Vanished user kasjqwii3km4tkid (talk | contribs) →Support: s |
Scottywong (talk | contribs) →Questions for the candidate: answer q6 |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
;Additional question from [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] |
;Additional question from [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] |
||
:'''6.''' You are given the option to have three of your fingers surgically, painlessly, permanently removed. You may pick any three fingers you like. Should you have the operation, Wikipedia will go on normally. However, should you elect not to have the operation, a massive hardware failure will cause every bit of Wikipedia and its data to be permanently destroyed, and Conservapedia will likely become the de facto free online encyclopedia. Note: If you choose not to have the operation, no one will ever know that you are "responsible" for the total destruction of Wikipedia. What do you do? |
:'''6.''' You are given the option to have three of your fingers surgically, painlessly, permanently removed. You may pick any three fingers you like. Should you have the operation, Wikipedia will go on normally. However, should you elect not to have the operation, a massive hardware failure will cause every bit of Wikipedia and its data to be permanently destroyed, and Conservapedia will likely become the de facto free online encyclopedia. Note: If you choose not to have the operation, no one will ever know that you are "responsible" for the total destruction of Wikipedia. What do you do? |
||
::'''A:''' Naturally, I think anyone would agreeable to sparing a couple of [[Cadbury Fingers|fingers]] for the sake of Wikipedia. I would choose White Chocolate, Dark Chocolate Mint, and Toffee Crunch. [[User:Snottywong|<span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#DDE4C4;color=#DD0000">Snotty<font color="#25900D">Wong</font></span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|express]]</small></sup> 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
====General comments==== |
====General comments==== |
Revision as of 00:25, 22 February 2011
Snottywong
(talk page) (9/2/3); Scheduled to end 22:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Nomination
Snottywong (talk · contribs) – I've been on Wikipedia since 2007, but the majority of my activity has been in the last 1.5 years. I've learned a lot in that time, and I believe I have accumulated a sufficient amount of clue, and have the appropriate level of maturity required to use the tools responsibly. As article space grows larger and larger, it requires a higher level of maintenance. This is where I excel, and the mop would allow me to contribute more to that end. SnottyWong gossip 21:52, 21 February 2011 (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 start working in areas with which I am most familiar, and then gradually and carefully branch out to other areas with backlogs. I am very familiar with the deletion processes and would be comfortable jumping right in to XfD's, speedies and prods. I'm also well-versed in complex template syntax and would be capable of responding to {{editrequested}} requests on protected high-use templates. I don't have extensive anti-vandalism experience (the Huggle folks always beat me to it), but I'm familiar enough with the policies that I could cautiously begin responding to non-controversial requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP.
- 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 a pretty important protocol in the industry in which I work. Over the course of a few months, I created the article and brought it succesfully to GA. After that accomplishment, I stopped editing for quite awhile since there was nothing else I felt compelled to write about, and I didn't have much time to write at that point in my life. Later, CobraNet was delisted and I came back to work on restoring its GA status. This is when I started to notice the vast underworld of Wikipedia beneath the articles. Since then, I've done a lot of new page patrolling, a handful of GA reviews, and took a stab at resolving some conflicts at WP:3O. I eventually wrote some more audio-related articles, like Constant voltage speaker system and Dante (networking), as well as some other unrelated stubs. More recently, I spearheaded the (rather time-consuming) effort to convert List of fighter aircraft from a poorly organized list into a sortable table. Finally (and most recently), I am the creator and operator of a bot (Snotbot!) which tracks unpatrolled new articles, and has also done some other requested one-time tasks.
- 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: Like most editors, I have had my fair share of conflicts. When I first started editing here, I responded negatively and sometimes uncivilly to these conflicts. I soon learned that such responses to conflict not only stress me out, but also substantially diminish the strength of my argument. I think that in the last 6-12 months, my efforts to remain level-headed and suggest reasonable compromises have been largely successful. One of the areas where some of my conflicts have arisen is with the Article Rescue Squadron, as I have been an outspoken critic of some of their members' actions (but I have come to regard the overall concept of ARS as noble and useful). I always make a point to remain civil, and I contribute often to discussions on WT:ARS without incident. However, since this request for adminship could be a concern for some ARS members, I would be happy to automatically consider myself involved with regard to rescue-tagged AfD's should there be a consensus among ARS members that such a restriction was necessary or desired. Even if it is not necessary or desired, I already !vote on most rescue-tagged AfD's and I don't intend to stop doing that as an admin, and therefore I don't foresee myself closing many rescue-tagged AfD's either way. All in all, I think the conflicts that I've had here have taught me that Wikipedia works a lot better when you focus less on your personal opinions and more on cooperation, consensus, and collaboration.
- Additional optional question from RJaguar3
- 4. You expressed an interest in working in deletion debates. Could you describe how Wikipedia's notability policy interacts with subject-specific policies, like the guidelines found in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines?
- A: WP:V and WP:NOT are the overarching policies, and the secondary guidelines are simply guidelines which attempt to help explicate those policies. The secondary notability guidelines have a few primary uses. Firstly, they provide a "rule of thumb" to use when gauging the notability of a subject. In other words, if the subject of the article meets one or more of the criteria in the appropriate secondary guideline, then we can assume that it is most likely notable. Secondly, they provide a point of reference which is helpful in determining what is and is not a notable event (i.e. an event which, if documented in reliable sources, would establish notability). For example, if a amateur high school baseball player gets some coverage in reliable sources about a particularly good season they just finished, is that enough to satisfy WP:GNG? Probably not, since being a good baseball player at the high school level is not one of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Baseball, and therefore it is probably not a notable event despite it being covered by local sources. The bottom line is that WP:GNG trumps the secondary guidelines every time. If, however, there is a question as to whether an event which is covered in reliable sources is notable, we can consult the secondary guidelines for help. (Note that my answer is geared towards the typical subject-specific guidelines without commenting on the exceptions, like WP:PROF).
- Additional optional question from Balloonman
- 5. I'll be honest with you, your user name causes me some problems. I know that Wong might be a Surname, but when combined with snotty, it evokes a slang term which making it sound like its referencing a body part. Thus, I just have a hard time seeing somebody with your name intervening in a conflict in the role of admin. Could you A) explain your name and B) would you be willing to change it should you be entrusted with the tools?
- A: I appreciate the honesty, and understand the concern. Without getting too far into personal details, I can reveal that Wong is not my surname (I'm not even Asian). Snottywong is actually a nickname given to me a long time ago, for no apparent reason and with no particular meaning. It caught on and this is what many of my close friends refer to me as. It is in no way intended to reference a body part or be offensive in any way. This has been my user name for quite awhile, and I haven't heard very many objections until now. I'm a bit hesitant to change my user name, but I suppose that if there was support from multiple users that my username would deter me from performing as an effective admin, then I would agree to change it.
- Comment If memory serves both User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and User:Bongwarrior had concerns over their username at their RFA and neither has changed their usernames.... and rightly so. Pedro : Chat 23:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a deal breaker for me, but it is a concern that I wanted to raise. Remember that User:Budgiekiller did change his name when running for admin or was it when he ran for 'crat?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If memory serves both User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and User:Bongwarrior had concerns over their username at their RFA and neither has changed their usernames.... and rightly so. Pedro : Chat 23:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- A: I appreciate the honesty, and understand the concern. Without getting too far into personal details, I can reveal that Wong is not my surname (I'm not even Asian). Snottywong is actually a nickname given to me a long time ago, for no apparent reason and with no particular meaning. It caught on and this is what many of my close friends refer to me as. It is in no way intended to reference a body part or be offensive in any way. This has been my user name for quite awhile, and I haven't heard very many objections until now. I'm a bit hesitant to change my user name, but I suppose that if there was support from multiple users that my username would deter me from performing as an effective admin, then I would agree to change it.
- Additional question from Keepscases
- 6. You are given the option to have three of your fingers surgically, painlessly, permanently removed. You may pick any three fingers you like. Should you have the operation, Wikipedia will go on normally. However, should you elect not to have the operation, a massive hardware failure will cause every bit of Wikipedia and its data to be permanently destroyed, and Conservapedia will likely become the de facto free online encyclopedia. Note: If you choose not to have the operation, no one will ever know that you are "responsible" for the total destruction of Wikipedia. What do you do?
- A: Naturally, I think anyone would agreeable to sparing a couple of fingers for the sake of Wikipedia. I would choose White Chocolate, Dark Chocolate Mint, and Toffee Crunch. SnottyWong express 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for Snottywong: Snottywong (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Snottywong 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 on talk. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- On Balloonman's question about the username, it might be a reference to a minor character from Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ha! Nice find. I think I've seen that movie before (decades ago) but never picked up on the reference. Not the type of movie you really pay attention to. SnottyWong confer 23:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Support
- Support - I see no problems. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have interacted with this editor before, particularly during his disagreements as outlined in answer 3. In dealing with disruptive editors, as far as I have seen he has always been civil and fair, so see only positives. AD 22:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see Snotty's work at UAA and I can support on that basis, though it's early, and RFA is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen Snottywong around for quite some time, and I see someone who cares greatly about the project and is very knowledgeable. I think it's fair to say he has, on occasions, expressed himself perhaps a little more forthrightly than is ideal, but I do see some mellowing with experience and I trust him to use the tools dispassionately. I think the honest self-appraisal in Q3 is highly commendable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support I may not agree with him all the time, but overall I think granting him the tools would be a net positive to the project. Based on what I've seen, I trust that he'll follow policy. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support This candidate I think would be useful with the mop. Baseball Watcher 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support in light of answer to question 4; could not find any significant issues. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support He'll be fine. WayneSlam 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Skinwalker (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose My limited interaction from the editor has not been positive and I am left feeling that he does not understand the guidelines and policies enough to deserve the tools. Unfortunately, it would take some tracking down of discussions to find the diffs so this is an oppose without any evidence backing my thoughts.Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair, those diff's are pretty handy. Whilst the lack of them does not, as such, undermine your oppose they would help other editors to research the candidate. Pedro : Chat 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have a link to at least one deletion debate the candidate participated in that is the basis for my posing question 4; once the candidate answers, I will post a link to the page here. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Now that question 4 has been answered, I will post the link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merkow. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have a link to at least one deletion debate the candidate participated in that is the basis for my posing question 4; once the candidate answers, I will post a link to the page here. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair, those diff's are pretty handy. Whilst the lack of them does not, as such, undermine your oppose they would help other editors to research the candidate. Pedro : Chat 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose due to numerous conversations at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron and especially this reply to me in which SW is aggressively hostile toward a collaborative process. SnottyWong has a problem with concensus (as determined in this TfD discussion) which he unilaterally reversed when an editor got around to implementing the change. In the ensuing discussion SW would not even acknowledge a problem, and sought to maintain their preferred version regardless of the opinions of others. I do not believe that SW can be trusted to determine or follow concensus, collaborate well with others, or decide closes at XfD discussions. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral (old commentary removed but in history)Pedro : Chat 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying the "en" userbox by itself is a red flag, or is there something else that looks off? - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- No Dank - just (unblued) making a point - sorry. I've seen the candidate around but a little more research is needed first. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problem ... if you see something that looks off, please let us know, I take your concerns seriously. His userpage doesn't set any bells off for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- No Dank - just (unblued) making a point - sorry. I've seen the candidate around but a little more research is needed first. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying the "en" userbox by itself is a red flag, or is there something else that looks off? - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral, I see no reason to oppose at this time but my (admittedly very limited) past interactions with the candidate at AFD has been about average, and nothing really stands out enough for me to support. StrPby (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral pending further review. I don't recall seeing the candidate outside RfA discussions, but I also don't typically go look through the stated areas of interest. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)