→Support: s |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
====Nomination==== |
====Nomination==== |
||
{{USER|Ronjohn}} - This is my 1st time at RfA, and many admins seem to be discouraging me from doing so, but I'd like to try anyways. |
|||
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn|ronjohn]]=== |
|||
<span class="plainlinks">'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn|action=edit§ion=5}} <font color="#002BB8">Voice your opinion on this candidate</font>]'''</span> ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ronjohn|talk page]]) |
|||
'''{{RfA tally|ronjohn}}<!-- WHEN CLOSING THIS RFA, REPLACE THIS PART WITH {{subst:finaltally|SUPPORTVOTES|OPPOSEVOTES|NEUTRALVOTES|[OPTIONALMESSAGE] OR [result=successful] OR [reason=SNOW] OR [reason=NOTNOW] OR (blank)}} SEE TEMPLATE FOR MORE DETAILS -->; Scheduled to end {{<!--subst:-->RfA/time|subst={{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship||nosubst}}}}''' |
|||
====Nomination==== |
|||
{{User|ronjohn}} – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER [[User:Ronjohn|Ron John]] ([[User talk:Ronjohn|talk]]) 00:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
====Questions for the candidate==== |
|||
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants: |
|||
:'''1.''' What administrative work do you intend to take part in? |
|||
::'''A:''' Deletion request, vandalism discussions/request |
|||
:'''2.''' What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? |
|||
::'''A:''' During the 2008 campaign I added information regarding Senator John McCain's vote against the Martin Luther King federal holiday and I think this help inform voters. I created the [[Upromise]] page which educated people who visited the page on the company since it's advertised everywhere. I created the following notable pages: [[The Affair (1995 film)]] article, [[Media Take Out]], and [[Rhonda Cornum]]. |
|||
:'''3.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? |
|||
::'''A:''' Yes and I've allowed administrators to make decisions and followed Wikipedia guidelines |
|||
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|Question}} --> |
|||
====General comments==== |
|||
* Links for ronjohn: {{usercheck-short|ronjohn}} |
|||
* Edit summary usage for ronjohn can be found <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=ronjohn&lang=en here]</span>. |
|||
* |
|||
---- |
|||
<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered Wikipedians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "general comments" and "discussion" sections. --> |
|||
''Please keep discussion constructive and [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review [[Special:Contributions/ronjohn|their contributions]] before commenting.'' |
|||
====Discussion==== |
|||
{{RfA/RfB Toolbox|ronjohn}} |
|||
* |
|||
=====Support===== |
|||
# |
|||
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. --> |
|||
=====Oppose===== |
|||
# |
|||
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. --> |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
|||
# |
|||
<!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. --> |
|||
Many years of Wikipedia page page creations and edits. Wikipedia financial donor |
|||
{{User|Scottywong}} – This is my second time at RfA, and I had a slight username change since that time. My first RfA attempt can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snottywong]]. I have received several offers for RfA nominations, but in the end I prefer to self-nominate to avoid the politics of RfA. In my view, there were three primary reasons for the opposition to my first RfA, and I've tried to address all of them: |
{{User|Scottywong}} – This is my second time at RfA, and I had a slight username change since that time. My first RfA attempt can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snottywong]]. I have received several offers for RfA nominations, but in the end I prefer to self-nominate to avoid the politics of RfA. In my view, there were three primary reasons for the opposition to my first RfA, and I've tried to address all of them: |
||
Revision as of 00:27, 25 March 2012
Scottywong
(talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomination
Template:USER - This is my 1st time at RfA, and many admins seem to be discouraging me from doing so, but I'd like to try anyways.
ronjohn
(talk page) (0/23/0); Scheduled to end You're almost there. All you need to do now is substitute the time parser function (it isn't as scary as it sounds, edit the page and inline comments will guide you). This will generate a fixed end time.
Nomination
ronjohn (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Ron John (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Deletion request, vandalism discussions/request
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: During the 2008 campaign I added information regarding Senator John McCain's vote against the Martin Luther King federal holiday and I think this help inform voters. I created the Upromise page which educated people who visited the page on the company since it's advertised everywhere. I created the following notable pages: The Affair (1995 film) article, Media Take Out, and Rhonda Cornum.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Yes and I've allowed administrators to make decisions and followed Wikipedia guidelines
General comments
- Links for ronjohn: Ronjohn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for ronjohn can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Many years of Wikipedia page page creations and edits. Wikipedia financial donor
Scottywong (talk · contribs) – This is my second time at RfA, and I had a slight username change since that time. My first RfA attempt can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snottywong. I have received several offers for RfA nominations, but in the end I prefer to self-nominate to avoid the politics of RfA. In my view, there were three primary reasons for the opposition to my first RfA, and I've tried to address all of them:
- ARS Opposition - Some editors thought I was unfairly critical and/or too emotional when it came to my opposition to some of the ways the Article Rescue Squadron works. In response to this concern, since my last RfA I have made a conscious reduction of my contributions to WT:ARS, I've stopped patrolling articles that are tagged for rescue, I've not participated in any arguments with ARS members, and I've even volunteered to code a bot task for the ARS which keeps track of articles that are tagged for rescue (which is no longer running since the rescue template was recently deleted).
- AfD comments and deletionism - Some editors thought my comments at some AfD's were too harsh, and that I was too deletionist to be trusted as an admin. In response to this concern, I strove to be more fair and level-headed in the AfD's to which I contributed. In AfD's in the last year, my !vote matched the eventual consensus about 85% of the time, and many of my votes were among the first votes for each AfD (in other words, I wasn't just adding pile-on votes to AfD's that already had strong consensus). Additionally, I voted "Keep" at about 18% of AfD's during this period. On average, 18.9% of AfD's close as Keep, so I think I'm squarely in the center as far as deletionism/inclusionism goes. You can find just about all of the AfD's I contributed to since my last RfA by using this link. I have edited over 1,000 AfD pages total throughout my time here.
- Divisive username - Some editors thought my previous username (Snottywong) was divisive and/or potentially could be interpreted as vulgar. Even though it was not intended as such, I have decided to be proactive and make a very minor change to assuage those concerns.
I hope you agree that I have sufficiently addressed the concerns made one year ago. Thanks for your time and consideration. —SW— converse 23:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I am very familiar with the deletion processes, and could hit the ground running on closing XfD's and responding to speedy deletion and PROD requests. This is where I would likely work the most. I'm also well-versed in complex template syntax and would be capable of responding to {{editrequested}} requests on protected and/or high-use templates. Finally, being an experienced bot operator, I could respond to requests for adminbots. Most importantly, I know what I don't know, and therefore I won't go wandering recklessly into unfamiliar admin areas without having familiarized myself with their processes fully.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: The reason why I first registered an account was because there was no article on CobraNet, which is an important protocol in the industry in which I work. I spent a few months writing CobraNet and bringing it to GA. Later, I discovered the maintenance underworld of Wikipedia and took to that moreso than extensive writing. However, I still find time to write from time to time, and a short list of some articles I've written or significantly contributed to can be found on my user page. However, since my RfA last year, I've primarily delved into the realm of bots and tools, which is part of the reason why my edit count declined somewhat since the previous RfA (I'm not spending any less time on WP, but a chunk of that time is spent programming instead of editing). I now run a handful of bot tasks with User:Snotbot, and I've created some toolserver tools which are used by hundreds of users per day. My statistical analyses of various aspects of Wikipedia can be found on various pages throughout Wikipedia. I also try to help out from time to time at WP:AFC, WP:NPP, WP:GAC, and WP:3O.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: It took me awhile to learn how to communicate effectively in the strange social environment of Wikipedia, but I think I've got it figured out now. Prior to my last RfA I was involved in some conflicts, some of which were perpetrated in part by me. I managed to keep them all in check, as evidenced by my clean block log, but they were still conflicts nonetheless, and unnecessary ones at that. However, since my last RfA, I can honestly say that I haven't participated in anything I would label as a "conflict". Some of this is because I've been concentrating largely on creating bots and tools (a solitary process without much potential for conflict), and some of this is because I've made a concerted effort to defuse any escalating discussions long before they rose to the level of "conflict".
- Optional questions from jc37
- In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
- 4. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
- 4a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?
- A: An editor should be blocked when it is believed that the block would prevent damage and/or disruption to Wikipedia.
- 4b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?
- A: Articles should be protected when they are being adversely affected by excessive edit warring, vandalism, or other persistent damaging/disruptive behavior. They should be unprotected once the underlying problem has been resolved. Many non-article pages (like high-use templates) are routinely protected indefinitely for various reasons.
- 4c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?
- A: A page should be speedily deleted if it strictly meets any of the various criteria listed at WP:CSD. It can be restored if it can be shown that the prior objections can be overcome.
- 4d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
- A: A rule should be ignored when it is sincerely believed that the rule is preventing the improvement or maintenance of the project.
- 5. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
- A: Evaluating a discussion for consensus is more of an art than a science. There is no step-by-step method by which you can instruct someone on how to determine consensus. With that said, consensus is evaluated primarily by judging the strength of each editor's argument, and whether or not that argument is congruous with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arguments that have no basis in policy, or that have been sufficiently refuted by other editors are generally removed from consideration. If, after removing invalid/tenuous/refuted arguments, there is a general agreement among most of the remaining editors, then a consensus has been achieved. Generally, there is no fundamental difference between evaluating consensus on talk pages, XfD's, or DRV's; except for minor adjustments for the various quirks of each area as well as their average participation rates.
- 6. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
- A: This depends largely on the specifics of the situation. If the situation is fairly tame and harmless, I might do nothing or simply encourage discussion. If the situation has progressed past 3RR, then both editors might receive either a stern warning or a 1-day block. If one of the editors is reverting a BLP violation or blatant vandalism, then they would likely receive praise while the other editor is blocked. Let me also note that it is not my intention to work in areas which require me to frequently block other editors.
- 7. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
- A: Anyone reading this right now is here because they believe in the project and want to improve it. This includes me. I'm aware of administrative backlogs that exist every day which I am capable of helping with, but don't have the tools to do so. I believe that I could improve the project more with the help of those tools.
- Additional questions from Whenaxis
- 8. Why have you participated in the request for comments on the Article Rescue Squadron, despite your history with the ARS, in close proximity to your RfA?
- A: A few reasons. Firstly, I haven't made adjustments to my behavior just because I knew I was going to make a request for adminship. Perhaps this was a mistake on my part, but I can assure you that what you see is what you get. Secondly, my history with the ARS has taught me that my previous battleground behaviors were unhelpful. So, I stopped battling, but didn't self-impose a complete topic ban on myself with respect to the ARS. I still occasionally post messages on their talk page and try to provide helpful ideas. As I mentioned in my self-nom statement, I also ran a bot task for them for awhile. I felt rather strongly that the recent RFC was misguided, and decided to post a statement on it.
- 9. In the event that someone alleges that you are abusing your administrator power, what will you do?
- A: If I felt that the accusation was genuine, I would probably start a thread at ANI asking for advice, and if others agreed that I was abusing my admin privileges, I would do whatever is required to undo what I've done. I think I have a strong track record of not having a problem with admitting when I'm wrong.
- Optional question from —cyberpower ChatOffline
- 10. Because of this discussion that took place not too long ago, I find it necessary to know if you prefer fruits or vegetables as I will basing my vote off of this.
- A: I hope that my preference for fleshy seed coverings will sway your vote.
- Additional question from Achowat
- 11. You have indicated an interest in working XfDs; as someone who is active in MFD, I would like to ask you what your opinion of WP:FAKEARTICLE is. Specifically consider the situation where User:FrankRovin has set up a page (page [[User:FrankRovin]]) that uses familiar formatting to an article. The page has an infobox, a free use picture (of Frank, or so he claims) is broken up into sections with a Table of Contents, etc. However, the content of the article is not tremendously more detailed than what one might expect from UBXs (Nationality, Country of Origin, WikiProjects, alma mater, etc), though there is a tremendous amount of it. It is written in the Third Person; for instance, there is an Education subsection that contains such phrases as "Rovin attended Cambridge University in 2002, graduating with a Masters in 2007." Do you believe WP:FAKEARTICLE applies to this situation?}}
- A: I generally fall somewhat on the liberal side when it comes to editors using their own userspace. The situation you describe is squarely in the gray area of WP:FAKEARTICLE, and could fall either way depending on the details. For instance, you mention that Frank's user page includes an infobox, however consider that {{Infobox user}} is an infobox that is designed for and apparently acceptable to be used on one's user page. Using that infobox would certainly be more acceptable than one that is designed for use in articles. In summary, it's unlikely that I would personally bring Frank's user page to MfD, I would probably just ask him to add something like {{User page}} to the top of it to make it clear that it's not an article.
General comments
- Links for Scottywong: Scottywong (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Scottywong can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Discussion
- Edit stats are on the talk page. →Στc. 05:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Previous RFAs box added. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Support
- One of our more experienced and hard-working editors, happy to support. 28bytes (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support I agree with 28bytes, and I think that the concerns from the earlier RfA have been addressed. —DoRD (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support I have seen this user around quite a few times and am surprised his first RfA was a bust. Plus this user likes fruit so, I hope it goes better this time.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great editor, no significant issues, great work at WP:XFD. Bmusician 00:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support: This user is technically savvy and will be a welcome addition to the admin-corps. He has addressed the concerns raised in his last bid for adminship. I am happy to support. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Absolute, 100%, full support. Scottywong, Kudpung, and I did a huge amount of work together to prepare WP:ACTRIAL, and while we know what happened there he really proved his worth. He's done a tremendous amount of good, and he's fully suited for adminship. I look forward to seeing him in our admin corps. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)And as a strong agnostic myself, and a huge fan of Into Eternity, Rush, and Mayhem, I'm all on board with the userboxes being complained about in Oppose 1.
- Support I have been watching over his edits since i saw this pettish comments in RfA talkpage. I was surprised to see that acctually this user is a genuine editor and has done good edits since i have seen them atleast. I dont find anything wrong about them. Yasht101 01:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Useful editor with clue. That's what matters. Alarbus (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support – I think Scottywong has done a very good job at allaying the concerns expressed by the community at the previous RfA. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seen him about the place, seems to know what's up. — foxj 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support I too have seen him around quite a bit, and have no doubt he'll serve the project well as an admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- While I think he's a bit blunt at times, I think he will make an excellent administrator. Secret account 03:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support While I did indeed oppose Scotty's last RfA, his work since then has been exemplary. I have no concerns. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. An active and thoughtful editor who will make a good admin. A little bluntness is actually quite a useful thing. --regentspark (comment) 05:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Support Yes, definitely. One of the most active and famous users of Wikipedia, who can be trusted with the tool. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 05:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Have encountered Scotty across AfDs, where, for a change, he's the one who's pointed out corrections to me. His contribution in AfCs is also quite sincere. Scotty should necessarily take into account the points that Keifer mentions. Unfortunately, as an admin, there is no leeway for quid pro quos in encomiums, and Scotty has to accept that without qualifications if he wishes to be an admin. I've come across Keifer and my personal opinion of him is quite positive. And I'm sure Keifer would reconsider his opposition to Scotty considering the work he's done for the project. Wifione Message 07:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I agree that Scottywong is an excellent member of the project, and his bot work has been particularly valuable. Indeed, in the previously mentioned discussion of "fruit", I was the first to welcome him back from his WikiBreak, partly to let him know that I wish him well and have a generally favorable impression of him. If he would declare that he will avoid using the tools in dealing with content-editors (and remove the "DefCon" box about new articles, which also suggests a problem still with this deletionist tendencies ...) I would weaken my opposition or even withdraw it. Wanting to become an administrator has and becoming one probably would improve the conduct of about any editor---crooked timber of humanity and all that... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Support Seems unually honest and honourable. Doesn't seem to bear grudges; Ive seen them defend rescue squad members with whom they've previously had extended disputes. Also technically competent and seems happy to help out any editor regardless of standing – think they'll make an excellent addition to the admin core. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Fit enough to be a admin.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 12:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Experienced in the right areas, and in general. Forthright, but not uncivil. Technically competent. High level communication skills. Helpful. Analytical. Trustworthy. These are all ticks. No big red crosses I can see, so easy to support. Begoon talk 12:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I am old fashioned and still believe that if you are trusted and technically competent to have the tools then why not... I see no reason to say no, so yes. QU TalkQu 14:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Keifer's issues are long in the past, and while I am diametrically opposed to ScottyWong both politically and theologically, that doesn't really matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - issues in the Oppose seem non-convincing. Relative lack of content creation is a small concern, but having a process-heavy Admin isn't the worst thing in the world. Achowat (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support as no concerns. This editor has made invaluable contributions not only to the Wiki but toolserver as well, with multiple useful tools being available created by Scottywong. I also think the opposes are just exaggerated paragraphs of old grievances and not terribly convincing. I see nothing to make me not vote 'support'. Rcsprinter (yak) 17:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support I think Scotty has come a long way since his last RfA. He is a skilled and hardworking editor. He clearly has the technical know-how to be given the tools and any previous concerns I may have had about his temperament, have been overcome. Pol430 talk to me 19:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Don't see any reason not to. Head is sufficiently screwed on, won't get into anything stupid. AfD always needs more admins. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I'm convinced that SW has sincerely looked in the mirror since the previous RfA, and that he has the best interests of the project at heart. This is someone I trust not to overreach. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support: Even though this candidate has made mistakes in the past, he has significantly adjusted his attitude that I am confident enough to support this candidate. The actions that he has undertaken since his previous RfA have shown high levels of maturity and effectively counteracts the actions of his past. At the start of the RfA, I was hesitant to support this candidate because of reasons mentioned in the Oppose and Neutral sections of this RfA as well as his previous attitude up until his previous RfA, however, now I am comfortable with vesting powerful admin tools to this candidate without a doubt in my mind. I would like to see this candidate expand further into other administrator actions that he is not so familiar with such as request for page protection and responding to the administrator's noticeboard upon the closure of this adminship. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Overall seems to be a good editor. There have been issues with conduct in the past, but most of what has been raised is not recent, suggesting that Scottywong has moved on and matured since any problems. Unless and until evidence of harassment and incivility from recent discussions is provided, I am happy to support this candidate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support despite the change in the name. Seen SW around a lot, never had a problem with them. Probably knows a damn sight more than I do about how things work in this place. If there have been issues about civility, I feel sure there won't be more than from others currently wielding mops. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. I've seen his signature around plenty of times and I think he'd make a great administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support I don't see any reason to oppose.--В и к и T 23:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support – someone who I know will handle the tools brilliantly. Airplaneman ✈ 04:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support I've WikiKnown SW for around a year now, and (having done my usual thing of stalking around someone's communications contributions) I can certainly say that I've noticed a significant improvement in terms of "bluntness". SW is hugely clueful and I don't foresee any risk of the tools being abused whatsoever, which is why I'm happy to support. Just a word of advice - the "blunt instrument" is still just a tad heavy-handed occasionally, usually in situations where SW has had previous history with another user, and in those cases it seems very often six of one and half a dozen of the other, but worth considering continuing to improve in this area. It's certainly not a major problem, at all, and I'm sure SW won't mind me saying this; there's just room for a bit more polishing on this front. :o) Pesky (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Every editor makes mistakes at some point of time and Scottywong is no different. The user had been in some conflicts and disputes in the past and most of them seem to have been solved. User intends to work in some of the administrative areas of the project and should be given a chance to use these tools wisely. TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - whenever I have encountered SW on noticebiards or elsewhere I have found then to be helpful & informative, and see nothing of great concern. GiantSnowman 09:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- support I still worry about maturity issues, but on the whole find SW to have become a much more reasonable editor. The name change helped too. He's always been helpful, just occasionally very difficult. I'm seeing the helpful continue and the difficult largely fall away. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Has shown a lot of improvement since his last RfA. We all learn from experience, and I believe Scottywong, having gone through many trials and tribulations, has learned many lessons along the way on what it means to be an outstanding Wikipedian. We can confidently give him the keys to the janitor's closet. -- Ϫ 14:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Will make a fine admin. No real concerns. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. After a sampling of about 200 edits throughout his career, and paying special attention to the editors bringing forward concerns in the oppose category, I agree Scotty has leveled off from where he once was. He certainly does not sugarcoat his stance on content, but plain honesty is hard to come by these days. His earlier actions aside, a proficient and active contributor. I fully support his candidacy. An Illusive Man (Contact) 20:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. I do note the comments by Kiefer below, but they don't concern me to a degree that would lead to me opposing. It's a net positive thing. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 21:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support You have matured so much in the past year that I am more than willing to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support, and gladly. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
- I appreciate that Scottywong has read comments at his last RfA and made some improvements. However, his statement that he has avoided conflicts since his last RfA omits his conflicts with myself, e.g. about "No one cares which version of the 2,000-year-old fairy tale you believe in": Other statements that suggest that approving his RfA would be premature: (a) "But while WikiProject Atheism is still active, shut the hell up and keep your misguided religious blubbering to yourself." (b) "Whatever. I'll let the recent additions to my userboxes speak for themselves. Thanks to Keepscases for alerting me to their existence." ScottyWong had added 4 anti-religious boxes. (c) "If you feel the need to block me, then just block me. Empty threats will not change my behavior (but then again, neither would a block)." Perhaps in 6-12 months if severe personal-attacks or personal attacks with the appearance of hostility towards groups have stopped. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- While I'll be the first to admit that my comments were a bit over the top, I'd like to also point out that the comments were made nearly a year ago, it was an isolated incident, and the cause of my emotional over-reaction was your assertion that atheists are a hate group. I think even you'd agree that this was only a brief argument that didn't rise to the level of a "conflict". I'm sorry that our argument has caused you to believe that I am unsuitable for adminship. —SW— converse 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- You have confused me with Keepscases, who objected to the user-boxes, which you then added, directly to spite him and Fetchcomms. When you were still "Snottywong", in November you made personal attacks against Badger Drink in his RfC---good editor and "frankly a troll" .... who ..."seems to go out of his way to be as insulting and outrageous as possible. I can only surmise why he feels the need to do this; it could be that he just gets a kick out of watching everyone freak out whenever he lets loose, it could be that he enjoys the copious attention he gets"---- that you did not retract even after your violation of WP:NPA were pointed out. Having violated NPA so severely at a recent RfC/U, you should withdraw your nomination. Good luck in 6--12 months. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was initially going to write something very harsh, but decided a more tactful approach would help. I think the distinction between bluntness and incivility can be difficult at times, but in the case of Badger Drink's RfC I thought it was firmly in the bluntness category. Badger Drink did display every behavioral characteristic that Scottywong wrote about, so I can't see it as a personal attack. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Blade, Scottywong did violate WP:NPA by speculating about psychological problems of BadgerDrink, rather than behavior. I did not object to Scottywong's discussion of behavior, and you can see that I signed statements critical of BD's behavior (as I have when there has been discussion about improving behavior of other editors, including friends and myself 12:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I feel this discussion is going to get very heated very fast... — foxj 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Blade, Scottywong did violate WP:NPA by speculating about psychological problems of BadgerDrink, rather than behavior. I did not object to Scottywong's discussion of behavior, and you can see that I signed statements critical of BD's behavior (as I have when there has been discussion about improving behavior of other editors, including friends and myself 12:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was initially going to write something very harsh, but decided a more tactful approach would help. I think the distinction between bluntness and incivility can be difficult at times, but in the case of Badger Drink's RfC I thought it was firmly in the bluntness category. Badger Drink did display every behavioral characteristic that Scottywong wrote about, so I can't see it as a personal attack. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- You have confused me with Keepscases, who objected to the user-boxes, which you then added, directly to spite him and Fetchcomms. When you were still "Snottywong", in November you made personal attacks against Badger Drink in his RfC---good editor and "frankly a troll" .... who ..."seems to go out of his way to be as insulting and outrageous as possible. I can only surmise why he feels the need to do this; it could be that he just gets a kick out of watching everyone freak out whenever he lets loose, it could be that he enjoys the copious attention he gets"---- that you did not retract even after your violation of WP:NPA were pointed out. Having violated NPA so severely at a recent RfC/U, you should withdraw your nomination. Good luck in 6--12 months. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Strong Opposehostile and offensive language is not the kind of thing I look for in an admin. I'll have to oppose for now.--White Shadows One eye watching you 01:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)- Can you tell me that, what and where offensive did Scooty write? Yasht101 02:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, please give us a diff in which Scottywong used "hostile and offensive language". Bmusician 10:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think this user simply read Oppose #1 and decided to make a second oppose out of it.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 11:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can I remind other editors not to pile on useless comments such as "Yeah, please give us a diff" or "then prove it and show us" when such a request has already been made? Not everyone is on Wikipedia every minute of their lives; asking thrice will not make a diff appear any faster. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies to everyone if i was rude. Yasht101 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I'm not able to be on Wikipedia as often as I used to. My opposition is based on previous encounters with Snotty (before he changed his name). I did NOT though, just join the non-existent bandwagon.--White Shadows One eye watching you 22:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies to everyone if i was rude. Yasht101 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, please give us a diff in which Scottywong used "hostile and offensive language". Bmusician 10:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- While I'll be the first to admit that my comments were a bit over the top, I'd like to also point out that the comments were made nearly a year ago, it was an isolated incident, and the cause of my emotional over-reaction was your assertion that atheists are a hate group. I think even you'd agree that this was only a brief argument that didn't rise to the level of a "conflict". I'm sorry that our argument has caused you to believe that I am unsuitable for adminship. —SW— converse 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I am not convinced it is learning from experience, ass contrasted with a temporary accommodation in order to get the mop. Others have done this, though I accept it is necessary to judge each person individually. Going by overall percent agreement at AfD is not really evidence--anyone could easily show themselves in any direction desired by commenting only when there was already a clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral. Scottywong has a good understanding of AfD. However his signature does not actually include his username, which can make it difficult to find his comment in a page. "SW" is not sufficiently distinctive to ease searching. I am also disappointed by the "non-apology apology" in response to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's !vote. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Does it help that User:SW redirects to my user page and User talk:SW redirects to my user talk page? —SW— confer 01:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I've never had anyone complain that my sig isn't the same as my username. —DoRD (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Neutral: Awaiting responses to my questions. Let's see the responses and I'll decide whether to support or oppose this candidate. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 01:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Appears to have improved his attitude and behaviour in recent months, but this RfA may be too soon, and the lack of mainspace contributions is a concern. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to see any admin working in deletions to have more article-writing experience; however, Scottywong has taken steps to alleviate many of the problems perceived by voters in the last RfA, and I applaud him for doing so. I may change my mind, depending on how this RfA plays out ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. The talk page shows 20+ edits on only 4 articles, and only 2K article edits, which is less than I'd look for. Average total edits for Jan-March 2012 fewer than 200 per month, much less than 2011 average. Have seen him around being fairly abrasive. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)