to oppose: the answer to Q7 (written after I posted this) concerns me. Although I often vote "why not?" at RfX, which is basically an implied "per nom", I don't see how saying "per nom" at all strengthens the rationale; it only adds another approving voice to the consensus, not new arguments. That counts for something if we have a real consensus, but we might have one based on policy-non-compliant arguments, or at worst simply an illusion of a consensus produced by sockpuppets. So moving to oppose per Steven Crossin, SportingFlyer, and DBigXray. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support, good content creator, sensible answers to questions, no concerns here. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Moved to neutral. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - AfD matched the result over 90%. Content work/creations includes many lists, stubs, and DAB, but is adequate to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of what an article should be, although The Darien Times and Squid Noir should be addressed. For the rest, my 'laundry list' as some call it, although it is nothing more than the minimum and obvious requirements, is sufficiently met and I am confident they will not abuse the tools.. As an aficionado of aircraft, my judgement is not being clouded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support.Moved to Neutral, based on the reasoning of several of the opposes.I'm glad to see a content creator trying for an Admin bit. While it doesn't appear that he's earned his first FA, he's been through the process and I'm sure that he's able to get there. He does meet my criteria by having taking several to GA status.GregJackP Boomer! 07:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Whyever not? Calm, competent, no issues. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support AmericanAir's contributions seem to span all relevant areas I would want to see in a good admin candidate. Go for it dude! Lourdes 09:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Great work in content creation. From the answers to Q3 and Q5, I trust that they will engage in discussion willingly if any concerns are raised. ComplexRational (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - in the know = a plus/plus. Atsme Talk 📧 10:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. content creator is a plus. should be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like what I see. scope_creepTalk 12:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sounds good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support This editor has a clear and strong body of work and a commendable display of loyalty to the project. I don't see the airline issue as a red flag at all, just a coincidence that hopefully won't represent a troubling pattern. Michepman (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mega support AmericanAir88 is a great editor!! I am absolutely floored this is happening, but I could not be more ecstatic! Very responsible user whom I trust a ton with the tools. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lourdes asked me to copy this over from the talk page to make it more visible for folks:
- With the username thing, the candidate has said his reasoning included making his initials a dead man's hand (poker). As for the other AFD thing, I'm afraid only the candidate and his nominator can respond to AA's intentions there.
However, I did do the math out. AA had participated in 90 AFDs for both the month of July and so far in August. He participated in a total of 235 AFDs, so this is roughly a third of all his AFD contributions (that doesn't say much for an editor with only 2 years imo). This may be pause for concern for most folks, but if you look at the numbers it really doesn't show AA gaming the AFD voting system at all. The July/August votes has a 86.66666667% chance of casting a vote the same way as an outcome, but in total it was 88.5106383%. This means that his most recent votes lowered his overall average. Full disclosure, I put this on a spreadsheet, and it was just easier to count "no consensus" and "Not closed yet" as equivalent as the receiving an opposite outcome.
My conjecture as to the noticeable uptick is not so much an attempt to pad an overall record (which wasn't boosted all that much from the general looks of things), but it likely came from (1) a recent interest in participating in AFD or (2) advice from his nominator to get involved more in that area. Neither situation is particularly troubling in my view. - I'll add here that the only reason I spent 20 minutes in Google Sheets today is because I feel like AA is a great editor whom I sincerely trust to have the tools. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:MJL, When someone asked him to get involved in AfD the intention I believe was to learn more about various notability policies and judgement of consensus. But based on the AfD log what I saw was blatant gaming of the system. It was as if he was doing a ritual that he was asked to do. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DBigXray: [Thank you for the ping] Before July of this year, AA already had 145 AFDs under his belt. I therefore don't agree necessarily he needed to learn more about AFDs at that point. Even if you don't take in account the recent 90, his record at AFD is solid enough as it is. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:MJL, When someone asked him to get involved in AfD the intention I believe was to learn more about various notability policies and judgement of consensus. But based on the AfD log what I saw was blatant gaming of the system. It was as if he was doing a ritual that he was asked to do. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Satisfied with the answer to my question. Thanks for the response, and good luck in the future. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - not a jerk, has a clue, content creator, experienced. Those are pretty much my boxes and they're ticked. Stacking up AFDs in advance of an RFA would be a slight turn-off, but it's not actually disallowed, and from a look through their AFDs although they do quite often !vote late, there are also enough nominations and first-vote responses that this isn't likely to be a deliberate attempt to up the stats. More likely just the way they roll, so I don't consider the oppose rationales to be valid. Cheers, and good luck — Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support- You are ready. CLCStudent (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, an editor who will do just fine with the mop. bd2412 T 20:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support ~SS49~ {talk} 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support Netpos -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support enthusiastically. I thank North America for nominating this administrative candidate who will be an asset to this project. I have encountered AmericanAir88 in many AfDs. I can see the candidate will do the unrewarding work that benefits the project. I also read through the answers AmericanAir88 has given in this RFA. AmericanAir88 will be an outstanding administrator and will do the unrewarding backstage work that this project needs. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- 91.3% of the candidates AfD votes matched the result. The candidate started 41 articles (2 deleted). 6500 edits per year, with 53.6% in the main space. Lightburst (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- support per nominator statement and other rationales stated above. More than meets my standards. Sounds too inclusionist to me, but that's not a legitimate reason for me to oppose. And closing an AfD Does not require a lengthy discussion or rationale. Frankly, I avoid the place 'cause of too much drama. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Tony, humble and know their limitations ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Tony and North America. net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - looks like a fine candidate. I've done a review of their recent AfD votes and don't see anything particularly spooky; some pile-on votes are not a deal-breaker for me. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributions. I am not concerned by the objections raised by the opposers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Net positive. Maybe lacking some experience but little cause for concern. Nigej (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Like others, I'm not concerned by the objections raised below and I see no reason why we should push away a qualified candidate. Just don't be a dummy. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: opposes are highly unconvincing. User is obviously not a neo-Nazi, answering the dozens of questions out of order or not within a couple of hours is not at all a problem (and the candidate should be commended for their mature answer to the rather questionable question 24), and every candidate who intends to work in AFD is analysed and overanalysed to death. Anything looks like "pile-on AFD votes" or "voting just in prep for an RFA" if you glare at it a bit with a skeptical attitude but MJL's talk page analysis convinces me that this is not the case. As for the other questions, I think they answered the AFD-related ones well and some of the more dubious and even aggressive-sounding ones very sensibly. Throughout all of the opposition, I'm seeing no temperament concerns and no incompetence concerns and so I do not see why the candidate cannot be trusted with the tools. — Bilorv (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support samee converse 16:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moral Support - Thanks for all the work you do to improve Wikipedia, and for being willing to go through this difficult process! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Bilorv. I don’t see any indication that this user will be anything less than exemplary as an admin, and has demonstrated a level-headed and measured approach in their editing. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - we need admins, and the concerns about recent AfD activity and the username aren't enough to dissuade me. schetm (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per response to question 27, the editor understands the spirit of WP:DEL, and I believe they will not abuse the tools. Further if they make a mistake as the opposition fears, I trust that AA88 will humbly work to fix it. Net positive. Wug·a·po·des 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I see nothing to indicate that the candidate would misuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 23:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just to comment on the "88" in the username thing - there are at present 199929 editors with "88" in the username. 146,810 of which either begin with, or end with 88, and are not blocked [19]. Most of which are unlikely to be nazis, and are more likely than not positive contributors. As mentioned elsewhere here, nazis don't "own" 88, and it can mean a hell of a lot of things. Please, don't forget that your fellow contributors are human beings too. Imagine how you would feel if someone implied that you have some sort of connection to nazis based on nothing but your username. SQLQuery me! 23:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I understand some of the concerns regarding AFD in the opposes below, but even taking that into account, I believe the candidate is still a net positive and would be a good administrator. In particular, I was impressed by how thoughtful some of the answers to the questions above were. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support – I read AA88's talk page, which, to me, shows strong character and a sincere desire to help build the encyclopedia–I think the concerns raised by oppose voters amounts to being rough around the edges and that can be straightened out by learning from other, more seasoned admin "on the job".
- The objection to "88" in the username is silly. As has been pointed out, 88 means a lot of things. For example, 88 is a lucky number in Chinese; there are Asian markets called Super 88, and a car called the Oldsmobile 88, a band called The 88, a movie called 88 Minutes... none of it has anything to do with 14/88.
- However, I share concerns about the "AmericanAir" part of the username. It's like you're a walking billboard for an airline. It's too commercial IMO. Although that's not the editor's intent, I think it's still the effect, and it'll be more high-profile as an admin. I note that User:AA88 is available and is, in my opinion, a better username ("AA88" sounds pretty cool when spoken, and has a neat not-quite-symmetry when written).
- I share the concerns about relists in Q16. IMO (and I think according to the policies listed), it's better to !vote in low-participation AfDs rather than relist them. The answer to Q20 should have been, "If my friend asks me off-wiki to intervene, I will politely decline unless it's Levivich." (There are still several days left in this RfA at this point; perhaps reviewing the linked policies and posting follow-up answers to some of these questions wouldn't be a bad idea.)
- As for the CSDs, what I see is in the questions and opposes about that issue are a bunch of redlinks, meaning they were, ultimately, deleted. Looking through the deletion logs for the pages listed, I counted seven different admin deleting those pages. It's not a big deal to me if someone tags a page as R3 instead of G6 [20] or G2 when it should have been A7 [21] or G11 [22]. It's more important to me whether the article should or should not be deleted at all. I agree that the CSD criteria are "tricky", so I don't hold it against someone for tripping over them. I think AA88's "deletion instinct" is good. (I also agree with !voters in this AfD that it was a waste of time, and should have been speedily deleted.)
- The pre-RfA AfD pile-on voting might seem a bit tryhard at first, but I'm convinced by MJL's analysis showing the match rate went down, not up, recently.
- I'm impressed by the editor's dedication and their comments in their answers about civility. Given the choice, I would rather have an admin who takes civility seriously and might make a few bad deletions than the other way around.
- You can see on the talk page that they have multiple potential admin mentors, and that makes me feel like any rough edges or unfamiliarity with policy can be addressed fairly quickly because we have an enthusiastic student and qualified, interested teachers. We need admin; AA88 won't break anything; let's give 'em the mop. – Levivich 05:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Concerned with the fact that the user seems to have less of clue of AfD than me. Name not great either. However, seems to be a calm mind and is a decent content creator. I don't have time to scrutinize everything here but I would like to see this within the discretionary range for crats to determine consensus. wikitigresito (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support A dedicated editor who will make an excellent administrator. The collegiate manner in which this candidate works with existing admins will help enormously. Poltair (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support My RFA criteria places me between support and neutral as I share some of the concerns about deletion raised by the Opposers, but what brings me in Support is the fact that Q9 and Q22 were asked, and that at least 1 user has opposed on this basis. We should have assumed good faith and not asked the question at all. Iffy★Chat -- 09:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The opposes are (very) unconvincing. DexDor (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support, a little on the less experienced side but I think they can be trusted. Polyamorph (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, probably just moral at this point, I strongly recommend changing your username to get rid of the 88 due to its unfortunate connotations, get some more experience, and come back in six or twelve months. It is good that you want to help, please do not be dissuaded. Fish+Karate 12:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Mainly "moral support" at this point. Need a bit more experiance. Don't give up and give it a go in six months. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Moral supportSupport Thank you for taking the plunge into the bearpit known as RfA. Please don't give up on the project. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)- Changed to full support to counteract the fucking pointless blow-up about the number in AA88's handle. If this editor was editing about Race and Intelligence or another topic that neonazis flock to then I would get the connection, I would also see the connection if their name was AA1388, but AA88 is an aviation nerd who seems to have chosen a number at random. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moral support The "88" criticism is straight up trolling at this point. Only if there was some evidence of such political editing, but no. No major concerns, some sub-par AfD votes but that's it. --Pudeo (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Yes perhaps some of the AfD closes could have been a bit better, but I trust someone with the level of experience to ensure they are confident they are doing the right thing and in-line with policy the best they are able when using advanced tools. I think he would do a fine job and would be a net benefit as an admin, N.J.A. | talk 01:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support (from Neutral) After reading more from the candidate, especially at candidate's talk page, I think that the AfD issues can be overcome. Candidate is level headed and reasonable. These items rate way higher for me than some minor policy issues that can be corrected. I believe that AA88 will be an outstanding admin. And I still think the username thing is a stretch. I had never heard of the 88 association before. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. At this point it may be just moral support but the candidate meets my minimum criteria. "88", in Chinese, represents good fortune. I'm not terribly fond of a potential admin advertising a corporation but I do not think it should preclude them from serving. Ifnord (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's clear that this RfA is not on track to succeed, but I will toss in my support mainly on the basis that the Nazis tried to appropriate my number too (along with a whole bunch of other ones.) Keep editing productively, take into account the legitimate concerns raised in the oppose section, and I'm sure a future RfA will be successful. 28bytes (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, why not. — 🦊 23:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Destined to fail though it may be, 88 is perfectly acceptable in absence of evidence of nazi persuasions and editing history. Are we going to forbid all editors born in 1969 who were around long beyond 69 became a counter culture icon from participating in the community? I know of people who ran with 88 in the online community, many reason apart from HH for it to exist. Including the 8,8cm Pak 43. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support well qualified editor. Level headed, civil and willing to learn. No Wikipedian is competent or expected to be competent in everything. AA88 won't venture into areas they are less experienced in like AfD. Gizza (t)(c) 06:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moral support, not least for flying on with flames pouring out of the one surviving engine, & the right to be 31 years old. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support After reviewing the candidate's contributions, I have no problems offering my support. Capt. Milokan (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support Looks to be a skilled, helpful and friendly editor, and likely to be careful with the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support After the last RfA's passed, why not. Conlinp (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Per Levivich. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moral support 1988 is currently probably the most common birth year in the world (the average age of currently alive humans is around 31). We shouldn't let nazi numerology stand in the way of that and all the numerous non-fascist connotations of the number 88, including being a nice repetitive number to add to an internet handle. WP:DENY the fascists. Daß Wölf 04:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Thought he gave thoughtful answers to the questions, can be trusted with the tools. As for the 88 crap, why don't you all go ask Eric Lindros why he wore the number 88? Hmmm.. oh no maybe he's a Nazi!! sheesh. -- Ϫ 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support especially for his civility. Civility is something we need more of from our administrators. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support for two reasons: First, in mine opinion within our community there is very little as important as civility and collegiality, and the candidate seems to have lots; second, because though there are editors i respect among the opposes, there are some utterly absurd opposes based on the candidate's username and, while it probably won't happen, it is my belief that such should be discarded by the closing 'crat, thus my support can assist in negating the nonsense. Happy days, LindsayHello 20:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moving from oppose. Please note that all my concerns around deletion I raised still stand, however I refuse to stay in that column and be associated with frankly ridiculous opposes based on the candidates username, which I honestly feel should be discounted. The question about the candidates username has been asked and answered. 88 has many meanings e.g it’s lucky in Chinese culture, it could be the year they were born, or literally anything else - hell the candidate could like the element Radium. Opposing the candidate because a tiny minority in the world associates the number with Hitler, honestly, ridiculous. I ask those opposing, if you had a Chinese editor run for RFA and they had 88 in their username, would you also oppose? No? Then it shouldn’t happen here, and opposes based on the candidates decision to have it in their username forces me into this column. To the candidate - do not feel you have to change your username to get supports. Focus on the concerns raised by me and other reasonable opposes and you’ll do fine next time. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I am here largely because of the ludicrous oppose !votes opposing for ludicrous reasons. If anything, this seems to be just one example as to why RFA is an utter shitstorm to deal with and the toilet bowl of Wikipedia: instead of looking for sensible reasons as to why the candidate would be suited for the tools, we take to opposing them because the number "88" is "widely used by neo-nazis". Such an oppose might be valid if the candidate was evidently a neo-Nazi goosestepping around and not editing constructively, but this isn't the case here. The idea that the number "88" would scare newcomers away is ridiculous given how most people see the number 88 as a, well, regular number. If the number 88 was really that much of a problem, we all know full well that RFA isn't the place for that discussion; try an RFC, where it can be declared a violation of the username policy. An inappropriate username shouldn't be met with a declined adminship application, but a block, because simply opposing someone for such a username implies that it's okay (or at least tolerable) to have the username when they're not an admin, but somehow it's a problem if they are one. The more we continue with the "88 is bad because neo-Nazis use it", the more we let the neo-Nazis win. Anyways, I most certainly don't see a goosestepping Nazi saluting hate spreading neo-Nazi here, so the number 88 in their username should be seen by any sensible person as irrelevant to Naziism. I see instead an editor who takes civility seriously, and given all the issues we've seen lately with incivility, I value such an editor on the project. In other words, the number "88" doesn't concern me one bit; it's a frequently used number and symbol outside of neo-Naziism, and taking other things into consideration, there is no connection between neo-Naziism and this editor here. (So there, my reason for supporting this candidate before I get 50 messages on my talk page scolding me for !voting just to "balance things out") —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I'd like to echo the last two supporting comments. All this stuff about neo-nazism and the number 88 is quite frankly disgusting, and unbecoming of experienced users who should be intelligent/advanced enough to know better. Additionally, I see nothing wrong with following genuine WP:CONSENSUS at RfA. I think this website would be a more open and hospitable place if more admins did the same—at every page. Homeostasis07 (talk · contributions) 02:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support The oppose vote based on the editor's username is red herring at its best. You can discount this vote if you discount these opposes. You don't judge a person by their face, so let's not do that for an editor by their username. They shall be judged by their actions and that only. viz ✦ 04:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - as a counter to editors opposing on the basis of 88, which can mean anything, and may very well be a favourite number. Nazis do not own 88. You can discount this vote if you discount these opposes. starship.paint (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is an experienced user whose participation at FAC is fine – certainly not a red flag, as others are suggesting. I agree with the concerns about an incorrect reading of the deletion policy, but for my part, as a voter, I am not expecting administrators to be perfect, even prior to appointment. And I do not think my standards are too low, in that regard. Support. AGK ■ 15:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The "red flags" raised by the opposition do not worry me. Calidum 15:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Moved from neutral.I am happy with the candidate, not expecting perfection from contribution history, he won't break anything and should be a net benefit with the tools. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Oppose votes based on their username is simply ridiculous. I see plenty of good points especially civility. If this RfA doesn't succeed, come back after a reasonable period of time, after improving yourself for the areas you are lacking experience. Masum Reza📞 15:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- support - net benefit to have the tools. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Seeing some hypocrisy from a certain someone made me decide to support this. Zvtok (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Username is not an issue to me. Had positive experience at FAC, even though I was the opposer on the second nomination. Has the ability to disagree without getting rude. Kees08 (Talk) 01:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support People these days only support those that have no blemishes. We ran out of those individuals long time ago. Is AmericanAir88 perfect? No. But never have I expected some people oppose on the grounds of having 2 identical digits in someone's username. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Not a jerk, knows their limitations, unlikely to abuse the tools and quite likely to learn from the opposition here. --valereee (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
- Sorry. The candidate's recent AfD comments show very little depth of understanding of deletion policy. His AfD comments seem to be hasty hand-waves at policies. What does "Keep per WP:RS" mean (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casper's)? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Estenson was another vague wave at reliable sources, for a BLP, corrected by later delete voters showing that the sources were not reliable at all. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Cut Now Party the candidate uses a claim made in the wikipedia article itself to argue for notability, and then does not change his position when corrected by another editor. The candidate seems to do very little research on AfDs in which he participates. Here are three cursory !votes on three separate AfDs within three minutes: [23], [24], [25]. It's possible that the candidate had done the work on all three earlier, but given the brevity of the comments I doubt it. And so I worry that he would take the same approach to closing AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is no time requirements on how quick or slow a person can vote at Afd and his stats very high.scope_creepTalk 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Possibly too high. I've run through their recent AfD !votes and was surprised to see that in a large proportion of my random sample of recent !votes (participation in which ticked up on June 2019 - most of their !votes post-June) they were the last !voter or close to last - and voting in-line with consensus of prior !votes. e.g. 19-21 July: !votes on AfDs in snow-zone (at time made): [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] Not snow: [32][33] [34]. So 6 !votes in SNOWy circumstances, and 3 possibly less obvious ones.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- For those who might be interested, out of the 41 AfDs nominated by AmericanAir, 30 matched and 11 did not – a broad matching percentage of 73.17%; pretty respectable for me. So while we should look at the policy/guideline based rationales provided (or not) by the candidate, the candidate does seem to know what they're doing at AfD. If I was presented with a candidate who had only 41 AfDs to their credit, and this was the ratio of matching, I would go for it. Lourdes 11:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Possibly too high. I've run through their recent AfD !votes and was surprised to see that in a large proportion of my random sample of recent !votes (participation in which ticked up on June 2019 - most of their !votes post-June) they were the last !voter or close to last - and voting in-line with consensus of prior !votes. e.g. 19-21 July: !votes on AfDs in snow-zone (at time made): [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] Not snow: [32][33] [34]. So 6 !votes in SNOWy circumstances, and 3 possibly less obvious ones.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is no time requirements on how quick or slow a person can vote at Afd and his stats very high.scope_creepTalk 10:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Mkativerata: I want to push back on something. I fully agree with AmericanAir's !votes in those AFD's you mentioned in your oppose.
(1) To answer your question about the vote on AFD:Casper's, I take it to mean keep per being mentioned in reliable sources.
(2) AFD:Kenneth Estenson resulted in delete because of undisclosed paid editing discovered as a result of an SPI. This is something AA couldn't have known at the time about nor would it have have affected his !vote to my understanding.
(3) For AFD:Tax Cut Now Party, he's right. The party did win its election because its candidate won. More importantly, however, enough people voted on that line to maintain ballot access. Regardless, his is just one metric he cited besides WP:GNG (which it did in fact meet).
(4) While his comments may have been brief, they were adequate. It's kind of hard to say "no sources here" in paragraph form.
(5) As for your concern he'd take that to closes, you can take a look at a few for yourself when the tool comes back online.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)- I don’t care whether the !votes were “correct”. We’re not here to award a prize for best AFD stats. I want to know from the substance of the candidate’s AFD contributions whether he considers them carefully, communicates well and understands policy. All I see is quick drive-by jobs.—Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose AmericanAir88 clearly needs to brush up on policy before closing AfDs, as demonstrated by their AfD contributions. Closing them based on "consenus" and "judgement" isn't going to cut it - what happens when there are just two or three !votes all of which incorrectly cite the same policy? ----Pontificalibus 15:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's doesn't make sense. What else is there apart from consensus and judgement? Peer communication possibly? They have far too few to draw any conclusions from them whatsoever. scope_creepTalk 16:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is policy, as my example above demonstrates. A prospective admin who specifically mentions AfD as a place they want to work should be intimately familiar with relevant policies. I'd expect to see examples of them demonstrating this on borderline AfDs and on AfDs where the nomination and/or !votes misapply or incorrectly cite policy. You're correct when you mention they don't seem to have enough experience (if that's what you meant).----Pontificalibus 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's not what I meant. You cant draw conclusions from 41 Afd's. 410 possibly.scope_creepTalk 17:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is policy, as my example above demonstrates. A prospective admin who specifically mentions AfD as a place they want to work should be intimately familiar with relevant policies. I'd expect to see examples of them demonstrating this on borderline AfDs and on AfDs where the nomination and/or !votes misapply or incorrectly cite policy. You're correct when you mention they don't seem to have enough experience (if that's what you meant).----Pontificalibus 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's doesn't make sense. What else is there apart from consensus and judgement? Peer communication possibly? They have far too few to draw any conclusions from them whatsoever. scope_creepTalk 16:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I have concerns with the recent flood of AfD participation, their content as pointed out by the users above, and the overall lack of experience in the other areas they plan on working in. Nihlus 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I not getting a sense of maturity from the candidate and don't think they're ready for the tools. Their answer to question 9 is innocent enough... they probably aren't aware of its use by white supremacists and neo nazis. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't usually respond to RFA !votes but this is pretty unbecoming of anyone to say, much less an administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Which bit? The fact that "88" is widely used by neo-nazis (see Nazi symbolism#Usages by neo-Nazi groups)? I don't believe he was aware of the significance of the number, but it caught my eye. I assume that it was also the reason for question 9. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not discrediting your concerns, but there are plenty of valid reasons to have 88 in a username (born in '88, aesthetics, etc). I'd really only be concerned if it had 14 as well. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Which bit? The fact that "88" is widely used by neo-nazis (see Nazi symbolism#Usages by neo-Nazi groups)? I don't believe he was aware of the significance of the number, but it caught my eye. I assume that it was also the reason for question 9. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't usually respond to RFA !votes but this is pretty unbecoming of anyone to say, much less an administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As an example of "best work", Deep Space Homer is rather sadly lacking. I would not oppose on the lack of FAs alone, but I do oppose on the basis of an apparent inability to be able to tell the good from the bad. Eric Corbett 20:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- What good from bad? scope_creepTalk 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Eric "may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA" per WP:Editing restrictions, so do not expect a response. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is a pity. My understanding is that he seems be conflating two different domains with different types of requirements and then leaving the reader believing an assertion that has been not qualified; that he can't tell good from bad. What good from bad? scope_creepTalk 22:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Eric "may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA" per WP:Editing restrictions, so do not expect a response. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- What good from bad? scope_creepTalk 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose (moved from neutral): I'm not seeing a demonstrated need for the tools yet, nor do I completely trust them to use the tools well, mostly in AfD. I've looked over the last month of their AfD contributions and I don't see any !votes which I would classify as substantial - many !votes are very short and most comply with the consensus of the article. While many AfDs lend themselves to short votes - I looked through a number of my own - I'm concerned AA88 doesn't quite have enough experience with difficult AfDs for me to feel comfortable with them closing AfDs in general, though I do admit they'd probably be fine with closing a lot of AfDs where consensus was clear. Also, reading through the questions, I'm not clear as to how AA88 would use the tools outside of AfD or vandalism. If there were a clear, demonstrated need in another area of the project, I would probably support, but I don't quite feel comfortable supporting at this time - I would like to see more votes in contentious AfDs where you can't just write a concise summary of support/deletion, over a slightly longer period of time. SportingFlyer T·C 01:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, not asking you to change your !vote, but you should probably look at MJL's superlative analysis on the talk page that shows how AmericanAir actually has excellent AfD contributions even if one were to simply ignore their recent AfD participation. Like I said, this is just for your information, not to ask you to change your !vote. Thanks, Lourdes 01:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC))
- @Lourdes: Thank you for pointing me towards that, I appreciate it - but I'm not really focused on the statistics, or that AA88's numbers went down over the last month of contributing. I spent some time on this and I looked through a large number of their AfD-related contributions, mostly because the nomination has been largely predicated around AfDs. I even checked to see which AfDs we voted in together, and they're all mostly Afds which WP:SNOWed, or AA88 closed the AfD as WP:SNOW. And if you're around a lot of AfDs which WP:SNOW, of course your statistics will be high! The one AfD I can find which we both voted which wasn't a snow, AA88 offered what I would consider a very weak AfD !vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Street (Ottawa). As I said above, if there was a need in another area of the project for the tools I'd probably support AA88's candidacy, but as it stands I simply do not trust them to close a contentious AfD on policy grounds, since I haven't seen any evidence which shows me they're able to do so yet, and they don't need the tools to keep closing AfDs which snowed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, not asking you to change your !vote, but you should probably look at MJL's superlative analysis on the talk page that shows how AmericanAir actually has excellent AfD contributions even if one were to simply ignore their recent AfD participation. Like I said, this is just for your information, not to ask you to change your !vote. Thanks, Lourdes 01:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC))
- A noticeable uptick in admin-related activity since approaching NA1K for a nomination about a month ago, with numerous YGM templates exchanged back and forth since then. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course, if the new activity is done well; but by and large, it hasn't been. Besides the AFD pile-on voting mentioned above, I take particular issue with the candidate's CSD tagging. A cross-section of examples that stood out to me:
- The G2 tags I mentioned in Q10 remain inexplicable, despite the candidate's answer; "The articles were a test by those creators to see if their article could pass the review process" is so broad it could apply to any article.
- List of programs broadcast by Six Flags TV was tagged A7 (and it plainly isn't a subject A7 covers) and G5 (on the basis that the creator was globally locked after creating the article).
- Draft:Judy Rushin was tagged G13 and deleted less than five months after DGG undeleted and copyedited it.
- List of Minecraft Skin Packs was a stub for fifteen minutes before being improperly redirected to Minecraft, then tagged R3 the next day by the candidate. (No, we don't need a list of a subset of Minecraft mods, particularly not one without any entries yet; but it's never right to redirect something from a title that would be deleted at RFD, and R3 specifically excludes pages that ever had non-redirect content.)
- Many, many old but good-faith userspace drafts tagged and largely deleted per U5, with a smaller number G6'd with rationales similar to "Stale and only edit by user". U5 reads "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals... with the exception of plausible drafts"; even without the explicit carve-out for drafts, if trying to write articles isn't closely related to Wikipedia's goals, I don't know what is. Some of these were already well-developed enough and on apparently notable enough subjects that they wouldn't be deletable from mainspace short of an AFD - I noted down User:Dharma.Geekette/Dr. Jean Khalfa and User:Dfdvorak/Bloomington Symphony Orchestra (Indiana). (And yes, the second is a copyvio; that doesn't invalidate my point, since neither the candidate nor the admin who deleted it noticed.) User:Chgobios/bios from April shows this isn't an entirely new thing, and the candidate continued to mistag drafts even after Ritchie333 tried to give some guidance at User:Donaldb4/new article name here FORGOTTEN SCOTS and User:Dmaz99/Graduate-Professional Student Center at Yale (GPSCY).
- The speedy deletion criteria are picky, but for good reason: they let users know what kinds of pages they can write without having some admin unilaterally delete them just because they're old and subjectively look like junk. (I note, with some irony given your mention of him in Q3, that Legacypac was outspoken in his desire for a speedy deletion criterion covering "old junk", with no more nuance than that.) If you're going to volunteer yourself for something as general as "reducing the wikipedia backlogs" and "do[ing] anything I am asked to perform", you've got to show enough competence in the areas you're already doing that users can trust you'll do a good job in the areas you don't already have experience in. I have no such confidence. —Cryptic 02:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Regretful oppose, moved from neutral after some consideration (I really hate being in the oppose column), largely per my concerns over the candidate's experience in deletion. I have based this on rationales provided by others in opposition, Cryptic and SportingFlyer's rationale in particular, and per the answers to questions 7. In particular, I am concerned that while the candidate has correctly mentioned that the outcome of XFD discussions is reached by weighing consensus, I felt that a combination of their answers to the RFA questions and examples provided by others determines that they have not demonstrated sufficient experience to make me confident they can weigh consensus in borderline cases, so I kept looking, in particular, for participation in requested moves discussions which I find also a good yardstick for one's ability to demonstrate experience. I found two discussions, where their rationale was per above and per nom. But this isn't a be-all and end-all, so I looked for other experience in closing borderline discussions (e.g. requested moves/RFCs) and have not found any (if I have missed some, I would not consider it badgering to reply to my oppose and point them out, so please feel free to do so). All in all, everything considered, I appreciate the candidate's experience in content contributions and the rationales of those in the support column, but with the candidate intending to work in XFD, I have seen sufficient evidence that gives me enough pause to end up in this column. I am very sorry. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 02:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)- Unfortunately, I am re-affirming my oppose after a review of the candidate's contributions, due to one specific AFD which has cemented my concerns I've highlighted above - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serious Truth. Admittedly, this AFD is from one year ago, but I am noting this for a few reasons and I came across this after further review of the candidate, as I wanted to find reason to support the candidate that I may have overlooked, but found this. I approached an administrator to ask for a copy of the deleted article as I couldn't review deleted content myself, for other non-administrators a copy of the article in question before deletion I've placed at this diff. In short, the article was an AFC that was approved by the candidate, and taken to AFD where the discussion was closed as delete. The candidate voted to keep the article as meeting notability criteria based on their AFC review, and it later appears to have became evident that the article creator was employed by the subject of the article, among other concerns such as notability. This of course may not be easily known by the candidate when they accepted the AFC, I'm just providing this for context.
However, I've then gone to look at the article that was nominated for deletion, which the candidate at the AFD originally asserted that It establishes notability with several good secondary references. This article is not a stub typical non notable BLP. It contains hard information that is referenced. I've had the opportunity to review the articles 13 references. 11 of them were either citing YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, SoundCloud or Discogs, none of which assert notability. The other two sources (a NY times article about a riot at a school where I actually don't see the subject mentioned by name, and a brief newspaper article about the other two founders of the record label receiving a prison sentence, which doesn't mention either the record label or the subject of the article). I feel that this is something that should have been picked up, if for some reason not at the AFC process, at their initial comment at AFD when it was nominated for deletion. All this considered reaffirm my concerns. I don't expect perfection of anyone and I am rarely if ever in this column (as I truly hate opposing), and I appreciate this specific example was one year ago, but unfortunately I am not seeing a substantial improvement in deletion debates sufficient to overcome examples I have raised and others have pointed out to express my opinion any other way. Again, I am very sorry and I would be very happy to support an RFA in six months once improvement in this specific area that the candidate has noted they wish to work in. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 07:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The pile-on !voting is too obvious: e.g. July 11 - [35],[36],[37],[38], [39] - 5 !votes between 17:25-17:36 (~2.5 minutes for locating AfD in list + !voting). All in very obvious SNOW situations - and furthermore in the exact same order as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 5 (and given the rather wide topics here - unlikely to come from any other list... And it is quite telling that only the really easy SNOWy ones were !voted on). In Q15 I don't like
"WP:SNOW can create a faster vote"
(that's actually a situation one should be critical). The answer on relisting in Q16 is highly concerning, particularly given that their policy error was pointed out to them in the question. Most relists by non-admins are WP:BADNAC (see WP:RELISTBIAS) - the main exception to the rule being clear WP:NOQUORUM on an article with a failed PROD (and even in that case - it is more helpful to !vote as opposed to relisting). In regards to relisting, AA88 justified - relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinsley Advertising however this is a clear WP:SOFTDELETE situation and their relisting, beyond RELISTBIAS, is counter deletion policy. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific, most of the keeps should've discounted, and is clearly WP:BADNAC#2 (the outcome is a close call). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Walt Disney Company Argentina should've been SOFTDELETE AFAICT (I don't see a PROD). Saying"the decision to relist was a challenge"
on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gharghashti - indicates BADNAC#2. And these are not isolated - going through the AA88's relists paints a similar picture. Mishandling relists (damage limited to some wasting of time) - doesn't inspire confidence in closing tight AfDs. Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC) - Oppose - I recognise that it's unfair to base an oppose on one incident, so I want to be clear that's not what I am doing here. I fully agree with the wider concerns given above, but just want to add one additional issue from my own experience. This fairly recent AFD seems a poor nomination to me. The nomination states that the article 'fails WP:FILMMAKER', yet even at the time of the nomination the article stated that the subject had written Die Hard 2 and Bad Boys, therefore clearly meeting criteria #3 of that very guideline. The remainder of the nomination, commenting on the inactivity of the article creator and their history of deleted articles, is irrelevant to an AFD nom and actually kind of inappropriate since it amounts to a personal attack on the creator rather than an objective assessment of the article. Hugsyrup 09:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd also add that the candidates frequent use of WP:ANYBIO in AFD discussions seems odd to me - both in the Doug Richardson AFD mentioned above as well as this one, this one and this one, to name what I suspect are just a few of many. To my mind simply saying 'Fails ANYBIO' is meaningless, and a lazy wave at policy without properly understanding it. ANYBIO is 'quick pass' guideline for individuals who are clearly notable, without reference to any other SNGs, and without even necessarily having a lot of RSs. Plenty of individuals would not meet any of these three very specific criteria, yet are clearly notable by other means. Essentially, as I see it, it's a test you can pass, but not 'fail'. Hugsyrup 11:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, but there's too many problematic issues. AfD concerns; content creation; maturity. Per Corbett and Icewhizz perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 09:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, rather regretfully. I think that Serial Number 54129 puts the concerns succinctly. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - sorry but too many valid concerns raised. Brush up on stuff and come back soon! GiantSnowman 13:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Based on my findings that I asked the candidate in Q7. Good experience at AfDs is very important, especially for someone who plans to close AfD. I am a regular at AfD and I absolutely dont want admins who lack a strong grasp on their Notability criterions. It is quite obvious to me and I can see some other editors above have also found evidence based on time duration, that the candidate seems to be adding pile on votes to improve the AfD stats. As User:Pontificalibus has stated above
Closing them based on "consenus" and "judgement" isn't going to cut it - what happens when there are just two or three !votes all of which incorrectly cite the same policy?
This is indeed a case that I am worried about. I frequently see AfDs that are victims of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and counting heads would be disastrous there. User:MJL in his support vote above has stated that it is likely he was asked by someone to participate in Afds. Yes, possibly. But when someone asked him to get involved in AfD the intention I believe was to learn more about various notability policies and judgement of consensus. Based on the AfD log what I saw was blatant gaming of the system. It was almost as if he was doing a ritual that he was asked to do. AA should have shown better judgement that is expected from a responsible editor here. The username is not a reason to oppose for me but I wish he changes his username and uses a less promotional name. In a short period of time the candidate has done some good work. I would be glad to support this cadidates RfA2 after he gets more experience in AfDs. If this RfA succeeds, I would request AA to not close any AfD until he gets his AfD log vetted by another admin who is a regular at AfD. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC) - Oppose per XfD-related problems. XfD is is an area of admin work where it is notably tedious and time-consuming for the community to undo wrong admin decisions and where wrong decisions often drive productive editors away. In my view, a candidate with such a contentious track at XfD as the nominee should not be given the tools. I will welcome a re-nomination in 6 months. — kashmīrī TALK 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Eric, Icewhizz and DBigXray - The relists IMHO are fine however their comments at AFDs as well as the commenting on snowy AFDs are concerning and as such I cannot support at this time. –Davey2010Talk 14:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Those opposing over his username should be ignored in their entirety, I genuinely do find it disgraceful and depressing that people have opposed over something that really isn't worth opposing over, 88 are just numbers as far as I'm concerned. –Davey2010Talk 17:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, the day we start letting cryptofascists steal numbers from us is a very dark day. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- We're living through very dark days indeed. [40] Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, the day we start letting cryptofascists steal numbers from us is a very dark day. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Those opposing over his username should be ignored in their entirety, I genuinely do find it disgraceful and depressing that people have opposed over something that really isn't worth opposing over, 88 are just numbers as far as I'm concerned. –Davey2010Talk 17:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Inappropriate username. I'm sure its origin is perfectly innocent in this particular case, but a person desiring advanced tools to interact with other users in a position of perceived authority on a global platform should be willing to change it. Gamaliel (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Could you clarify which part of the username you have an issue with? Iffy★Chat -- 16:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- The same reason as has been already extensively discussed by others. Since I'm here anyway I will reiterate that the username is likely perfectly innocent, but what I look for in an admin candidate is one with the maturity to realize and seek to avoid potentially problematic usernames and not stick with them just because they 'sound cool'. This is little different than User:Niggardly wanting to be an admin. A perfectly innocent English word, a bad idea as a username. 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've already commented on this at the candidate's talk page, but honestly I am shocked to see a seasoned admin repeating this nonsense. Neo-nazis do not own 88, a number repeated daily by schoolkids across the globe in their 8-times-tables. The birth-year of a good number of Wikipedians I should imagine. Are current admins Philg88, Ortolan88, and hbdragon88 also guilty of not being mature? What about Jesswade88, someone who's written dozens of articles on women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists? Should she change her username too in case someone thinks she's a nazi? Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I respect most of those in the oppose column here, even though I supported the candidate. But AmericanAir88 has already gone on record that the username has nothing to do with Nazism, so that should be the end of the matter. I don't think they should be bullied into changing it. — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bullying? It's utterly absurd to claim people registering their opinions are some form of bullying. And yes, they should consider changing their usernames too. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Uhhm, sorry to comment here, but I got tagged because I'm an administrator with "88". Your suggestion that everyone with the username "88" should change because of the association with neo-Nazis is outrageous. The answer is education, not trying to avoid it like You-Know-Who. 88 was a legitimate number long before Nazis and will be long after Nazism. The swastika is a symbol that dates back to 10,000 BCE and is used hundreds of temples and places of worship; would you seriously suggest that those temples destroy those symbols merely because the Nazis hijacked it? (There are some instances where people have tried to destroy such symbols in temples, not realizing its history before Nazism). I would consider this concerted attempt push this user to change his username handle merely because it offends some people (and is not on the face offensive) to be bullying. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- When I see an "88" in a username, the first thing that comes to mind is fortune and good luck in traditional Chinese culture. In any case, banning symbols used by non-Western cultures that were later hijacked by the Nazis may be necessary in certain circumstances but it's ironic because the way non-Western people interpret the symbols is given less importance than the way the West interprets them. Gizza (t)(c) 05:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Uhhm, sorry to comment here, but I got tagged because I'm an administrator with "88". Your suggestion that everyone with the username "88" should change because of the association with neo-Nazis is outrageous. The answer is education, not trying to avoid it like You-Know-Who. 88 was a legitimate number long before Nazis and will be long after Nazism. The swastika is a symbol that dates back to 10,000 BCE and is used hundreds of temples and places of worship; would you seriously suggest that those temples destroy those symbols merely because the Nazis hijacked it? (There are some instances where people have tried to destroy such symbols in temples, not realizing its history before Nazism). I would consider this concerted attempt push this user to change his username handle merely because it offends some people (and is not on the face offensive) to be bullying. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bullying? It's utterly absurd to claim people registering their opinions are some form of bullying. And yes, they should consider changing their usernames too. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've already commented on this at the candidate's talk page, but honestly I am shocked to see a seasoned admin repeating this nonsense. Neo-nazis do not own 88, a number repeated daily by schoolkids across the globe in their 8-times-tables. The birth-year of a good number of Wikipedians I should imagine. Are current admins Philg88, Ortolan88, and hbdragon88 also guilty of not being mature? What about Jesswade88, someone who's written dozens of articles on women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists? Should she change her username too in case someone thinks she's a nazi? Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I respect most of those in the oppose column here, even though I supported the candidate. But AmericanAir88 has already gone on record that the username has nothing to do with Nazism, so that should be the end of the matter. I don't think they should be bullied into changing it. — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- The same reason as has been already extensively discussed by others. Since I'm here anyway I will reiterate that the username is likely perfectly innocent, but what I look for in an admin candidate is one with the maturity to realize and seek to avoid potentially problematic usernames and not stick with them just because they 'sound cool'. This is little different than User:Niggardly wanting to be an admin. A perfectly innocent English word, a bad idea as a username. 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Could you clarify which part of the username you have an issue with? Iffy★Chat -- 16:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time. Two reasons: The answer to Question #10 is incorrect; that's not what a "test page" is; and also there are a lot further concerns about incorrect CSD tagging as detailed by Cryptic. Second reason: Here the nominee locates and removes a violation of the copyright policy, which of course is the correct thing to do. But he didn't request revision deletion (a pretty important step); and he didn't post on the user talk page that we don't accept copyright material (also an important step, as a lot of people are unaware of our copyright policy). Educating editors as to our expectations is a pretty important part of the job, and it didn't happen in this instance. Well, it did now, because I have done so. I can see myself supporting a future RFA once the nominee becomes better versed in our core policies. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moved to neutral
Oppose too many concerns; mainly per Serial Number. The username complaint is silly and I have no concerns there. Lepricavark (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moved to neutral
- Oppose: the answer to Q7 concerns me. Although I often vote "why not?" at RfX, which is basically an implied "per nom", I don't see how saying "per nom" at all strengthens the rationale; it only adds another approving voice to the consensus, not new arguments. That counts for something if we have a real consensus, but we might have one based on policy-non-compliant arguments, or at worst simply an illusion of a consensus produced by sockpuppets. So moving to oppose per Steven Crossin, SportingFlyer, and DBigXray. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I will add as a comment that I find concerns about the number 88 in the candidate's username completely unwarranted. As there is obviously no advocacy going on, I consider the presence of "AmericanAir" in the candidate's username to be a non-issue as well. My oppose is purely based on AfD activity and answers, not the username. Double sharp (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many doubts about knowledge op policies. The Banner talk 15:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per deletion concerns. Beyond the AfD stat abuse documented by other opposes, the answers to deletion-related questions leave me unimpressed. In Q6, the candidate incorrectly says that
CSD gives users a chance to contest or improve
(the point of CSD is to delete as fast as possible in unambiguous cases, so non-admin input can occur but is not expected). Q7, a defense of "per nom" comments, is unimpressive: as they state at the start of the answer, AfD works by consensus, not by weight, so a "per nom" statement should not matter. Q10 shows a radical interpretation of what a "test page" is for CSD G2 (it is not nonsensical, but the candidate does not seem to realize it is way off how others practice it). Q11 is OK in isolation but adds to my concerns: it could have been answered by three letters ("G13") but the candidate goes on to list 8 criteria and adds a bizarre "fair jurisdiction" clause. I find the answer to Q13 hard to believe due to data from Icewhiz's oppose. The answer to Q16 is complete trainwreck (see Icewhiz's oppose) - in isolation, I could overlook it as a minor point or RfA pressure, but there are other points of data.
On a more minor point, the answers given by the candidate have a very low signal-to-noise ratio. Judging by a cursory check of their non-template contribs in the User talk namespace, it seems to be a case of RfA spotlight affecting the candidate's behavior (the likely reasoning being that if you answer questions in the most indirect way possible you minimize the risk of angering someone). Still, I am not confident in their ability to communicate effectively around admin issues. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: for the record, I will note that I totally disagree with the reasons for some opposes. Username concerns are quite a stretch (barring further evidence than have been presented). As for the willingness to keep the nomination alive: a candidate who disagrees with the bulk of the opposes after having considered them should IMO remain in the race rather than withdraw; it is probably not good tactics but it is certainly a positive to my eyes. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)- @Tigraan: you say "non-admin input is not expected" in a CSD scenario, but the templates themselves generally feature large "Contest this deletion" buttons. I would have thought that allowing a right of reply (even though often it doesn't actually prevent the deletion) is a good reason for admins to CSD rather than delete directly. Having two pairs of eyes on the matter, the tagger and the deleter, in case it's an obvious misunderstanding is another reason. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I agree with the "two pairs of eyes" argument, but that is not how I read what the candidate said. By
CSD gives users a chance to contest or improve
, I understand "user" to mean "non-admin users" or even "page creator"; in which case, it is true that such users can contest the deletion / improve the article before the hammer falls, but they have to intervene within a day or less, so clearly the process is not designed to allow that (unlike PROD, for instance). (You would not say a call to the fire department "gives a chance to homeowners to put out the fire themselves".) "Not expected" might have been unclear; I meant something along the lines of "could or could not happen but the process itself is not overly concerned with it". TigraanClick here to contact me 08:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)- @Tigraan: yes, you make a good point. In fact, I've often wondered to myself when carrying out a CSD, "has the creator had a chance to respond yet"? But if it's a clear and unambiguous candidate for deletion, I certainly don't let that stop me deleting,even if the tagging only happened minutes earlier. Either way, I would recommend to AA88 that they mug up on the CSD categories prior to a future RFA, and make sure the tags they're using are appropriate to the case, the G2 above being a case in point. Opposes on these grounds can be avoided with a little effort! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's really no problem with promptly carrying out a CSD without worrying about whether the creator has had a chance to respond. Most CSDs are eligible for REFUND on request, and any that aren't (copyvios, BLP-vios, etc,) shouldn't be waiting to be deleted anyway. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Tigraan: yes, you make a good point. In fact, I've often wondered to myself when carrying out a CSD, "has the creator had a chance to respond yet"? But if it's a clear and unambiguous candidate for deletion, I certainly don't let that stop me deleting,even if the tagging only happened minutes earlier. Either way, I would recommend to AA88 that they mug up on the CSD categories prior to a future RFA, and make sure the tags they're using are appropriate to the case, the G2 above being a case in point. Opposes on these grounds can be avoided with a little effort! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I agree with the "two pairs of eyes" argument, but that is not how I read what the candidate said. By
- @Tigraan: you say "non-admin input is not expected" in a CSD scenario, but the templates themselves generally feature large "Contest this deletion" buttons. I would have thought that allowing a right of reply (even though often it doesn't actually prevent the deletion) is a good reason for admins to CSD rather than delete directly. Having two pairs of eyes on the matter, the tagger and the deleter, in case it's an obvious misunderstanding is another reason. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Lots of valid concerns raised by those that have come before me, so I won't rehash them here. I'll instead just say that I don't feel the candidate is ready for the mop, at this time, although I appreciate their willingness to step up and put themselves out there for the community's critique and consideration. StrikerforceTalk 15:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose While I think the objections about the handle are frivolous and the nominee appears to have the temperament to be trusted with advanced tools, the answer to question 17 bothers me. As someone who is far more a donor than an editor, I donate money because I believe in the Content aspect of the Wiki movement. Conduct is, of course, very important in making Wikipedia work, but I cannot endorse any admin that doesn't place Content as the most important policy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not just that they got Q10 so horribly wrong, it's the fact that, in something as widely viewed by nitpicking Wikipedians as RfA, they didn't even check WP:G2 to see if their answer was correct before posting it. If they had, they hopefully would've answered something like "At the time I thought that a test of whether or not an article would be deleted would qualify under G2, but now I see that it's only for tests of 'editing or other Wikipedia functions'". I would expect a Wikipedia administrator to be frequently double-checking themselves before implementing policies and guidelines, as policies and guidelines change and memories can fade. I also have some concerns about an administrator keeping a username that at least gives the appearance of a conflict of interest, but those are secondary and easily remedied. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)- Just to clarify here, I have no issue with the "88" portion of the username, it's the "AmericanAir" portion that gives the appearance of impropriety. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just to clarify here, I have no issue with the "88" portion of the username, it's the "AmericanAir" portion that gives the appearance of impropriety. --Ahecht (TALK
- Regretful Oppose. While there are few specific requirements I have at RfA, one thing I really want is for a candidate to have a very good understanding of our deletion policies and criteria. Those who create content often put a lot of work into what they do, and seeing their creations deleted can be very disheartening. Admins owe it to content creators to have a very good reason for deleting their work, and that applies especially to CSD which has the least provision for contesting deletion of the lot (and with some of our trigger-happy deletionist admins, often no chance whatsoever). Unfortunately, AmericanAir88 just doesn't have a good enough understanding of CSD criteria (for example, the explanation of WP:G2 is completely wrong). Coupled with other deletion-related concerns (and other concerns) voiced by others, I must oppose this nomination at this time. I can see myself supporting in the not-too-distant future, but I'd want to see near perfect answers to deletion-related questions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I just want to expand a little. Someone (I forget who, sorry) suggested that getting a CSD reason wrong doesn't really matter as long as the page is correctly identified as needing to be deleted, and I have sympathy with that view when we're talking of pages nominated by an inexperienced editor for an admin to check before deleting. But that depends on admins understanding the CSD criteria, and it would not be acceptable for an admin to delete things for the wrong reason. Thinking that G2 applies to "a test by those creators to see if their article could pass the review process" is an instant disqualification for adminship, even if it is a perfectly forgivable mistake for an inexperienced editor. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, regretfully. While the user does meet my content creation criteria, the issues brought up above dictate that I oppose this nomination as perhaps too soon. I would encourage AA88 to spend some more time here, brush up on policy, and try again in a year. GregJackP Boomer! 16:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I feel constrained to add that while I still oppose the nomination, for the reasons I stated, those who are opposing based on the number 88 in his name, have, IMO, gone off of the deep end. AmericanAir88 don't let the asshats overly concerned about names get to you. GregJackP Boomer! 00:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, with regret. AmericanAir88, I think you have the temperament to be an admin, but I don't think you have the experience yet. I don't see any single red flag, but rather a series of sub-par decisions and answers, that collectively give the impression that you are checking boxes, rather than providing well-thought-out opinions. Similarly, your answers to questions have a lot of boilerplate. For instance, in your answer to question one, you express a wish to work at WP:AN, possibly the most difficult and toxic venue on the project, and where you haven't got the experience to work, which suggests to me that you are simply listing things from the backlog rather than asking where you have the expertise to be helpful. Your answer to question ten is somewhat literal-minded, and misses the point of CSD#G2. I have a similar concern with many of your contributions to AfD. To be clear, I don't expect perfection of admin candidates, and I don't oppose often. I expect admins to have the right attitude, and the ability to use the tools productively in one or more areas. Your attitude is fine, but I suspect that too many of your administrator actions would be disputed and lead to dramatics. My advice to you would be the following. Do more work with content. Keep working at AfD, but aim for quality rather than quantity; before bothering to !vote, ask yourself whether your comment is doing something more than just raising the numbers on one side. Do some thorough reading of the CSD criteria. And avoid the admin noticeboards. If you came back here in some months, I would expect to support. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many concerns over their knowledge of deletion policy. With more experience I’m sure I will be able to support a future RfA. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Concerns with limited knowledge of deletion policy. -FASTILY 20:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the nominee is to be thanked for their contributions and recognized for the guts that it takes to accept this nomination– and to read the comments coming in. However I cannot support a potential admin who says on their talk page (when it was suggested that they withdraw this RFA)
I want to see myself as the lone Captain America who is standing up to the army of opposes.
(diff). That can be read as admirable determination, or conversely as the wrong approach go about things here; I read it as the latter. This nomination is pretty much sunk, but I think it is important to quote that line as it strongly reflects the wrong approach to, or a lack of understanding of, the consenus processes that are at the root of Wikipedia work. The opposes are not here to attack you but rather to vet you. I do thank you for your edits and hope you will come back in a few years. Do not get discouraged. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)- @ThatMontrealIP: I'm now kicking myself for not responding to this sooner, but I see that diff has been used my more than one user as justification for opposing. The most important bit in that diff was
In my eyes, I want to see it through to show that I will not let the opposes ruin my motivation.
No where does AA say this is an attack or that the opposes aren't even a bad thing. He picked a recent pop culture reference that wasn't the best of analogies. This process can be stressful for folks, so can we cut him a little slack? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)- I agree the quote is poorly chosen. At the same time, this process is all about finding someone who is equipped to make good choices.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose 95% of which is about the lack of grasp of policy, and riding on the coat tails of snow closes for AfD. The remaining 5% is that anyone who sees themselves as "the lone Captain America" does not show sufficient maturity, or grasp the fact that this is an encyclopaedia, not the fecking Avengers. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: I'm now kicking myself for not responding to this sooner, but I see that diff has been used my more than one user as justification for opposing. The most important bit in that diff was
- Oppose. Was going to sit this one out, but the whole "
the lone Captain America
" comment doesn't sit well with me, considering that Wikipedia is a project built on community and consensus. One can't just say something like "I want to be an administrator, and I don't care what the community thinks about me" ... since that's the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works. Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC) - Oppose I don't usually oppose, but after thinking about it for a while I've found that the rationales of the opponents are stronger than those of the supporters. That said, I wish AA88 the best of luck in his future endeavors and hope he gets more AfD experience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This is one case where it's hard to decide if you should or should not support, for me I just don't think your fit for admin because of how you delete things when you shouldn't have deleted them, I hope you can get more experience. TurboSonic (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Insufficient deletion policy knowledge which forms a core basis of admin knowledge. Also Q10 answer does not reflect a strong command of CSD. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's the total package: the appearance of a lack of maturity, the building up of AfD stats with pile-on comments, some holes in policy understanding apparent in the candidate's answers, and, yes, a little bit the username. Sorry if that seems petty to some people, but I really don't want an admin whose username is an "homage" to a commercial airline, and the fact that AA88 has not even thought to float the idea that they could simply change their name to avoid all potential problems just underlines what to me seems to be a lack of maturity and selflessness. I struggled with this, but, no, not at this time, anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: He has thought of changing the name before and mentions in in the above linked diff. It's his identity, so why should we let Nazis steal it from him? They don't own the number. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- MJL, please read people's comments before jumping in with both feet. BMK has referred to the airline in reference to the name. He made no mention of the Nazis. - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I took
avoid all potential problems
to be a reference to the number, but if that is not the case then the remaining portions of my response stand (which is to say: it's his identity on the project. Why take that away from him?). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)- Purely hypothetical question: there is an edit war or general conflict at United Airlines. Might AmericanAir88's username cause a conflict with WP:INVOLVED were they to step in, even if they had nothing to do with the conflict? (I know it's kind of a ridiculous question to pose, and just to be clear, I'm approaching this with levity/not really looking for a response/not holding it against AA at all, but that would be the concern with a corporateish-sounding username/one of the "potential problems.") SportingFlyer T·C 07:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @SportingFlyer: I imagine that AA would be unfairly perceived as having a COI (which.. having watched his talk page for a while now is as often as you may think). I suppose the AA88 username would solve it, but I really don't like the idea of making users change their username if it's not a policy violation. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I took
- MJL, please read people's comments before jumping in with both feet. BMK has referred to the airline in reference to the name. He made no mention of the Nazis. - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- The candidate's unwillingness to withdraw their RfA in the face of the obvious imminent failure of their bid for adminship (see their talk page) simply reinforces my impression of a lack of maturity on their part. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have to disagree, I feel that the willingness to stand and weather all of this unpleasantry shows both maturity and a determination to see things through to the end. I believe that it is commendable to get all of the feedback that he can get, not that there would be anything wrong in withdrawing. GregJackP Boomer! 17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: He has thought of changing the name before and mentions in in the above linked diff. It's his identity, so why should we let Nazis steal it from him? They don't own the number. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: I don't doubt this editor's sincerity but it's obvious that the candidate has not yet achieved readiness for adminship. If I had to predict when, I'd guess maybe in a year or two. Aside: I think AA88 (which is not in use) would be a great username, easily achieved with a changing username request. – Athaenara ✉ 11:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The answers to the optional questions do not give me a good impression. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose based on the answers to the questions. NoahTalk 20:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- The candidate's recent and ongoing exchanges at this FAC highlight an indignant, immature editing attitude. An admin must always be receptive to criticism and be prepared to entertain opposing viewpoints in good-faith. Unfortunately, I see considerable evidence that the candidate does not currently display these traits in the course of their daily editing. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Juliancolton: Mind sharing a diff or two? I'm curious as to what specific interactions you are referring to there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why are you curious? Why have you edited this page about 27,000 times? Just drop the stick, already. There are any number of examples on that FAC that support Julian's comments. I get the impression that the candidate thought the FAC reviewers were his servants, pinging them incessantly and then saying things like comments like: "The users have not responded to my further three pings." --Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: Mkativerata has said it better than I could have regarding the FAC behavior. I don't mind answering questions about my vote and patching holes in my rationale where identified, but the FAC in question is a very brief read – either you agree with my assessment or you don't. Asking for diffs here strikes me as an unwelcome charade. Nonetheless: the user is demanding (per above, repetitive pings to make the same point; to opposers, "Please address Homeostatis's support comment") and overly self-assured in the face of constructive criticism ("[I] did several sweeps of the article myself"; "I cannot tell you if this is enough to violate 1a" in response to a 1a oppose; "Deep Space Homer is well crafted will a great amount of information for readers"). The user's characterization of RfA opposers are a partisan "army" convinced me that the FAC is not merely an unfortunately string of awkward retorts, but representative of conduct incompatible with adminship. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Here you go: striking reviewer comments and regarding a review article as "unreliable". Review articles are secondary sources and are more reliable than research articles. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @AhmadLX and Juliancolton: [Thank you for the ping] Thank you for the response. I genuinely was curious because I never gone through a FAC before. I really didn't have an ulterior motive beyond wanting to ask. I'm personally trying to get involved in the good article/featured article space, but I never had a frame of reference as to what to expect (as it relates to that specific FAC). My apologies if this seemed like badgering you or caused you trouble in any way. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Since I was name-checked here and was an involved party to this particular FAC (I'm a frequent FAC contributor), I'd like to point out that it's not unusual or uncivil in the slightest for a nominator to strike out criticism they feel has been resolved. I've seen FAC coordinators do it all the time. Some of them even go so far as to remove ("archive") massive portions of the review to the FAC's talk page when they consider those criticisms no longer relevant/appropriate. And pinging non-responsive users (yes, even the coordinators) is encouraged. In fact, the template encourages you to go even further than that—to leave messages on their talk pages. And I concurred that the "secondary sources" not included in the article weren't worthy of inclusion—they consisted of nothing more than minimal – even trivial – mentions of the FAC subject, so disputing the efficacy of including those sources was very much merited. Homeostasis07 (talk · contributions) 02:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- @AhmadLX and Juliancolton: [Thank you for the ping] Thank you for the response. I genuinely was curious because I never gone through a FAC before. I really didn't have an ulterior motive beyond wanting to ask. I'm personally trying to get involved in the good article/featured article space, but I never had a frame of reference as to what to expect (as it relates to that specific FAC). My apologies if this seemed like badgering you or caused you trouble in any way. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Juliancolton: Mind sharing a diff or two? I'm curious as to what specific interactions you are referring to there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Juliancolton. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per XfD issues brought up in other oppose votes. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 01:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per
lack ofanswer to Q28, the newness of the candidate, and the name issue. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)- Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've seen the answer to Q28 and it doesn't assuage my concerns. Specifically the statement that "events should be well covered" seems to ignore the possibility that sometimes the best thing Wikipedia can say about an event, especially crimes where lasting significance of the crime has not been established, is nothing at all. Some events should not be well covered. They aren't relevant to an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The lack of answers to some of the questions after a few days of a dental procedure shows the candidate is not serious. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Frmorrison: Excuse me, what? Is this serious? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: You're on the verge of WP:BLUDGEONing the oppose !votes. [41] I believe this is the second time it's been pointed out to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Secondish time, yeah. The first time was a misunderstanding which I apologized for above. I've loosely tallied the different rationales for opposing as well as my responses. There have been about 30 opposes based of Deletion policy and AFD contributions (it's probably should be consider two separate concerns, but no mater), 5 on temperament, 2 on lack of answering questions, and a few others. I've tried to keep times I've responded to an oppose roughly once for each general point. If you'll also notice, more often than not the flow of my replies either ends with (A) me conceding a point or (B) the other editor having the last word.
The difference here is that I feel this comment is so beyond the pale about what levels of commitment we need from our admin corps. 28 questions have been asked so far of which 27 have gotten a response so far. AA had a dental procedural and communicated as much within this RFA. This is clearly a stressful process for him as well, but he has kept this trainwreck moving because he still feels like there is something he can offer this community that we're just not seeing. Is that naïve? It probably is. I'll even admit that he isn't the most mature editor I know on this project. However, I do know this: he cares a lot about this community and takes it very seriously. If he wants to dig his own grave, then I'll be right here digging mine alongside him because I rather have an admin who's fatal flaw is caring too much about things than one so willing to let them go. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)- @MJL:, I have to agree with @Beyond My Ken:. Xtools has you at 14KB of comments added to this page. I think everyone gets the point that you support the candidate. Maybe enough said?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd rather have an admin who's qualified to be an admin. Please stop commenting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Secondish time, yeah. The first time was a misunderstanding which I apologized for above. I've loosely tallied the different rationales for opposing as well as my responses. There have been about 30 opposes based of Deletion policy and AFD contributions (it's probably should be consider two separate concerns, but no mater), 5 on temperament, 2 on lack of answering questions, and a few others. I've tried to keep times I've responded to an oppose roughly once for each general point. If you'll also notice, more often than not the flow of my replies either ends with (A) me conceding a point or (B) the other editor having the last word.
- @MJL: You're on the verge of WP:BLUDGEONing the oppose !votes. [41] I believe this is the second time it's been pointed out to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Frmorrison, for the benefit of future RfA candidates, how many days after being under general anesthesia do candidates have to answer their 25th and 28th questions, before it shows that they're not serious? – Levivich 19:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Frmorrison: Excuse me, what? Is this serious? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I'm not terribly comfortable with the CSD answers above, but in 6 months, if AA88 demonstrates a better understanding of deletion policy, I can easily see myself supporting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for the reasons stated by others, concerning deletions. Jmbranum (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose based especially on deletion. I had been aware of the candidate at AfD for a few months, and intended to urge them to give more substantial opinions there. (I do not think the candidate made a special push to get obvious AfDs just before coming here--they've been doing it all along. ) It is not being right that matters--anyone can be close to 100% right if they comment only on the obvious, but such opinions do not held AfD decisions, and it's helpful to supplement not repeat the arguments of other editors. The criterion for consensus is the strength of arguments, and saying something several times does not make it true. . The criterion for becoming an admin and making admin closes at AfD is knowing what arguments are substantial, not just saying the article does or does not meet policy, but showing why. Someone is ready to become an admin (at least, ready with respect to this particular admin function) when they can give full correct explanations of the reason for making a particular decision. The non-admin closes add to this problem, as some of them really should have been left to an admin--I tend to regard over-eagerness to make non-admin closes as a worrisome sign. The CSDs mentioned would only sometimes be proper single-handed closes--some of then sound too much like closing in annoyance at the contributor, and especially in such cases it helps to have a second admin involved to decrease the likelihood of foolish protests. The relists were perhaps some of them unnecessary , but I do not regard this as a necessarily bad sign, as relisting is a safe option. The best course forward would be to engage substantially and in detail in some actually contentious decisions where the right choice can be difficult. Those are the AfDs that show knowledge, and those are the AfDs where we need additional voices. There are some other signs of over-confidence in other respects also, and again, I think a greater attention to difficult real problems will help. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Based on the candidate's record at FAC. Asking several reviewers when will their FAC be promoted (coordinators, not reviewers, decide if, and when to promote), telling opposers to refer to support comments and excessively pining reviewers shows immaturity and impatience. They have been there three times and they still don't know that they are not supposed to strike out reviewer's comments and what are RS. When a reviewer suggested to include a review article, they dismissed it as unreliable because it was "just a review". All this shows that they either don't take others serious or are slow to learn. Either trait is not good for an admin. Keeping that it mind, it seems unlikely that their attitude towards AFDs will change. Similar to their refusal to withdraw this RfA despite there being several suggestions to do so, all of their FACs have been closed unsuccessful because the candidate would just dismiss the reviewers' suggestions to withdraw on the grounds that they wanted to get "wider input from reviewers". This kind of resistance is good in war but not in encyclopedia building. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, with moral support for re-nomination in about 9 months or so. There are too many minus epsilons here that add up to a minus delta. The most substantive issues concern AfD and CSD concerns, as articulated above by DGG, Cryptic, Steven Grossin, Boing! said Zebedee, and others. I do see evidence of pile-on AfD !voting in June-July, most of which looks fairly perfunctory. As DGG says, short perfunctory XfD !votes are not particularly helpful or illuminating. It would be good to see the candidate once in a while do an in-depth analysis of sources and policies in an XfD comment, and maybe even a some examples where he added some sources and helped to improve an AfD article to save it from deletion. Juliancolton's oppose above (and the Captain America thing) also raises valid concerns about the candidate's temperament and perhaps being a bit too partisan and combative in his approach to various discussions. It's not supposed to be mainly about "winning" a particular argument, but about also learning, listening achieving consensus and improving the outcome. As explained in my initial comments in the Neutral section below, I am also still bothered by the somewhat promotional nature of the candidate's username. There is a difference between having a COI and having a promotional handle. Setting the "88" issue aside (where I must admit I don't have a clear opinion), when I see a username like "AmericanAir88" or "UnitedAir530", to me it has a whiff of product placement, or branding and looks like a handle that a customer service representative for that company might have. It just pokes me in the eye a bit every time I see it, and it presents more of a problem since the candidate does edit articles about American Airlines. Overall, this RfA feels like a "not yet" case. Nsk92 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Some of what I saw this week, together with the answer about G2, gives me concern there is a pattern of the candidate thinking he understands policy without understanding it. The candidate uploaded the copyrighted image discussed here with the rationale that it is a 2D image of a 3D artwork. When the file was nominated for deletion, his comment was, "I uploaded this as a result of a requested image request on the talk page. Here is the Diff." I think this comment reveals a lack of maturity and of taking ownership of one's actions. Additionally, the poor CSD tagging is very concerning. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The concerns noted above by other editors about AfD and CSD actions concern me greatly. So too does the candidate's answer to Question 27, about his deletion philosophy. His first statement, "Deletion is to ensure that Wikipedia is full of articles that are top quality", is certainly not my understanding of Wikipedia's deletion and retention policies. Wikipedia has many, many stub and start class articles, which are not "top quality", but per WP:ARTN, because the subjects of those articles are notable, they are kept, to provide basic information on topics which Wikipedia considers "worthy of notice". Conversely, there are reasonably good articles about subjects which do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and they are deleted (articles about local mayors come to mind, many of which I've seen at AfD). The candidate does go on to say "Deletion allows for users to decide on a consensus to delete an article that violates Wikipedia's notability guide", and mentions other issues related to deletion, but the first statement seems to me a profound misunderstanding of WP:DP (and I note that WP:DEL-REASON has a note right under the header, "See also: Wikipedia:Notability § Article content does not determine notability.") RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I was going to support at first, as they are a good editor, but this comment on their talk page made me change my mind. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per ADF flood and lack of understanding. Concerns about his username are pretty stupid IMO. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose – While I feel that AmericanAir88 has the necessary experience and expertise to be an admin, I feel that some of their recent behavior, particularly the concerns raised on AfDs and FAC reviews indicate that they do not yet have the level of maturity that admins should have. I would suggest that they shore up the deletion policy and address their current behavioral concerns before pursuing adminship. That being said, I have no problem with supporting them in a future RfA, once the highlighted issues have been ironed out. Concerning other "oppose" comments on the username - are you kidding me? I see no issues with the username at all. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Admins should not have "88" in their username. While some cultures regard 8 as a sign of good luck, it's important to be inclusive of everyone and avoid things that are offensive to a large number of people and could scare new editors away. It's not really a huge burden to change a username, so why not take the time to do it as a courtesy to potential new users who aren't aware of Wikipedia's culture/people? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose – AmericanAir88 is clearly a good-faith, constructive editor who might make a good administrator someday. I just think they need a bit more experience first. Taking the time to develop a better grasp of the various deletion processes and their myriad nuances, getting accustomed to some of Wikipedia's communal norms (e.g. not crossing out other people's comments at their behest, like in the Simpsons FAC), and just getting more of a feel for administrative work will do wonders for next time. Good luck. :) Kurtis (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, the username does not bother me in the slightest. I don't think the average person sees the number "88" and thinks "neo-Nazism", and "AmericanAir" is similarly ambiguous enough to be inoffensive. Kurtis (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Remember that everyone's experience is different. I'm not saying everyone will be as instantly repulsed by 88 as I am, but Wikipedia is already short on minority (in the US sense) editors. The cost of avoiding this political landmine is small: just a username change. The candidate has even stated that the number has no special meaning. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from, but I still don't think that 88 is even close to the "landmine" you say it is. If it was a username like "Neobiker88" or "HayleH88", then we'd be having a conversation. But since the username is decidedly not related to neo-Nazism, 88 becomes just a regular number. Kurtis (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Remember that everyone's experience is different. I'm not saying everyone will be as instantly repulsed by 88 as I am, but Wikipedia is already short on minority (in the US sense) editors. The cost of avoiding this political landmine is small: just a username change. The candidate has even stated that the number has no special meaning. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, the username does not bother me in the slightest. I don't think the average person sees the number "88" and thinks "neo-Nazism", and "AmericanAir" is similarly ambiguous enough to be inoffensive. Kurtis (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: regretfully. Too many valid concerns raised. For the record, I don't think the number is of any concern, I am surprised that that's even a thing (we ought not to let nazis get away with co-opting such generic things with infinite legitimate uses so easily, I still haven't gotten entirely over even Swastikas). AmericanAir though, I can see how that would concern some of us. Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 07:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Concerns about maturity, the AfD stuff, slightly niggled about the username (both the "AA" bit and the "88" bit) plus concerns about judgement after letting this RfA drag on for so long without withdrawing. Sorry. — sparklism hey! 07:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Mainly due to temperament concerns highlighted on the FAC review page noted above. FWIW, I think the whole concern about "88" in their username is pretty ridiculous. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose based on the interactions about this RfA on the candidate’s talkpage. Nothing there suggests the kind of maturity and judgement we need in admins. I have no concerns at all about their username. I hope this candidate will try again in a while when they are better prepared. Mccapra (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose due to some concerns related to policy understanding as well as activity patterns at AfD. ST47 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose CassiantoTalk 19:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:NOTNOW based on weaknesses in deletion policy & content creation. The candidate is transparent (accountable) and communicates well. p.s. Tip for the candidate: I've also receive bias based on my username, little do they know, I never selected it for Wikipedia, it was a username I created for counter-commenting on Yahoo News articles, when I came to WP I was not interested to join but wanted to ask a Q and make one edit, I mistakely thought at that time a username was required, I didn't want to expend effort inventing one, it was only temporary to ask my Q and make one edit, the easiest was just to use a name I'd already just created for Yahoo posts. So it might help a little in face of the bias to do what I did, change preferences so signature produces abbreviated name (for me IHTS; for you AA88). Good luck. --IHTS (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Neutral
Same, just waiting for the answer to my question (#9), which I've fairly certain will be satisfactory, judging by their contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Waiting for the candidate to answer questions.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Moved to oppose--DBigXrayᗙ 13:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC) moved from position #1 to avoid bot reading error. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Neutral for now. I'm not yet convinced the tools are needed here, based on looking over their contributions to AfD, and the emphasis placed on the "will help at AfD" in the nomination statement, though I do like their responses generally so far. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Awaiting answers to questions 7, 10, and 13 for now. Weighing the candidates contributions, their content contributions are very good. However, like Mkativerata, I have some concerns about their deletion experience at present, in particular, some of their contributions to AFDs where I would hope a potential administrator gives more well-thought out rationales for their take on the discussion, and given this is an area the candidate intends to work on, the examples presented thus far give me pause. So, for the moment, I am here. That said, I appreciate perfection is definitely not required here, and I will definitely re-visit this later based on the answers to questions (please feel free to ping me once they have been answered, if desired). Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Moving to oppose. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 02:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pending answer to all AfD questions - I'm concerned that they felt they needed some AfD stats to pass RfA and acquired them without actually learning it and participating properly. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- All above. Why come here saying you are waiting for answers? Why not just wait? I thought this neutral waiting thing was deprecated in an RfC? Leaky caldron (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Leaky caldron: - non-conditional pending neutrals ("I'm neutral while I think about it") have somewhat died out, but there is a benefit to neutrals that are conditional on specific question answering. It notifies the candidate of the particular importance and concerns on those, and let's others know about possible issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking for me personally, I'm neutral at the moment because balancing their contributions and the comments I've made along with others regarding AFD, I can't decide either way, however do think that my view is worth noting. I guess I, and others, are giving the candidate an opportunity to address our concerns - addressed adequately, I'd be very happy to support. This is the reason I went neutral. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear and User:Steven Crossin have already said what I was about to say.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe not decisive but many folks think that Neutral is a simple destination, not a temporary waypoint. [42] Leaky caldron (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral for me then - I'm somewhat concerned by their AfD performance, but when coupled with the CSD issues identified in the opposes I'm concerned about an admin candidate with insufficient experience in their mop-desired areas - I think given time they'd be a good admin, but the months while they picked up the experience I fear a degree of collateral damage. I'd like to clarify that I'm fine with their name (I feel requirements to change it are cruel and harsh) and overall experience/editing levels, and obviously their content is great. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe not decisive but many folks think that Neutral is a simple destination, not a temporary waypoint. [42] Leaky caldron (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear and User:Steven Crossin have already said what I was about to say.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- All above. Why come here saying you are waiting for answers? Why not just wait? I thought this neutral waiting thing was deprecated in an RfC? Leaky caldron (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believe that waiting for a fair quantity of answers to question ratio is best for determining how the candidate thinks, and how they communicate their consideration. In particular, I am interested in the response to Beyond My Ken's question and if they were aware of the possible connotations with those letters. Sensitivity to potential misunderstandings is important in sysop/editor interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think I am going to remain Neutral, as while I am of the belief that the candidate would not misuse the tools I do not think that they understand how important it is that they are aware of the potential pitfalls of their username. I am not saying it should be changed, but they should be familiar with perceptions among people they will have to deal with. I am not convinced yet that this would be the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Editor has a lot of potential, but has only been here for a short while, and may not have enough experience. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)- (Moved to oppose) In general I like the candidate's record and would be inclined to support. I also appreciate his answer to my question about the username. However, the username issue still bothers me. I dislike the idea of any Wikipedia user, particularly an admin, having a username that suggests promoting a private commercial company. It is not a matter of COI but rather of the promotional effect, which seems a bit like product placement. And yes I know that there are probably a bunch of users out there with names like Disneyfan88 or something similar. Still, it does not sit right with me. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral, moved from Oppose, moved from Neutral (see oppose no. 6 and related discussion on talk page. Squeeps10 00:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)) Pending answers to questions 15, 16, 18, and 20. It also seems to me (no offense to AA88) that s/he's intentionally trying to use "big words" to sound impressive. The username doesn't bother me, nor does the fact the editor is fairly new (7-17). Depending on the answers to the above questions, I may change my !vote. Squeeps10 22:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Neutral. Now to Oppose.Moved from Support, based on the reasoning of several of the opposes.I'm glad to see a content creator trying for an Admin bit. While it doesn't appear that he's earned his first FA, he's been through the process and I'm sure that he's able to get there. He does meet my criteria by having taking several to GA status.GregJackP Boomer! 01:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral, moved from support, per Cryptic, as misuse of speedy criteria has long been a pet peeve of mine, and having read Cryptic's oppose the answer to Q6 makes me a bit uneasy. I originally interpreted this as merely being extra-careful, which I respect, but I now wonder whether it amounts to fundamental lack of understanding of the CSD policy. Anything that meets the CSD can be deleted without being "nominated" - that's the whole point of the CSD. I hope that if this passes the user will carefully read WP:CSD before jumping into work there. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- CSDs can be deleted without being nominated, but it is generally regarded as almost always poor practice. All admins who are active in deletion make errors, myself included. I hope I'm slightly more careful , with somewhat more experience than the average, but I make about 2% errors, and I do not think any reasonable amount of care compatible with handling the workload could reduce it below 1%. that may sound low, but out of my 40,000 deletions, it would 800. errors--but since a 2nd ed. has nominated them first, it's only 16--and that's the level we should be aiming at. There has been 11 million deletions total in all of WP--if half are articles, doing it single-handed would have been 100,000 lost articles DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral per SportingFlyer's oppose. I think that AA88 could likely do a good deal of admin work quite well, but if given the tools they should avoid closing any AfDs where the votes are close. I also wasn't thrilled with their answer to Q20: it's easy to say that one will be neutral ahead of time, but the better decision is to just not intervene with the article. signed, Rosguill talk 07:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral (moved from oppose) I still share many of the legitimate concerns voiced above, but I don't want my !vote associated with those who are making an issue out of the candidate's username. Lepricavark (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't that a bit silly? People support and oppose for all sorts of reasons, many of which - especially opposes - are contradictory. Is it your reading that every oppose !vote agrees with every other oppose !vote, even those that say, specifically, "I don't agree with X", or those that write that their !vote is "per Y", which presumably means "Not per Z"?Right at this moment, this is not a particularly close RfA, so your putting yourself here doesn't really make much of a difference, but if it was close, would you still stand on principle and park yourself in Neutral even if it meant that the candidate has a better chance of being promoted with you here instead of in the Oppose category? You can certainly do whatever you wish with your !vote, but I just don't see the sense or logic in your decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are reading far too much into my comments. No, I don't expect every oppose !vote to agree with every other oppose !vote. This is not an ordinary situation. Here we have a few editors (apparently not including you) acting as though we should abandon a number to white supremacists. Such an opinion is not enlightened or woke or reasonable or anything of the sort; rather, it is absurd, outrageous, and worthy of ridicule. It's one thing to personally avoid the number (although still silly), but it's very problematic to demand that other people adopt the same fringe position. I am not comfortable remaining in the oppose section under such circumstances. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't that a bit silly? People support and oppose for all sorts of reasons, many of which - especially opposes - are contradictory. Is it your reading that every oppose !vote agrees with every other oppose !vote, even those that say, specifically, "I don't agree with X", or those that write that their !vote is "per Y", which presumably means "Not per Z"?Right at this moment, this is not a particularly close RfA, so your putting yourself here doesn't really make much of a difference, but if it was close, would you still stand on principle and park yourself in Neutral even if it meant that the candidate has a better chance of being promoted with you here instead of in the Oppose category? You can certainly do whatever you wish with your !vote, but I just don't see the sense or logic in your decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral, I'm not aware enough of their editing to make a determination. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral further voting does not seem particularly constructive at this point, and I'm undecided in any event. However I do want to mention that I don't think the Lone Captain America comment was a good idea. Complaints over the name aside, there are a number of legitimate opposes. Indirectly implying that everyone who disagrees with your credentials is part of some evil fantasy movie army, or more realistically someone who is irrevocably wrong, that you must stand alone against is not exactly someone I want to see resolving conflicts at the various noticeboards. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Moral support but the XfD participation does concern me. I've on the fence for a while, so I'll put this down here. With 4-5 more months with good XfD participation and it will be an easy support, but I am concerned that they will make the correct decisions in XfDs. J947's public account 21:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Neutral I can't see enough to vote either way, so I guess I end up here. I hope to see AA88 back again after fixing some of the items listed above. Not bothered by the username in the least, in fact, I like it. Glennfcowan (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)moved to support.
- Neutral I don't want to pile on at this point, but I find it concerning that the reason the candidate has not withdrawn is due to that (and this is repeated many times on their user-talk) they want to show that they always stand their ground and never back down. Having the courage of one's convictions is one thing, but admins are not perfect nor always right, and having an admin that will
not back down
in the face of emerging community consensus seems like it will lead to serious issues down the road. CrowCaw 14:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)- In point of fact, that attitude indicates why they should not be an admin. An admin should -- ideally -- not dig in and be unwilling to change their minds in the face of changing facts. No one expects them to be perfect, but we do expect them to try to meet that ideal. AA88's attitude is what leads to molehill disputes becoming disruptive mountains, which is not something we need in an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Now where would anyone get the idea that what editors want in an admin is someone who won't back down?
– Levivich 22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- If you look at the list of RFAs by year, the last time an RFA was closed as "unsuccessful" was 16 Oct 2017. There were, however, six RFA candidates who had the good sense to withdraw. This candidate lacks the good sense to know when to back down gracefully, which only convinces me more that they are not a good choice for admin.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Now where would anyone get the idea that what editors want in an admin is someone who won't back down?
- In point of fact, that attitude indicates why they should not be an admin. An admin should -- ideally -- not dig in and be unwilling to change their minds in the face of changing facts. No one expects them to be perfect, but we do expect them to try to meet that ideal. AA88's attitude is what leads to molehill disputes becoming disruptive mountains, which is not something we need in an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral. It's obvious that this RfA will not succeed, so I'll just offer a friendly suggestion to learn from the feedback here and to keep on editing, and maybe try this again after more experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral (Moving from oppose). Although I still have concerns regarding the policy angle, AA88 has may, in future, turn out to be a good admin. I'll add my voice to the suggestion that he withdraws for now and comes back a little later. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral - While many of the opposers raise valid points, I won't vote alongside people opposing AA88 for the apparent crime of being 31. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is the second time I've heard support or neutral people bringing up the age of AA88 as an oppose reason, but I can't see anything to do with the number 31 in the oppose section. What exactly are you referring to?Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with this question; the only time
31
is mentioned on this page is in timestamps and as a reference marker. Nothing to do with age, though, at all. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)- My guess is that Johnbod and RE are positing that the 88 in the user's name represents their birth year. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- ^^^Holmesian :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's not one of the rationales they provided (aliteration, liking the number, dead man's hand). Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- It would be one more piece of data for someone to try to dox him. A question worded differently, like "Is the 88 in your username in reference to 'Heil Hitler'?" might have been better (though I do not fault the folks that asked the question since their first thought was HH and mine was a birth year). I initially thought the questions were trying to guess his birth year, before someone mentioned that the number is related to neo Nazis. Kees08 (Talk) 19:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's not one of the rationales they provided (aliteration, liking the number, dead man's hand). Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- My guess is that Johnbod and RE are positing that the 88 in the user's name represents their birth year. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with this question; the only time
- This is the second time I've heard support or neutral people bringing up the age of AA88 as an oppose reason, but I can't see anything to do with the number 31 in the oppose section. What exactly are you referring to?Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Good day to change your name, just a little. cygnis insignis 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral with leanings towards support. If the candidate didn't directly state that AfD would be an area of focus I'd be in the support column. Has the right temperament. Highly productive editor. He'd be fine blocking vandals. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral but offering moral support in the hopes that you will take the conversation to heart, step up your editing, and return here in six months to a year for another try. Sorry that this has been a tough experience for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Mainly because too many of the few BLP edits do naught. Convincible either way. Collect (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I have some concern that the candidate's experience with difficult inter-personal conflict is limited, and they might end up getting out of their depth in some situations. Their answers to some of the questions employ bland generalisations that don't convey much of particular meaning, and I find their answer to my question 20 disappointing. However I am here in 'neutral' because the candidate seems sincere and open in their communications, and seems to wish to always do the right thing by policy. The opposes based on the use of the number 88 are unfair, and I have no problem with the candidate wanting to keep the RfA open to the end, nor with their comment about Captain America. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
NeutralI was close to support but there are some concerns raised that AmericanAir88 can and should reflect on, well done for answering all the questions and for staying the course, thanks for your contributions, try again in six months. - moving to support.Govindaharihari (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral As I waited for AmericanAir88 to answer my question, I was leaning oppose due to many valid concerns listed in the oppose section. The answers that they have given to the questions are fine, but for the most part are far too general and just a summary of the policy statement. AA seems to be worrying so much about not answering incorrectly that they aren't really answering them at all. I was very much hoping for some introspection on a number of the questions, and while the answers aren't wrong, I didn't get a lot of feel for how they would actually apply the policies in practice. I give the candidate a lot of credit for sticking this out; while I understand that many have advised them to withdraw, I'm impressed that they have not only stayed active and involved, they have fulfilled their promise of ensuring every question was answered and maintained positivity and poise in the process. It wasn't quite enough to move me to Support (not that that would have made the difference), but I will be very likely to support the next time around. I am confident with some additional experience, AA will be an excellent admin. CThomas3 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
General comments
- I like what I'm seeing on the editing side, but the user name seems very close to these folks seems rather promotional . I'm wondering if anyone else thinks a name change might help. I know 2 years is a long time (depending on your perspective), and I'd imagine you've had discussions about it. Could you link me to one or two of those? — Ched : ? — 04:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, they don't seem to be a shared account, which is what that part of UPOL is theoretically about. Also, AmericanAir88 would you mind disclosing whether or not you have edited for pay? Not a formal question, but policy says you have to disclose, so may as well bring it up here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Candidate clarified here
I have no relation to American Airlines, my username is just out of my passion for the company and airline industry, no COI
. – Teratix ₵ 05:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC) - @TonyBallioni: and @Ched: I have never edited for pay. I do Wikipedia work purely for volunteer and dedication to improving the encyclopedia. My name is from my passion for aviation. I have always loved planes and the airline industry. I have never worked for AA nor have I ever been paid to edit. I hope that clears everything up. AmericanAir88(talk) 05:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you
I didn't think you had, there was just a recent thread at WT:RFA about this requirement, which is why I pinged on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you
- Candidate clarified here
- Well, they don't seem to be a shared account, which is what that part of UPOL is theoretically about. Also, AmericanAir88 would you mind disclosing whether or not you have edited for pay? Not a formal question, but policy says you have to disclose, so may as well bring it up here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I know I may be bias because I'm firmly in the support column, but gosh dang those are some good answers to the questions asked! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, pet peeve patrol: "I may be biased".Sorry to be a pedantic curmudgeon, it's just my nature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I want to thank AmericanAir88 for their continued commitment to answering questions because there have been a lot of them. Regardless of how this closes they've shown themselves to be an asset to this community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest to snow close this RFA. It's not likely that this RFA will succeed. Masum Reza📞 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- This doesn't appear to be a SNOW case, as the outcome was not (and is not) immediately obvious. While it may be an uphill battle at this point, 56% support means that this RfA still has a small possibility of at least reaching the discretionary zone. ComplexRational (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's a long way from warranting a SNOW close - it'd be like closing an AfD as snow when 1/3 of the !votes are Keep. RfAs are only snow closed when it's 90%+ oppose. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- This doesn't appear to be a SNOW case, as the outcome was not (and is not) immediately obvious. While it may be an uphill battle at this point, 56% support means that this RfA still has a small possibility of at least reaching the discretionary zone. ComplexRational (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm late coming to this ~ apologies ~ but as i'm reading through i notice that in Q12, AmericanAir88, you were asked about edit summaries and a rather lowish usage of them; may i suggest that you set the preference that reminds you if you do not provide one? Communication within the community is so important, i find the setting a useful reminder. (If someone mentioned this in a section i haven't reached yet, i'm sorry for the repetition.) Happy days, LindsayHello 20:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the commentary about the 88 aspect of the candidate's name, and as one of the original commentators, I would point out that there was no suggestion that the candidate held any views of a fascist/nazi nature. A lot of peoples concerns was whether it may be a red flag for those (such as me) with that awareness, which might hinder interactions when a sysop. It is because of the candidates apparent inability to consider that sensitive aspect that is perhaps the reason for opposes (or neutral in my case). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
- ^ 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.