Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) Tag: AWB |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) Tag: AWB |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang|Steven Zhang]]=== |
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang|Steven Zhang]]=== |
||
'''Final (124/45/7); ended 01:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC) '''< |
'''Final (124/45/7); ended 01:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC) '''<span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="color:#FF7133;">Maxim</span><sub><small>[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="color:blue;">(talk)</span>]]</small></sub></span>''' 01:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)''' <!-- Template:finaltally --> |
||
:Withdrawn by candidate. '''< |
:Withdrawn by candidate. '''<span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="color:#FF7133;">Maxim</span><sub><small>[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="color:blue;">(talk)</span>]]</small></sub></span>''' 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
====Nomination==== |
====Nomination==== |
||
{{User|Steven Zhang}}<br /> |
{{User|Steven Zhang}}<br /> |
||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
#'''Support''' as nom.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 12:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' as nom.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 12:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' - and in doing so, I'll quote what I said in the Abortion case: ''"Steven Zhang should be commended. He was, in my opinion, presented with an extremely difficult MedCab case to work with. He came up with a novel solution... I believe he did this in the belief that it would be an acceptable compromise for both sides."''. I fully support Steven's nomination in the spirit of good faith - he's matured into a useful, adult and trustworthy user. [[User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|The Cavalry]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|Message me]]) 12:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' - and in doing so, I'll quote what I said in the Abortion case: ''"Steven Zhang should be commended. He was, in my opinion, presented with an extremely difficult MedCab case to work with. He came up with a novel solution... I believe he did this in the belief that it would be an acceptable compromise for both sides."''. I fully support Steven's nomination in the spirit of good faith - he's matured into a useful, adult and trustworthy user. [[User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|The Cavalry]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|Message me]]) 12:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' per this statement once said by Graeme Bartlett "Steve is hard worker, and we could use his skills in the admin area." I feel that this statement reflects on how much work he has done within the past couple of years. [[User:Minimac|< |
#'''Support''' per this statement once said by Graeme Bartlett "Steve is hard worker, and we could use his skills in the admin area." I feel that this statement reflects on how much work he has done within the past couple of years. [[User:Minimac|<span style="color:#0645AD;">Minima</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Minimac|<span style="color:#0645AD;">©</span>]] ([[User talk:Minimac|<span style="color:#0645AD;">talk</span>]]) 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support'''. I think Steven is one of the most patient and civil editors I have ever come across. I'm not very knowledgeable about the qualifications for being an admin, but I know Steven has the character. [[User:HuskyHuskie|HuskyHuskie]] ([[User talk:HuskyHuskie|talk]]) 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support'''. I think Steven is one of the most patient and civil editors I have ever come across. I'm not very knowledgeable about the qualifications for being an admin, but I know Steven has the character. [[User:HuskyHuskie|HuskyHuskie]] ([[User talk:HuskyHuskie|talk]]) 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' we need more admin clerks at [[WP:SPI]], among other reasons. <span style="font-family:comic sans ms;">[[User:Alexandria|<span style="color: #000080">'''Alexandria'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Alexandria|<span style="color: #000080 ">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' we need more admin clerks at [[WP:SPI]], among other reasons. <span style="font-family:comic sans ms;">[[User:Alexandria|<span style="color: #000080">'''Alexandria'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Alexandria|<span style="color: #000080 ">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
#'''Support''' I've yet to come across someone who's done more good with a second chance than Steve has. Tremendously useful, and a force for good in numerous otherwise high tension areas, such as SPI and MEDCAB. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 14:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' I've yet to come across someone who's done more good with a second chance than Steve has. Tremendously useful, and a force for good in numerous otherwise high tension areas, such as SPI and MEDCAB. [[User:Sven Manguard|<span style="color:#207004;">'''<big>S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><span style="color:#F0A804;">'''Wha?'''</span></small>]] 14:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''support''' opposing people dont be mean 2008 was like 3 years ago! '''[[User:Puffin|<span style="color:teal;">Puffin</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Puffin|<b><sup><small>Let's talk!</small></sup></b>]]'' 14:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''support''' opposing people dont be mean 2008 was like 3 years ago! '''[[User:Puffin|<span style="color:teal;">Puffin</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Puffin|<b><sup><small>Let's talk!</small></sup></b>]]'' 14:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' A great editor, definitely deserves nothing less than a promotion. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">[[User:B.wilson|< |
#'''Support''' A great editor, definitely deserves nothing less than a promotion. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">[[User:B.wilson|<span style="color:red;">Bryce</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/B.wilson|<span style="color:blue;">Wilson</span>]] | [[User talk:B.wilson|<span style="color:purple;">talk</span>]]</span> 14:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' 2008 is a while ago, and Steven has clearly rebuilt his trust from the community. No problems afaik. '''[[User:Hurricanefan25|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">HurricaneFan</span>]][[User talk:Hurricanefan25|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">25</span>]]''' 14:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' 2008 is a while ago, and Steven has clearly rebuilt his trust from the community. No problems afaik. '''[[User:Hurricanefan25|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">HurricaneFan</span>]][[User talk:Hurricanefan25|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">25</span>]]''' 14:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' 3 years is a long time, and frankly the harm from the incident was to himself and the other two people involved, not to the community at large. In light of what happened, I think 3 years is long enough for a second chance. The supports above are more convincing then the nominators at most RFCs. I see no reason to withhold support. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 14:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' 3 years is a long time, and frankly the harm from the incident was to himself and the other two people involved, not to the community at large. In light of what happened, I think 3 years is long enough for a second chance. The supports above are more convincing then the nominators at most RFCs. I see no reason to withhold support. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 14:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
#I once ate a worm, aged about five. I'm glad I'm not judged on that. — [[User talk:Fox|Joseph '''Fox''']] 19:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#I once ate a worm, aged about five. I'm glad I'm not judged on that. — [[User talk:Fox|Joseph '''Fox''']] 19:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#::<small>How did you know how old the worm was? [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)</small> |
#::<small>How did you know how old the worm was? [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)</small> |
||
#::<small>I'm ruddy well judging you. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;">< |
#::<small>I'm ruddy well judging you. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><span style="color:#000;">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></span></span>]] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span> ([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)</small> |
||
# '''Support:''' Excellent work with MedCab. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 19:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
# '''Support:''' Excellent work with MedCab. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 19:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
# [[User:Secret|Secret]] <sup>[[User talk:Secret|account]]</sup> 19:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
# [[User:Secret|Secret]] <sup>[[User talk:Secret|account]]</sup> 19:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' I've seen him around in various places - and seen nothing but good. I would think the incidents of 2008 will prevent him doing anything silly here again - because a load of people will be watching him like shitehawks (until they get bored and go off to watch some paint dry instead). [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' I've seen him around in various places - and seen nothing but good. I would think the incidents of 2008 will prevent him doing anything silly here again - because a load of people will be watching him like shitehawks (until they get bored and go off to watch some paint dry instead). [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' - I could not care less that he took part in account sharing ''three years ago''. This is just a freakin' website— time to get over it. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'>< |
#'''Support''' - I could not care less that he took part in account sharing ''three years ago''. This is just a freakin' website— time to get over it. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;">Swarm</span></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><span style="font-family:old english text mt;">X</span></span>]]</sup><span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;">''11|11|11''</span> 19:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
# To err is human. He has certainly learned from it, and earned back the community's trust. '''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 19:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
# To err is human. He has certainly learned from it, and earned back the community's trust. '''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 19:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' per most of the above. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 19:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' per most of the above. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 19:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:<s>'''Support''' - qualified beneficial contributor with a pretty dated single issue which clearly he wouldn't repeat. If he continues to contribute in the same manner , a clear net asset. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)</s> Moving to neutral. Some of the opposes have led me to question my support. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:<s>'''Support''' - qualified beneficial contributor with a pretty dated single issue which clearly he wouldn't repeat. If he continues to contribute in the same manner , a clear net asset. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)</s> Moving to neutral. Some of the opposes have led me to question my support. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' per Swarm above, who couldn't possibly have said it any better. I understand that he did something bad but it's been three years. Seriously. [[WP:STICK|Put the stick down.]] He's unlikely to be anything but a net-positive. [[User:Trusilver|< |
#'''Support''' per Swarm above, who couldn't possibly have said it any better. I understand that he did something bad but it's been three years. Seriously. [[WP:STICK|Put the stick down.]] He's unlikely to be anything but a net-positive. [[User:Trusilver|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:#ADA96E;">Trusilver</span>]] 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support:''' I think Steve will be a great addition to the areas where he intends to work. [[User:Elockid|<b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Elockid|<span style="color:#99BADD;">Talk</span>]])</sup> 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support:''' I think Steve will be a great addition to the areas where he intends to work. [[User:Elockid|<b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Elockid|<span style="color:#99BADD;">Talk</span>]])</sup> 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#Because it seems we may be getting three administrators for the price of one. But in all seriousness, Steve is obviously qualified. Of course if he'd socked around the previous incident he'd have passed RfA two years ago. That he's taken his medicine over three years and there have, as far as I'm aware, been no like conduct issues since, suggests that it should now be left in the past. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 21:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#Because it seems we may be getting three administrators for the price of one. But in all seriousness, Steve is obviously qualified. Of course if he'd socked around the previous incident he'd have passed RfA two years ago. That he's taken his medicine over three years and there have, as far as I'm aware, been no like conduct issues since, suggests that it should now be left in the past. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 21:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
#'''Support''' One of the things I most admire in Steven is his openness and honesty in dealing with the (ages-old) incident. It would have been extremely easy for him simply to have resigned from that account, created another one under another name, and just come back as someone else. In which case, nobody, as far as I can see, would have had any qualms on giving him a mop now. The fact that his honesty about the earlier incident is effectively now used against him makes me uncomfortable. We're all human, we all make mistakes (particularly in our over-zealous and impatient youth), and many of us can regret those mistakes, be honest about them, and turn over a completely new leaf. This is what Steven has done. The Steven of now has excellent interaction skills with other users, even difficult ones, and has shown superb judgment in (particularly) the Abortion debate. His work there was quite brilliant, and an example to us all in terms of patience and insight with a very tricky situation. His tagging is acceptably accurate and trustworthy, and he works hard, and well, and consistently. If he had been a new editor in the latter part of 2009, with the record he has made since then, nobody would be likely to oppose this at all. I strongly feel that it is very wrong for us to hold years'-old sins against people. People do grow; people do change. We need to accept this, and to move on, as Steven clearly has done. I don't think that there is the remotest possibility that, having worked so hard and well since then, he would abuse the mop. Time to say yes. Just adding (and I hope Steven can forgive me!) It's important to remember that he was ''in his teens'' at the time of that earlier mistake. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 08:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' One of the things I most admire in Steven is his openness and honesty in dealing with the (ages-old) incident. It would have been extremely easy for him simply to have resigned from that account, created another one under another name, and just come back as someone else. In which case, nobody, as far as I can see, would have had any qualms on giving him a mop now. The fact that his honesty about the earlier incident is effectively now used against him makes me uncomfortable. We're all human, we all make mistakes (particularly in our over-zealous and impatient youth), and many of us can regret those mistakes, be honest about them, and turn over a completely new leaf. This is what Steven has done. The Steven of now has excellent interaction skills with other users, even difficult ones, and has shown superb judgment in (particularly) the Abortion debate. His work there was quite brilliant, and an example to us all in terms of patience and insight with a very tricky situation. His tagging is acceptably accurate and trustworthy, and he works hard, and well, and consistently. If he had been a new editor in the latter part of 2009, with the record he has made since then, nobody would be likely to oppose this at all. I strongly feel that it is very wrong for us to hold years'-old sins against people. People do grow; people do change. We need to accept this, and to move on, as Steven clearly has done. I don't think that there is the remotest possibility that, having worked so hard and well since then, he would abuse the mop. Time to say yes. Just adding (and I hope Steven can forgive me!) It's important to remember that he was ''in his teens'' at the time of that earlier mistake. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 08:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#I think most people are probably going to disagree with me when I say this, but I don't think Steve's err in judgment in 2008 was really all that big of a deal. Yes, I do think he rightfully lost the community's trust for doing what he did. It was inappropriate for Steve to log into [[User:Coffee|Chet]] and [[User:PeterSymonds|Peter]]'s accounts to perform admin actions. It was also poor judgment to use another editor's account on Simple English Wikipedia despite being banned from this site for having done exactly the same thing here. But aside from those breaches of policy, Steve never did any harm to Wikipedia through his actions. And that's why I have always opposed his ban. We basically told an invaluable contributor that he's no longer welcome on Wikipedia just because he made some huge mistakes, and he remained gone for several months. He owned up to his decisions and accepted the consequences for them. There was no need to punish him any further. But that was way back in 2008; here we are in 2011. Times have changed, and so has Steve. I think he would be a huge asset as an administrator, particularly at [[WP:SPI|SPI]], so I'm supporting. [[User:Master&Expert|'''<span style="color:Blue">Master&</span>'''<span style="color:#00FFFF">Expert</span>]] ([[User talk:Master&Expert|<span style="color:purple">Talk</span>]]) 10:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#I think most people are probably going to disagree with me when I say this, but I don't think Steve's err in judgment in 2008 was really all that big of a deal. Yes, I do think he rightfully lost the community's trust for doing what he did. It was inappropriate for Steve to log into [[User:Coffee|Chet]] and [[User:PeterSymonds|Peter]]'s accounts to perform admin actions. It was also poor judgment to use another editor's account on Simple English Wikipedia despite being banned from this site for having done exactly the same thing here. But aside from those breaches of policy, Steve never did any harm to Wikipedia through his actions. And that's why I have always opposed his ban. We basically told an invaluable contributor that he's no longer welcome on Wikipedia just because he made some huge mistakes, and he remained gone for several months. He owned up to his decisions and accepted the consequences for them. There was no need to punish him any further. But that was way back in 2008; here we are in 2011. Times have changed, and so has Steve. I think he would be a huge asset as an administrator, particularly at [[WP:SPI|SPI]], so I'm supporting. [[User:Master&Expert|'''<span style="color:Blue">Master&</span>'''<span style="color:#00FFFF">Expert</span>]] ([[User talk:Master&Expert|<span style="color:purple">Talk</span>]]) 10:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' after some deliberation. It is a net positive kind of thing. [[User:Jorgenev|< |
#'''Support''' after some deliberation. It is a net positive kind of thing. [[User:Jorgenev|<span style="font-family:Lucida Console; color:black; font-size:x-small;">'''JORGENEV'''</span>]] 11:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' It's been over 3 years since the incident, which had no serious long lasting effects. I notice that Coffee and PeterSymonds are both admins who regained tools after they were removed following this incident. Opposers using this as an excuse to oppose prove the classic idea at RFA that you can never be forgiven for anything on Wikipedia. Anyway, no reason why this candidate won't make a good admin. [[User talk:Aiken drum|AD]] 11:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' It's been over 3 years since the incident, which had no serious long lasting effects. I notice that Coffee and PeterSymonds are both admins who regained tools after they were removed following this incident. Opposers using this as an excuse to oppose prove the classic idea at RFA that you can never be forgiven for anything on Wikipedia. Anyway, no reason why this candidate won't make a good admin. [[User talk:Aiken drum|AD]] 11:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:Actually, Coffee and PeterSymonds prove that you can be forgiven on Wikipedia, as indeed does the fact that Steven's ban is no longer in effect. And I suspect that had Steven behaved in the aftermath of the incident similarly to Coffee and PeterSymonds he would have sailed through RfA with little opposition (almost certainly with no opposition from me). But he did not, hence the issue that some opposers have this RfA. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 16:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:Actually, Coffee and PeterSymonds prove that you can be forgiven on Wikipedia, as indeed does the fact that Steven's ban is no longer in effect. And I suspect that had Steven behaved in the aftermath of the incident similarly to Coffee and PeterSymonds he would have sailed through RfA with little opposition (almost certainly with no opposition from me). But he did not, hence the issue that some opposers have this RfA. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 16:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
#'''Support''' - I've seen him around and looks like a great candidate. -- '''[[User:Lukep913|<span style="color:#DC143C"><span style="font-family:Palatino">Luke</span></span>]] [[User_talk:Lukep913|<span style="color:#191970"><span style="font-family:Palatino">(Talk)</span></span>]]''' 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' - I've seen him around and looks like a great candidate. -- '''[[User:Lukep913|<span style="color:#DC143C"><span style="font-family:Palatino">Luke</span></span>]] [[User_talk:Lukep913|<span style="color:#191970"><span style="font-family:Palatino">(Talk)</span></span>]]''' 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:<s>'''Support'''. He seems sufficiently experienced and a reasonable person. He did make some mistakes 2-3 years ago, but he's been quite open about them, and the other Wikipedians involved in that password sharing issue were forgiven since then. [[User:ASCIIn2Bme|ASCIIn2Bme]] ([[User talk:ASCIIn2Bme|talk]]) 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)</s> Moving to '''neutral''' after additional analysis. [[User:ASCIIn2Bme|ASCIIn2Bme]] ([[User talk:ASCIIn2Bme|talk]]) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:<s>'''Support'''. He seems sufficiently experienced and a reasonable person. He did make some mistakes 2-3 years ago, but he's been quite open about them, and the other Wikipedians involved in that password sharing issue were forgiven since then. [[User:ASCIIn2Bme|ASCIIn2Bme]] ([[User talk:ASCIIn2Bme|talk]]) 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)</s> Moving to '''neutral''' after additional analysis. [[User:ASCIIn2Bme|ASCIIn2Bme]] ([[User talk:ASCIIn2Bme|talk]]) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' - He seems like a great candidate and his blocks happened three years ago and everyone makes mistakes on Wikipedia. If he turned his editing around after the blocks then he is a great candidate. You can't hold someones blocks against them forever. [[User:TRLIJC19|< |
#'''Support''' - He seems like a great candidate and his blocks happened three years ago and everyone makes mistakes on Wikipedia. If he turned his editing around after the blocks then he is a great candidate. You can't hold someones blocks against them forever. [[User:TRLIJC19|<span style="color:blue; font-size:medium;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">TRLIJC19</span></span>]] ([[User talk:TRLIJC19|<span style="color:green; font-size:small;"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">talk</span></span>]]) 15:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' The incident that happened two years ago is two years gone, and it seems, to some level, he has regained trust in the community and has bettered himself after the fact. If anything fishy happens while he has the mop, something can always be done then. In response to Townlakes oppose, I say: '''The Benefits outweigh the risks'''. Good luck! [[User:Tofutwitch11|<span style='font-family: "Arial Black"; color:Teal'><big>T</big><small>ofutwitch11</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Tofutwitch11|< |
#'''Support''' The incident that happened two years ago is two years gone, and it seems, to some level, he has regained trust in the community and has bettered himself after the fact. If anything fishy happens while he has the mop, something can always be done then. In response to Townlakes oppose, I say: '''The Benefits outweigh the risks'''. Good luck! [[User:Tofutwitch11|<span style='font-family: "Arial Black"; color:Teal'><big>T</big><small>ofutwitch11</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Tofutwitch11|<span style="color:Orange;">(T<small>ALK</small>)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 16:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#The lack of trust shown in the opposition has proven to me that there are people, who after 3 years, cannot seem to forgive an error, and who cannot look past the one bad judgement error to see the 3 solid years of contributions to this wiki. This is disgusting. Steven Zhang is a well-rounded, dedicated, extremely clueful user who made a slip up 3 years ago. It's amazing that people can't see the opportunity presented to us. We need admins. Steven is more than capable of this role. <small>([[User:X!|<span style="color:gray">X!</span>]] · [[User talk:X!|<span style="color:gray">talk</span>]]) · [[.beat|@769]] · </small> 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#The lack of trust shown in the opposition has proven to me that there are people, who after 3 years, cannot seem to forgive an error, and who cannot look past the one bad judgement error to see the 3 solid years of contributions to this wiki. This is disgusting. Steven Zhang is a well-rounded, dedicated, extremely clueful user who made a slip up 3 years ago. It's amazing that people can't see the opportunity presented to us. We need admins. Steven is more than capable of this role. <small>([[User:X!|<span style="color:gray">X!</span>]] · [[User talk:X!|<span style="color:gray">talk</span>]]) · [[.beat|@769]] · </small> 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:I must take exception to this comment. Disgusting not to trust this editor? Really? First of all, it was not just one incident that led to the lack of trust. It was the attempt to cover up, be less than truthful and publicize private chats in order to try deflect blame in the aftermath. It was subsequent behavior showing that he had not necessarily learned not to log into other accounts (the Simple English incident) and that he was willing to be less than candid in trying to overturn his ban. It was the lack of candor in his previous RfA. The latter was 2 years ago, not 3. OK, 2 years is still a decent amount of time to have passed (albeit he was only actively editing for about 6 months of that time), but with a string of deceptions in his past, it is hardly "disgusting" to lack trust in this editor, however admirable his editing over the past 6 months has been. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 16:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:I must take exception to this comment. Disgusting not to trust this editor? Really? First of all, it was not just one incident that led to the lack of trust. It was the attempt to cover up, be less than truthful and publicize private chats in order to try deflect blame in the aftermath. It was subsequent behavior showing that he had not necessarily learned not to log into other accounts (the Simple English incident) and that he was willing to be less than candid in trying to overturn his ban. It was the lack of candor in his previous RfA. The latter was 2 years ago, not 3. OK, 2 years is still a decent amount of time to have passed (albeit he was only actively editing for about 6 months of that time), but with a string of deceptions in his past, it is hardly "disgusting" to lack trust in this editor, however admirable his editing over the past 6 months has been. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 16:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
#'''Support''' Awesome guy! he Needs admin tools again! I've know him for a while and he's a really great guy. So it's a definite support from me! --[[User:Zalgo|Zalgo]] ([[User talk:Zalgo|talk]]) 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Awesome guy! he Needs admin tools again! I've know him for a while and he's a really great guy. So it's a definite support from me! --[[User:Zalgo|Zalgo]] ([[User talk:Zalgo|talk]]) 18:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' .[[User:Sole Soul|Sole Soul]] ([[User talk:Sole Soul|talk]]) 18:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' .[[User:Sole Soul|Sole Soul]] ([[User talk:Sole Soul|talk]]) 18:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support'''. I too have noticed this user's many helpful contributions to the Mediation Cabal and as such believe that he certainly passes the aptitude test here. '''[[User:SuperMarioMan|< |
#'''Support'''. I too have noticed this user's many helpful contributions to the Mediation Cabal and as such believe that he certainly passes the aptitude test here. '''[[User:SuperMarioMan|<span style="color:#CE2029;">Super</span>]][[User talk:SuperMarioMan|<span style="color:#FF3F00;">Mario</span>]][[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<span style="color:#FF8C00;">Man</span>]]''' 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' --[[User:Mattwj2002|Mattwj2002]] ([[User talk:Mattwj2002|talk]]) 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' --[[User:Mattwj2002|Mattwj2002]] ([[User talk:Mattwj2002|talk]]) 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' No reason not to; user does good stuff, no evidence of problems. Imagine if this were a 2-year user; we wouldn't even think about this? Forgive and forget, surely. Xe did something REALLY extremely stupid, years ago; and that's been pointed out quite a lot. I doubt very much that xe'll do anything similar every again. And the contribs since are fine fine. No concerns here. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 21:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' No reason not to; user does good stuff, no evidence of problems. Imagine if this were a 2-year user; we wouldn't even think about this? Forgive and forget, surely. Xe did something REALLY extremely stupid, years ago; and that's been pointed out quite a lot. I doubt very much that xe'll do anything similar every again. And the contribs since are fine fine. No concerns here. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 21:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TBloemink|TBloemink]] ([[User talk:TBloemink|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TBloemink|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
#'''Support''' <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TBloemink|TBloemink]] ([[User talk:TBloemink|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TBloemink|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
#'''Support'''. Yes, Steven has done much for the project in the past years but the incident in 2008 was really really bad with a healthy dose of cluenessless, so I'm wary to grant Steven the mop. On the other hand, he has, as Pedro correctly points out, accepted the blame, admitted his mistakes and worked tirelessly to make amends; being a firm believer that anyone should get a second chance, I'm willing to give Steven one as well Plus his actions will most likely be more closely scrutinized because of his past and thus any misuse will be identified swiftly anyway. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support'''. Yes, Steven has done much for the project in the past years but the incident in 2008 was really really bad with a healthy dose of cluenessless, so I'm wary to grant Steven the mop. On the other hand, he has, as Pedro correctly points out, accepted the blame, admitted his mistakes and worked tirelessly to make amends; being a firm believer that anyone should get a second chance, I'm willing to give Steven one as well Plus his actions will most likely be more closely scrutinized because of his past and thus any misuse will be identified swiftly anyway. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' - Back in 2008 my and Steve's mindset was different... it was more of a "shoot, ask questions later" kind of thing. Neither Peter, Steve, or I harmed the encyclopedia by our actions, but we definitely didn't think them through and realize what the consequences might turn out to be. I think that is what is most important to note about his past actions. He's realized that actions like those during 2008-09 aren't acceptable, and he's realized it was a mistake and has apologized several times for it. He never intended to hurt this encyclopedia he was simply impatient, as I'm sure we all have been. Wikipedia is a site made for people who have a passion for spending their time helping others, and Steve's been doing that since he got here. Looking at his triumphs in the mediation area one can see how he is very level-headed, and that the so-called rash actions are in his past on this site. Anyone can see now that Steve deserves the mop, and that he is a net positive to this encyclopedia. I too see no worries in handing the simple tools of adminship to Steve, and I'm positive no one in the oppose section can tell me how he would possibly do harm to this site. The human brain is a complex thing, more complex than any computer on earth, yet we as humans are prone to making mistakes - it's how we learn everything about ourselves and the world around us, ''"through trial and error"''. If we were to be stopped from advancing forward during our short life due to every mistake we make, be it small or large, we would all end up locking ourselves inside our homes waiting for death to take us away. <small><nowiki></purposefully dramatic></nowiki></small>. I and other admins have become less active, and it seems (to me at least) that there needs to be more administrators helping maintain this site; I also completely trust Steven Zhang will not abuse his tools. Therefore, I support his RFA and wish him luck in his new endeavors as an administrator. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<span style="color:#009900;">have a cup</span>]] // [[WP:WWH|< |
#'''Support''' - Back in 2008 my and Steve's mindset was different... it was more of a "shoot, ask questions later" kind of thing. Neither Peter, Steve, or I harmed the encyclopedia by our actions, but we definitely didn't think them through and realize what the consequences might turn out to be. I think that is what is most important to note about his past actions. He's realized that actions like those during 2008-09 aren't acceptable, and he's realized it was a mistake and has apologized several times for it. He never intended to hurt this encyclopedia he was simply impatient, as I'm sure we all have been. Wikipedia is a site made for people who have a passion for spending their time helping others, and Steve's been doing that since he got here. Looking at his triumphs in the mediation area one can see how he is very level-headed, and that the so-called rash actions are in his past on this site. Anyone can see now that Steve deserves the mop, and that he is a net positive to this encyclopedia. I too see no worries in handing the simple tools of adminship to Steve, and I'm positive no one in the oppose section can tell me how he would possibly do harm to this site. The human brain is a complex thing, more complex than any computer on earth, yet we as humans are prone to making mistakes - it's how we learn everything about ourselves and the world around us, ''"through trial and error"''. If we were to be stopped from advancing forward during our short life due to every mistake we make, be it small or large, we would all end up locking ourselves inside our homes waiting for death to take us away. <small><nowiki></purposefully dramatic></nowiki></small>. I and other admins have become less active, and it seems (to me at least) that there needs to be more administrators helping maintain this site; I also completely trust Steven Zhang will not abuse his tools. Therefore, I support his RFA and wish him luck in his new endeavors as an administrator. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<span style="color:#009900;">have a cup</span>]] // [[WP:WWH|<span style="color:#4682b4;">essay</span>]] // </small> 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#I've looked through the candidate's recent deleted edits and am content. Few would dispute that the candidate is well qualified based on the last couple of years edits. That leaves one issue, should the previous events be regarded as time expired? My view on this is pragmatic, I would prefer that people who have made mistakes continue with the project rather than leave or exercise cleanstart. So when a candidate stands who chose not to cleanstart from events this old it is important that we don't judge them to a harsher standard than if they had exercised cleanstart and we were just judging their last two years contributions. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 01:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#I've looked through the candidate's recent deleted edits and am content. Few would dispute that the candidate is well qualified based on the last couple of years edits. That leaves one issue, should the previous events be regarded as time expired? My view on this is pragmatic, I would prefer that people who have made mistakes continue with the project rather than leave or exercise cleanstart. So when a candidate stands who chose not to cleanstart from events this old it is important that we don't judge them to a harsher standard than if they had exercised cleanstart and we were just judging their last two years contributions. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 01:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' - I think the candidate has atoned enough for what he did in '08, and will make an excellent Administrator. — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G. ツ]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|<small>(talk)</small>]]</span>''' 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' - I think the candidate has atoned enough for what he did in '08, and will make an excellent Administrator. — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G. ツ]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|<small>(talk)</small>]]</span>''' 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
#'''Support''' — I've interacted with Steven through [[WP:IRC|IRC]] and I truly think he'll be a good admin. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>[[User:Gfoley4|<span style="color:darkseagreen;font-family:Tahoma;"><big>G</big>FOLEY</span>]] [[User talk:Gfoley4|''<span style="color:goldenrod;font-family:Tahoma"><big>F</big>OUR!</span>'']]</u>— 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' — I've interacted with Steven through [[WP:IRC|IRC]] and I truly think he'll be a good admin. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>[[User:Gfoley4|<span style="color:darkseagreen;font-family:Tahoma;"><big>G</big>FOLEY</span>]] [[User talk:Gfoley4|''<span style="color:goldenrod;font-family:Tahoma"><big>F</big>OUR!</span>'']]</u>— 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' The spirit of Wikipedia has always been to believe that people who make mistakes can change and learn from their mistakes. I'll encourage the opposing editors to view Steven's candidacy in this perspective.[[User:Wifione|'''<span style="color: red;"> Wifione</span>''']] [[User talk:Wifione|'''<sup>Message</sup>''']] 09:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' The spirit of Wikipedia has always been to believe that people who make mistakes can change and learn from their mistakes. I'll encourage the opposing editors to view Steven's candidacy in this perspective.[[User:Wifione|'''<span style="color: red;"> Wifione</span>''']] [[User talk:Wifione|'''<sup>Message</sup>''']] 09:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' while I don't know the candidate or have ever really spoken to him, I've heard nothing but good things about his work these days, and nothing but good things about his personality. Can't find a reason to oppose. [[user:OohBunnies!|<sup><small>< |
#'''Support''' while I don't know the candidate or have ever really spoken to him, I've heard nothing but good things about his work these days, and nothing but good things about his personality. Can't find a reason to oppose. [[user:OohBunnies!|<sup><small><span style="color:#8C0099;">Ooh</span></small></sup><span style="color:#F166FF;">Bunnies!</span>]]<small><span style="color:#191970">[[user_talk:OohBunnies!|Leave a message :)]]</span></small> 10:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' For sure. [[User:Vibhijain|<span style="color:#B57EDC">♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛</span>]] [[User talk:Vibhijain|<sup><span style="color:red"><small>Talk</small></span></sup>]] [[Special:EmailUser/Vibhijain|<sup><span style="color:blue"><small>Email</small></span></sup>]] 10:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' For sure. [[User:Vibhijain|<span style="color:#B57EDC">♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛</span>]] [[User talk:Vibhijain|<sup><span style="color:red"><small>Talk</small></span></sup>]] [[Special:EmailUser/Vibhijain|<sup><span style="color:blue"><small>Email</small></span></sup>]] 10:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' I've seen Steven's work on Wikipedia a lot and, based on experience, can only support this nomination. '''''[[User:Catfish Jim|<span style="color:#313F33;">Catfish</span>]] [[User talk:Catfish Jim|<span style="color:#313F33;">Jim</span>]]<small><span style="color:#313F33;"> and the soapdish</span></small>''''' 12:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' I've seen Steven's work on Wikipedia a lot and, based on experience, can only support this nomination. '''''[[User:Catfish Jim|<span style="color:#313F33;">Catfish</span>]] [[User talk:Catfish Jim|<span style="color:#313F33;">Jim</span>]]<small><span style="color:#313F33;"> and the soapdish</span></small>''''' 12:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''', 2 years is plenty of time to atone for one really really really dumb mistake. No concerns at all. [[User:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c"><b>fish</b></u>]]&[[User_talk:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33"><b>karate</b></u>]] 13:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''', 2 years is plenty of time to atone for one really really really dumb mistake. No concerns at all. [[User:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c"><b>fish</b></u>]]&[[User_talk:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33"><b>karate</b></u>]] 13:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' — I've been working with Steve at DRN and MedCab and have found that he is energetic, efficient, and chock-a-block with good ideas. I've rarely encountered anyone who has the good of the encyclopedia so much at heart as Steve and he'd make a great sysop. Regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:x-small;">TALK</span>]]) 13:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' — I've been working with Steve at DRN and MedCab and have found that he is energetic, efficient, and chock-a-block with good ideas. I've rarely encountered anyone who has the good of the encyclopedia so much at heart as Steve and he'd make a great sysop. Regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:x-small;">TALK</span>]]) 13:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' Despite the disgusting behaviour of one of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steven_Zhang&diff=459178831&oldid=459178553 supporters], Stephen Zhang is an excellent candidate. I personally thought he was an admin already, and after a decent review I can see why I did. His temperment and knowledge are excellent. Perhaps he did slip up two years ago, I remain unconvinced that that has any bearing on his request today. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;">< |
#'''Support''' Despite the disgusting behaviour of one of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steven_Zhang&diff=459178831&oldid=459178553 supporters], Stephen Zhang is an excellent candidate. I personally thought he was an admin already, and after a decent review I can see why I did. His temperment and knowledge are excellent. Perhaps he did slip up two years ago, I remain unconvinced that that has any bearing on his request today. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><span style="color:#000;">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></span></span>]] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span> ([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 14:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#Over two years ago I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steve_Crossin&diff=prev&oldid=315350682 opposed] Steven Zhang's previous RfA, citing the Simple Wikipedia incident in conjunction with the earlier account sharing plus a few other smaller concerns; however, I also said I disagreed with the "never" comments, and that I'd be willing to support at a later date. To now support is what I have decided to do, and I'll explain why: the PeterSymonds/Coffee account sharing and incident happened well over three years ago...more than long enough for someone to learn, mature and rebuild their trust, as Steven Zhang has done. That error notwithstanding, Steven Zhang is a highly experienced editor, and could quite easily have abandoned his account after the news broke, created a new account, and returned to adminship a few months later without anyone knowing. Instead, he has stuck with his original account, been honest, and worked hard to restore his image...a fair more difficult undertaking. I have been familiar (at least in observations, as I don't recall ever interacting with him) with Steven Zhang long before the sharing was revealed, and based on everything I know I do not believe he would be a bad admin; and nor do I think he would share his own admin account with anyone else (this assuming, of course, that this RfA is successful), thus creating a similar scenario to what happened years ago. He is constantly doing good work in the places where he chooses to edit, and there are no faults that I'm aware of. Finally, I have confidence in both the nominators, and know that Pedro and Doug would never have nominated if they thought that Steven Zhang would make a similar error to the one three years ago. As a past oppose, I now support. Good luck, Steven. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#Over two years ago I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steve_Crossin&diff=prev&oldid=315350682 opposed] Steven Zhang's previous RfA, citing the Simple Wikipedia incident in conjunction with the earlier account sharing plus a few other smaller concerns; however, I also said I disagreed with the "never" comments, and that I'd be willing to support at a later date. To now support is what I have decided to do, and I'll explain why: the PeterSymonds/Coffee account sharing and incident happened well over three years ago...more than long enough for someone to learn, mature and rebuild their trust, as Steven Zhang has done. That error notwithstanding, Steven Zhang is a highly experienced editor, and could quite easily have abandoned his account after the news broke, created a new account, and returned to adminship a few months later without anyone knowing. Instead, he has stuck with his original account, been honest, and worked hard to restore his image...a fair more difficult undertaking. I have been familiar (at least in observations, as I don't recall ever interacting with him) with Steven Zhang long before the sharing was revealed, and based on everything I know I do not believe he would be a bad admin; and nor do I think he would share his own admin account with anyone else (this assuming, of course, that this RfA is successful), thus creating a similar scenario to what happened years ago. He is constantly doing good work in the places where he chooses to edit, and there are no faults that I'm aware of. Finally, I have confidence in both the nominators, and know that Pedro and Doug would never have nominated if they thought that Steven Zhang would make a similar error to the one three years ago. As a past oppose, I now support. Good luck, Steven. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support'''. Steven's last major issue was back in 2008, and while it was a very concerning issue, it's been three years and he's had time to mature, and mature he has. He's a well-qualified candidate, and I'm happy to offer my support. [[User:The Utahraptor|<span style="color:green;">The Utahraptor</span>]][[User talk:The Utahraptor|<sup>Talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/The Utahraptor|<sub>Contribs</sub>]] 17:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support'''. Steven's last major issue was back in 2008, and while it was a very concerning issue, it's been three years and he's had time to mature, and mature he has. He's a well-qualified candidate, and I'm happy to offer my support. [[User:The Utahraptor|<span style="color:green;">The Utahraptor</span>]][[User talk:The Utahraptor|<sup>Talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/The Utahraptor|<sub>Contribs</sub>]] 17:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 253: | Line 253: | ||
#'''Support''' Has done some great work. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Has done some great work. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' Steven adopted me and spent time teaching and answering questions. Early in the adoption process I trailed his edits all over Wikipedia out of pure curiosity. What I saw was lots of hard work and a passionate focus on mediation. Reading the candidate's [[User:Steven Zhang/Disclosure|disclosure]] and the links at the end of it made me cringe in more than a few places. While I knew they were bad, I hadn't realized his actions of 2008 and 2009 were quite the disturbing train wreck they were. They went well beyond account sharing. That said, I also appreciated the brutal honesty of that page. There was no ducking and weaving, no avoiding full responsability. That straight on acceptance of blame and the mess he had created was what convinced me he had matured in important ways. I have every reason to believe Steven would be a productive and valuable admin. [[User:Cloveapple|Cloveapple]] ([[User talk:Cloveapple|talk]]) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Steven adopted me and spent time teaching and answering questions. Early in the adoption process I trailed his edits all over Wikipedia out of pure curiosity. What I saw was lots of hard work and a passionate focus on mediation. Reading the candidate's [[User:Steven Zhang/Disclosure|disclosure]] and the links at the end of it made me cringe in more than a few places. While I knew they were bad, I hadn't realized his actions of 2008 and 2009 were quite the disturbing train wreck they were. They went well beyond account sharing. That said, I also appreciated the brutal honesty of that page. There was no ducking and weaving, no avoiding full responsability. That straight on acceptance of blame and the mess he had created was what convinced me he had matured in important ways. I have every reason to believe Steven would be a productive and valuable admin. [[User:Cloveapple|Cloveapple]] ([[User talk:Cloveapple|talk]]) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' Per above. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[user:Surajt88|< |
#'''Support''' Per above. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[user:Surajt88|<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; color:red; font-size:large;">'''Suraj'''</span>]][[user talk:Surajt88|<span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; color:blue; font-size:large;"> '''T'''</span>]]</span> 07:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
# '''Support''' – Steven is definitely qualified for the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—[[User:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">mc10</span>]] ([[User talk:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">t</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/MC10|<span style="color:#000000">c</span>]])</span> 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
# '''Support''' – Steven is definitely qualified for the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—[[User:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">mc10</span>]] ([[User talk:MC10|<span style="color:#000000">t</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/MC10|<span style="color:#000000">c</span>]])</span> 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' Has done a good job and look forward to him joining the ranks of admins. --[[User:Jab843|Jab843]] ([[User talk:Jab843|talk]]) 17:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Has done a good job and look forward to him joining the ranks of admins. --[[User:Jab843|Jab843]] ([[User talk:Jab843|talk]]) 17:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 271: | Line 271: | ||
#'''Support''' Hoping past errors are behind him and lessons learned <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">[[User:Brookie|'''<span style="color:#000888;">Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! </span>''']] [[User talk:Brookie|<sup>(Whisper...)</sup>]]</span> 11:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Hoping past errors are behind him and lessons learned <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">[[User:Brookie|'''<span style="color:#000888;">Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! </span>''']] [[User talk:Brookie|<sup>(Whisper...)</sup>]]</span> 11:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Strong support''' I was brought up in the view that its often best not to play tricky situations with a straight bat, and it wasn't till my 30s that I began to understand the importance of being almost totally truthful, especially if one wants to serve the common good rather than feather ones own nest. Perhaps due to this background the candidates past mistakes concern me not at all. What does impress is their extensive track record of valuable contributions, their generally collegiate nature, and especially the time and energy they've spent helping the community by long hours reading folks comments and then trying to broker workable compromises at DR. Should be a fine addition to the admin corps. [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 14:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Strong support''' I was brought up in the view that its often best not to play tricky situations with a straight bat, and it wasn't till my 30s that I began to understand the importance of being almost totally truthful, especially if one wants to serve the common good rather than feather ones own nest. Perhaps due to this background the candidates past mistakes concern me not at all. What does impress is their extensive track record of valuable contributions, their generally collegiate nature, and especially the time and energy they've spent helping the community by long hours reading folks comments and then trying to broker workable compromises at DR. Should be a fine addition to the admin corps. [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 14:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support'''; everyone deserves a second chance. Enough time has passed to put previous indiscretions behind; let's move on. This user is very helpful and will, I'm sure, help the project even more with the Administrator rights. [[User:Tempodivalse|< |
#'''Support'''; everyone deserves a second chance. Enough time has passed to put previous indiscretions behind; let's move on. This user is very helpful and will, I'm sure, help the project even more with the Administrator rights. [[User:Tempodivalse|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">'''Tempodivalse'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tempodivalse#top|<span style="font-family:Georgia;">[talk]</span>]] 15:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support'''. The above comments convince me that he'd likely be an OK admin, and we need admins. The Oppose comments raise some good objections, but looking at the totality I'm willing to take the chance that he'll be alright. Regarding the 2008 incident in particular, meh. He didn't ''hack'' the Wikipedia and then go on some destructive rampage or something. Somebody left their password open to being figured out, an attractive nuisance if you will, and so forth. Willing to overlook that. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 18:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Support'''. The above comments convince me that he'd likely be an OK admin, and we need admins. The Oppose comments raise some good objections, but looking at the totality I'm willing to take the chance that he'll be alright. Regarding the 2008 incident in particular, meh. He didn't ''hack'' the Wikipedia and then go on some destructive rampage or something. Somebody left their password open to being figured out, an attractive nuisance if you will, and so forth. Willing to overlook that. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 18:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
#::::Doug, I support Steve 100%. But these other editors have a right to their lack of trust. It's not something they can define, it's something they ''feel'', and they're not "wrong" to feel that way (they're just mistaken, in my judgement and the judgement of 90% of us). Let's leave them alone; if Steve's stand-up behaviour in keeping his personna publicly known since His Troubles won't convince them, nothing will. And maybe it will be good for Steve to have this as a reminder that there ''was'' a 10% minority lacking trust in him. If it keeps him humble (not an easy thing for someone with his talents), then the project is better served.[[User:HuskyHuskie|HuskyHuskie]] ([[User talk:HuskyHuskie|talk]]) 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#::::Doug, I support Steve 100%. But these other editors have a right to their lack of trust. It's not something they can define, it's something they ''feel'', and they're not "wrong" to feel that way (they're just mistaken, in my judgement and the judgement of 90% of us). Let's leave them alone; if Steve's stand-up behaviour in keeping his personna publicly known since His Troubles won't convince them, nothing will. And maybe it will be good for Steve to have this as a reminder that there ''was'' a 10% minority lacking trust in him. If it keeps him humble (not an easy thing for someone with his talents), then the project is better served.[[User:HuskyHuskie|HuskyHuskie]] ([[User talk:HuskyHuskie|talk]]) 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#::::I have expanded on my comments somewhat, in response to Husky's question in the open-ended Discussion section above. Stated simply: only six months of recent consistent activity, and thus insufficient evidence to determine whether this user is now trustworthy. Previously-established evidence makes it very clear user was not trustworthy. [[User:Townlake|Townlake]] ([[User talk:Townlake|talk]]) 15:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#::::I have expanded on my comments somewhat, in response to Husky's question in the open-ended Discussion section above. Stated simply: only six months of recent consistent activity, and thus insufficient evidence to determine whether this user is now trustworthy. Previously-established evidence makes it very clear user was not trustworthy. [[User:Townlake|Townlake]] ([[User talk:Townlake|talk]]) 15:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''No''' - My objection is along the lines of Snowolf - I cannot ignore the 2008 account sharing incident and regardless of the position of others in the community having been regranted these perms (which they should not have been - misusing the permissions which have been trusted to them once should mean you don't get them back) - It is not possible for me to say in all certainty that I'd trust this user to have this position <s>again</s>. Sorry. <span style="border: 1px solid red;">[[User_talk:BarkingFish|< |
#'''No''' - My objection is along the lines of Snowolf - I cannot ignore the 2008 account sharing incident and regardless of the position of others in the community having been regranted these perms (which they should not have been - misusing the permissions which have been trusted to them once should mean you don't get them back) - It is not possible for me to say in all certainty that I'd trust this user to have this position <s>again</s>. Sorry. <span style="border: 1px solid red;">[[User_talk:BarkingFish|<span style="background:white; color:blue;"> '''BarkingFish''' </span>]]</span> 21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:I'm confused. Your whole oppose seems based on abuse of previously granted permissions -"(''position '''again''''')"- and not wanting to give them out ''again''; However Steven has never been an admin. Can you clarify? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<span style="color:#accC10; background:#0000fa;"> Chat </span>]] </span></small> 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:I'm confused. Your whole oppose seems based on abuse of previously granted permissions -"(''position '''again''''')"- and not wanting to give them out ''again''; However Steven has never been an admin. Can you clarify? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<span style="color:#accC10; background:#0000fa;"> Chat </span>]] </span></small> 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#::I agree - he had an unofficial taste of mopping, but no mop of his own. [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#::I agree - he had an unofficial taste of mopping, but no mop of his own. [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:::Of course I'll clarify it. I don't trust him to have the position, period. Those who were regranted or given perms back should not have been, and this user for his part in this, should not be given them at all.<span style="border: 1px solid red;">[[User_talk:BarkingFish|< |
#:::Of course I'll clarify it. I don't trust him to have the position, period. Those who were regranted or given perms back should not have been, and this user for his part in this, should not be given them at all.<span style="border: 1px solid red;">[[User_talk:BarkingFish|<span style="background:white; color:blue;"> '''BarkingFish''' </span>]]</span> 21:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#::::Thanks for acknowledging you minor error [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steven_Zhang&diff=459201547&oldid=459201239] and clarifying your position. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<span style="color:#accC10; background:#0000fa;"> Chat </span>]] </span></small> 22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
#::::Thanks for acknowledging you minor error [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steven_Zhang&diff=459201547&oldid=459201239] and clarifying your position. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<span style="color:#accC10; background:#0000fa;"> Chat </span>]] </span></small> 22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:::::Do you ''really'' think that a well-intended gross error of judgment by a teenager should be held against them for ever more? Surely you must have been a "normal" enough teenager, yourself, to have made idiotic mistakes? <s>''"Life without parole"''</s> <ins>''A lifetime driving ban''</ins> for the equivalent of ''"driving without a licence"'' <ins>(and without having done any damage to life or property whilst doing so)</ins> seems a little harsh, to me. In the real world - with real lives possibly endangered by an unlicensed driver - you'd be looking at a one-year driving ban, not a lifetime one.[[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 09:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:::::Do you ''really'' think that a well-intended gross error of judgment by a teenager should be held against them for ever more? Surely you must have been a "normal" enough teenager, yourself, to have made idiotic mistakes? <s>''"Life without parole"''</s> <ins>''A lifetime driving ban''</ins> for the equivalent of ''"driving without a licence"'' <ins>(and without having done any damage to life or property whilst doing so)</ins> seems a little harsh, to me. In the real world - with real lives possibly endangered by an unlicensed driver - you'd be looking at a one-year driving ban, not a lifetime one.[[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 09:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 319: | Line 319: | ||
#:''Extensive responses and commentary to the comment above has been moved to the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang#Badger Drink's comment|talk page]]. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:''Extensive responses and commentary to the comment above has been moved to the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang#Badger Drink's comment|talk page]]. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' - I would like to start off by saying that I consider Steve a friend. He and I have worked together since he started editing on this project (I "adopted" him back in 2008, see [[User:Steven Zhang/My Adoption]] for more information), and I will be the first to stand up and say that he has grown a lot over the years. Unfortunately, I have not, and do not feel that he is a suitable candidate for an administrator. For starters, the situation in 2008 leaves me questioning his judgement, but I also believe that people make mistakes and should not be faulted for the rest of their life because of it. That said, after the incident occurred with the administrative accounts (in which he was banned, and evaded that ban by editing while logged out), Steve's ex-wife (who created the account [[User:Mellie]]) managed to gain access to Steve's account and a rather harsh edit directed towards a user. When I confronted her about it on IRC, she replied, and I quote: "''I know, people violate policies all the time and do not get blocked.''" (Steve can confirm that this did in fact happen). While this is in no way directly Steve's fault it leads me to feel (coupled with the earlier incident) that Steve doesn't put account security high on his priority list; something that should be important to an administrator. Additionally, in my opinion these diffs show Steve "[[WP:DIVA|diva retiring]]" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steve_Crossin&oldid=231337276], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steven_Zhang&diff=292789377&oldid=292409545 this time he sated it was "his last time"]. While minor it adds to this feeling that Steve tends to let his emotions get the best of him, and instead of walking away from the computer does things that he later regrets. Like I said before, I think Steve does good editorial work, but simply don't feel he is the right person for the tools. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 07:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' - I would like to start off by saying that I consider Steve a friend. He and I have worked together since he started editing on this project (I "adopted" him back in 2008, see [[User:Steven Zhang/My Adoption]] for more information), and I will be the first to stand up and say that he has grown a lot over the years. Unfortunately, I have not, and do not feel that he is a suitable candidate for an administrator. For starters, the situation in 2008 leaves me questioning his judgement, but I also believe that people make mistakes and should not be faulted for the rest of their life because of it. That said, after the incident occurred with the administrative accounts (in which he was banned, and evaded that ban by editing while logged out), Steve's ex-wife (who created the account [[User:Mellie]]) managed to gain access to Steve's account and a rather harsh edit directed towards a user. When I confronted her about it on IRC, she replied, and I quote: "''I know, people violate policies all the time and do not get blocked.''" (Steve can confirm that this did in fact happen). While this is in no way directly Steve's fault it leads me to feel (coupled with the earlier incident) that Steve doesn't put account security high on his priority list; something that should be important to an administrator. Additionally, in my opinion these diffs show Steve "[[WP:DIVA|diva retiring]]" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steve_Crossin&oldid=231337276], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steven_Zhang&diff=292789377&oldid=292409545 this time he sated it was "his last time"]. While minor it adds to this feeling that Steve tends to let his emotions get the best of him, and instead of walking away from the computer does things that he later regrets. Like I said before, I think Steve does good editorial work, but simply don't feel he is the right person for the tools. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 07:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:I have by no means decided which camp I am in on this RFA, but, as a minor point, the ''retirement'' diff was from 2009, and is almost three years old. I think, in that small respect at least, you have not given enough weight to Steve's maturing. [[User:AGK|< |
#:I have by no means decided which camp I am in on this RFA, but, as a minor point, the ''retirement'' diff was from 2009, and is almost three years old. I think, in that small respect at least, you have not given enough weight to Steve's maturing. [[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User talk:AGK|•]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 09:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' as per [[User talk:Badger Drink]]. If there are factors that prevent the effective use of the tools by a candidate, then that candidate should not be given the tools, whether or not the candidate is at fault. There appears to be many uncritical supporters of this candidate, which would hamper proper scrutiny of the candidate's administrative actions. The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship. That has corrupted the process and destroyed the legitimacy of this particular RfA. --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 11:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' as per [[User talk:Badger Drink]]. If there are factors that prevent the effective use of the tools by a candidate, then that candidate should not be given the tools, whether or not the candidate is at fault. There appears to be many uncritical supporters of this candidate, which would hamper proper scrutiny of the candidate's administrative actions. The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship. That has corrupted the process and destroyed the legitimacy of this particular RfA. --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 11:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:"''The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship''", do you have any proof of this claim? It's not the sort of thing you can just throw out there without anything to back it up. [[user:OohBunnies!|<sup><small>< |
#:"''The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship''", do you have any proof of this claim? It's not the sort of thing you can just throw out there without anything to back it up. [[user:OohBunnies!|<sup><small><span style="color:#8C0099;">Ooh</span></small></sup><span style="color:#F166FF;">Bunnies!</span>]]<small><span style="color:#191970">[[user_talk:OohBunnies!|Leave a message :)]]</span></small> 11:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#::Answer to question #8. --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 11:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#::Answer to question #8. --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 11:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:::Well, your interpretation of his answer is the polar opposite of mine, but I'm not going to hark on about it. I really don't see how that claim is fair to Steven, but your opinion is your opinion. [[user:OohBunnies!|<sup><small>< |
#:::Well, your interpretation of his answer is the polar opposite of mine, but I'm not going to hark on about it. I really don't see how that claim is fair to Steven, but your opinion is your opinion. [[user:OohBunnies!|<sup><small><span style="color:#8C0099;">Ooh</span></small></sup><span style="color:#F166FF;">Bunnies!</span>]]<small><span style="color:#191970">[[user_talk:OohBunnies!|Leave a message :)]]</span></small> 11:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#::::I agree with Bunnies about Q8, and would think that off-wiki was a usual way of finding out if someone was interesting in standing, or if someone thought you were ready for the mop. Not the sort of thing to plaster all over talk pages. [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 12:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#::::I agree with Bunnies about Q8, and would think that off-wiki was a usual way of finding out if someone was interesting in standing, or if someone thought you were ready for the mop. Not the sort of thing to plaster all over talk pages. [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 12:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:::::FWIW, Surturz, it's a perfectly normal and accepted process to propose adminship to a user by email or any other off-Wiki communication. If you believe otherwise, then we had better recall 90% of all our admins, and you're welcome to start with me. Just because you may never have been proposed, is no reason to to introduce ambiguities in the electoral process. This is the very kind of presumptious voting that corrupts and 'destroys the legitimacy' of RfA as a process, turns it into a dramafest, and puts people of wanting to go through it.. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:::::FWIW, Surturz, it's a perfectly normal and accepted process to propose adminship to a user by email or any other off-Wiki communication. If you believe otherwise, then we had better recall 90% of all our admins, and you're welcome to start with me. Just because you may never have been proposed, is no reason to to introduce ambiguities in the electoral process. This is the very kind of presumptious voting that corrupts and 'destroys the legitimacy' of RfA as a process, turns it into a dramafest, and puts people of wanting to go through it.. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 330: | Line 330: | ||
#::::::::Yes, there is that. I have to admit, some of the opposer's comments have swayed me a bit, <s>but not so far as to move from support. .</s> [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#::::::::Yes, there is that. I have to admit, some of the opposer's comments have swayed me a bit, <s>but not so far as to move from support. .</s> [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:''The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship'' - Yes, he was most certainly solicited off-wiki for adminship. While, I can't speak for Pedro, I most certainly solicited Steve off-wiki to see if he would consider an RfA and let me be a nominator. I also e-mailed Pedro to see if he minded me co-nomming, oh and I also communicated with Steve and Pedro off-wiki to time the nominations; though you'll note from the times that I was still a bit slow. :-) Your question was not intended to clarify anything, it was intended to either "expose the cabal" or try to lure Steve into a ridiculous baldfaced lie.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 13:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:''The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship'' - Yes, he was most certainly solicited off-wiki for adminship. While, I can't speak for Pedro, I most certainly solicited Steve off-wiki to see if he would consider an RfA and let me be a nominator. I also e-mailed Pedro to see if he minded me co-nomming, oh and I also communicated with Steve and Pedro off-wiki to time the nominations; though you'll note from the times that I was still a bit slow. :-) Your question was not intended to clarify anything, it was intended to either "expose the cabal" or try to lure Steve into a ridiculous baldfaced lie.--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 13:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#::Yeah, the fearsome IRC cabal. It was already a silly attitude and it's getting even sillier. Just because people chat on IRC (might I add, mostly about mundane things) does not make them a cabal, it doesn't mean they're all plotting together or banding together with sinister motives. It's ridiculous and paranoid. [[user:OohBunnies!|<sup><small>< |
#::Yeah, the fearsome IRC cabal. It was already a silly attitude and it's getting even sillier. Just because people chat on IRC (might I add, mostly about mundane things) does not make them a cabal, it doesn't mean they're all plotting together or banding together with sinister motives. It's ridiculous and paranoid. [[user:OohBunnies!|<sup><small><span style="color:#8C0099;">Ooh</span></small></sup><span style="color:#F166FF;">Bunnies!</span>]]<small><span style="color:#191970">[[user_talk:OohBunnies!|Leave a message :)]]</span></small> 17:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' For reasons already discussed by others, as well of the reality that there's no community way to remove adminship if it turns out to be bad idea. I'm not comfortable with this.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 13:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' For reasons already discussed by others, as well of the reality that there's no community way to remove adminship if it turns out to be bad idea. I'm not comfortable with this.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 13:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:It's really not that big a deal to remove adminship [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship]]. '''''[[User:Catfish Jim|<span style="color:#313F33;">Catfish</span>]] [[User talk:Catfish Jim|<span style="color:#313F33;">Jim</span>]]<small><span style="color:#313F33;"> and the soapdish</span></small>''''' 13:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:It's really not that big a deal to remove adminship [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship]]. '''''[[User:Catfish Jim|<span style="color:#313F33;">Catfish</span>]] [[User talk:Catfish Jim|<span style="color:#313F33;">Jim</span>]]<small><span style="color:#313F33;"> and the soapdish</span></small>''''' 13:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 362: | Line 362: | ||
#'''Oppose'''. Let me start by saying that Steven has made outstanding contributions to the project as an editor. That said, I just can't bring myself to trust him with the mop. And I am not sure that mere passage of time will change that (i.e., some comments about coming back in 6 months, etc.) It's not just the 2008 incident. Everyone makes mistakes. But while Steven was the only editor involved who was not a sysop at the time, he was experienced enough to know better. But, as Steven seems to realize now, he made things much worse for himself than the involved admins did by being less than truthful during the discussion about the incident, sharing private emails, etc. But that reaction is a bigger problem than the account sharing mistakes that led to the incident. If Steven was less than truthful then, and willing to do more things he knew he wasn't supposed to do in order to save his skin, then how can I believe things will be any different in a stressful situation now? Well, maybe he learned his lesson over time. But if there is one lesson from the incident that should not have required any time to learn, it should have been "don't share accounts." But then that is what seemed to happen on Simple, even if no edits were made. And there seemed to be less than truthfulness - or at least less than candidness again - when trying to get the ban overturned. And then again during the 2009 RfA, when some of these issues went undisclosed until other editors brought them up. Perhaps, as Steven writes in his disclosure, he has matured and learned his lesson, and we should be able to trust him now. Perhaps. But he was supposedly mature enough to become an admin even back in 2008, when a number of editors stated they were prepared to nominate him shortly. And it seems like he had trouble learning his lessons from the incident. And trust lost through lack of truthfulness (as opposed to an honest mistake or error in judgment, like the one that started the whole thing) is much harder to regain, even through the passage of time, especially when the lack of candor and truthfulness has been repeated several times in the interim (even if perhaps not recently). The bottom line for me is that I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&oldid=440964841 this exchange] between Steven and [[User:Durova]], who had called out some of Steven's lack of truthfulness during the 2008 discussion. Steven states that he is asking about Durova's recollection because he wants "to be completely transparent about what happened." And that may well be the case. But I could not help thinking that he is probably asking because he wants to know what Durova remembers, so he can weave his narrative around it without risk of Durova tripping him up again. That may well not be the case; indeed, I want to take Steven's explanation of his post at face value. But the fact that I don't feel secure about a simple think like that, and I think I have good reason for not feeling secure, means that I cannot trust this editor with the mop. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 02:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose'''. Let me start by saying that Steven has made outstanding contributions to the project as an editor. That said, I just can't bring myself to trust him with the mop. And I am not sure that mere passage of time will change that (i.e., some comments about coming back in 6 months, etc.) It's not just the 2008 incident. Everyone makes mistakes. But while Steven was the only editor involved who was not a sysop at the time, he was experienced enough to know better. But, as Steven seems to realize now, he made things much worse for himself than the involved admins did by being less than truthful during the discussion about the incident, sharing private emails, etc. But that reaction is a bigger problem than the account sharing mistakes that led to the incident. If Steven was less than truthful then, and willing to do more things he knew he wasn't supposed to do in order to save his skin, then how can I believe things will be any different in a stressful situation now? Well, maybe he learned his lesson over time. But if there is one lesson from the incident that should not have required any time to learn, it should have been "don't share accounts." But then that is what seemed to happen on Simple, even if no edits were made. And there seemed to be less than truthfulness - or at least less than candidness again - when trying to get the ban overturned. And then again during the 2009 RfA, when some of these issues went undisclosed until other editors brought them up. Perhaps, as Steven writes in his disclosure, he has matured and learned his lesson, and we should be able to trust him now. Perhaps. But he was supposedly mature enough to become an admin even back in 2008, when a number of editors stated they were prepared to nominate him shortly. And it seems like he had trouble learning his lessons from the incident. And trust lost through lack of truthfulness (as opposed to an honest mistake or error in judgment, like the one that started the whole thing) is much harder to regain, even through the passage of time, especially when the lack of candor and truthfulness has been repeated several times in the interim (even if perhaps not recently). The bottom line for me is that I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&oldid=440964841 this exchange] between Steven and [[User:Durova]], who had called out some of Steven's lack of truthfulness during the 2008 discussion. Steven states that he is asking about Durova's recollection because he wants "to be completely transparent about what happened." And that may well be the case. But I could not help thinking that he is probably asking because he wants to know what Durova remembers, so he can weave his narrative around it without risk of Durova tripping him up again. That may well not be the case; indeed, I want to take Steven's explanation of his post at face value. But the fact that I don't feel secure about a simple think like that, and I think I have good reason for not feeling secure, means that I cannot trust this editor with the mop. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 02:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:With regards to his comment towards Durova, I noticed that at one point she referred to an email she sent to ArbCom; I have searched through my email archives (as I was on ArbCom and I have access to everything that was sent to ArbCom at that time) and the email she sent to ArbCom was never received. I believe that was what that exchange was about. --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]] [[User:Deskana| ɐuɐʞsǝp]] 01:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)§ |
#:With regards to his comment towards Durova, I noticed that at one point she referred to an email she sent to ArbCom; I have searched through my email archives (as I was on ArbCom and I have access to everything that was sent to ArbCom at that time) and the email she sent to ArbCom was never received. I believe that was what that exchange was about. --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]] [[User:Deskana| ɐuɐʞsǝp]] 01:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)§ |
||
#'''Oppose'''. per Badger, Tiptoety, Cube, Leaky, and Rlendog. These alone are plenty for me to oppose. What else is there we don't know about?[[User:PumpkinSky|< |
#'''Oppose'''. per Badger, Tiptoety, Cube, Leaky, and Rlendog. These alone are plenty for me to oppose. What else is there we don't know about?[[User:PumpkinSky|<span style="color:darkorange;">Pumpkin</span><span style="color:darkblue;">Sky</span>]] [[User talk:PumpkinSky|<span style="color:darkorange;">talk</span>]] 02:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' as per Rlendog. We all make mistakes, but we don't all then attempt to deceive in an effort to cover them up. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 02:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' as per Rlendog. We all make mistakes, but we don't all then attempt to deceive in an effort to cover them up. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 02:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
# '''No'''. Per Badger, Leaky and Rlendog. Accessing accounts is of itself almost the unforgiveable crime. But the circumstances and subsequent activity surrounding this candidate's activities then and since is disturbing. The efforts from the chat cheerleaders to persuade otherwise do not convince. [[User:Plutonium27|Plutonium27]] ([[User talk:Plutonium27|talk]]) 04:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
# '''No'''. Per Badger, Leaky and Rlendog. Accessing accounts is of itself almost the unforgiveable crime. But the circumstances and subsequent activity surrounding this candidate's activities then and since is disturbing. The efforts from the chat cheerleaders to persuade otherwise do not convince. [[User:Plutonium27|Plutonium27]] ([[User talk:Plutonium27|talk]]) 04:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 375: | Line 375: | ||
#:::::I feel I have been transparent about everything else at this RFA and suppose on that basis something like this would seem a bit silly to lie about. I suppose people reading this discussion will make up their mind one way or another about it. <span style="font-family:Forte;">[[User:Steven Zhang|<span style="color:black;">Steven Zhang</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Zhang|<sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....</sup>]]</span> 19:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:::::I feel I have been transparent about everything else at this RFA and suppose on that basis something like this would seem a bit silly to lie about. I suppose people reading this discussion will make up their mind one way or another about it. <span style="font-family:Forte;">[[User:Steven Zhang|<span style="color:black;">Steven Zhang</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Zhang|<sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....</sup>]]</span> 19:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
# '''Oppose''' - I am feeling to oppose with the comments above - there are still good faith doubts about this users readiness for the tools after his admitted previous issues - add that to the fact that there is [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Steven+Zhang&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia only recent six months of activity], at this time I prefer to oppose. Also as per User:Casliber's comment from the neutral section below in regard to content creation. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 18:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
# '''Oppose''' - I am feeling to oppose with the comments above - there are still good faith doubts about this users readiness for the tools after his admitted previous issues - add that to the fact that there is [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Steven+Zhang&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia only recent six months of activity], at this time I prefer to oppose. Also as per User:Casliber's comment from the neutral section below in regard to content creation. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 18:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' Per everything above, I do not trust this user. '''[[User:Vodello|< |
#'''Oppose''' Per everything above, I do not trust this user. '''[[User:Vodello|<span style="color:#ff5500; font-size:small;">Agent Vodello</span>]]'''<sup>[[User Talk:Vodello|OK, Let's Party, Darling!]]</sup> 19:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose'''--It's nothing personal. It's just that the incident in 2008 got him temporarily banned (it happened again later) and also got the mop ripped out of the hands of two sysops. (Granted, one is now a steward, and the other ''did'' get their tools back, but it cannot be ignored) I am inclined to fear that this might happen again. I've heard great things about this user, but yet that incident is not something that can't be just forgotten. While, recently, his edits ''have'' gotten more positive, I don't think this user is ready for the mop and bucket... yet. Soon. Not now. [[User:Belugaboy|< |
#'''Oppose'''--It's nothing personal. It's just that the incident in 2008 got him temporarily banned (it happened again later) and also got the mop ripped out of the hands of two sysops. (Granted, one is now a steward, and the other ''did'' get their tools back, but it cannot be ignored) I am inclined to fear that this might happen again. I've heard great things about this user, but yet that incident is not something that can't be just forgotten. While, recently, his edits ''have'' gotten more positive, I don't think this user is ready for the mop and bucket... yet. Soon. Not now. [[User:Belugaboy|<span style="color:#004730; font-family:Trebuchet MS;">'''Beluga'''</span>]][[User talk:Belugaboy|<span style="color:#FF2400; font-family:Trebuchet MS;">'''boy'''</span>]]''<sup>[[User:Belugaboy/guestbook|''cup of tea?'']]</sup> 21:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' per numerous concerns raised above. Additionally, Badger Drink's oppose has now caused him to be taken to both ani and rfc/u on what look to me like flimsy grounds. This adds weight to Badger Drink's claim that there is a pattern of harassment of oppose !voters at this RFA. [[User:Cardamon|Cardamon]] ([[User talk:Cardamon|talk]]) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose''' per numerous concerns raised above. Additionally, Badger Drink's oppose has now caused him to be taken to both ani and rfc/u on what look to me like flimsy grounds. This adds weight to Badger Drink's claim that there is a pattern of harassment of oppose !voters at this RFA. [[User:Cardamon|Cardamon]] ([[User talk:Cardamon|talk]]) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:Just clarifying: that has nothing to do with the oppose, it's pure and simple to do with long-term civility issues. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 00:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:Just clarifying: that has nothing to do with the oppose, it's pure and simple to do with long-term civility issues. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 00:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 391: | Line 391: | ||
#:::<small>Your clarity was fine. My clarity has been improved by my adding "@DGG" at the beginning.</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<span style="color:blue;background:yellow;"> '''Kiefer'''</span>]].[[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]]</span></small> 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:::<small>Your clarity was fine. My clarity has been improved by my adding "@DGG" at the beginning.</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<span style="color:blue;background:yellow;"> '''Kiefer'''</span>]].[[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]]</span></small> 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
# I've been following along since the start of the RfA, reviewed his contributions, and wondering why I was so reluctant to go ahead and register my support, really wanting to give Steven the benefit of the doubt here, given the time that has passed since the 2008 incident. But then I saw DGG's comment, and it clarified my thinking as to what's held me back. I hope Steven continues the good work he's been doing, but I'm going to '''oppose''' per DGG; sorry. [[User:Paul Erik|<span style="font-family:Comic sans MS;">Paul Erik</span>]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Paul Erik|<span style="color:blue;">(talk)</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|<span style="color:green;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup></small> 03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
# I've been following along since the start of the RfA, reviewed his contributions, and wondering why I was so reluctant to go ahead and register my support, really wanting to give Steven the benefit of the doubt here, given the time that has passed since the 2008 incident. But then I saw DGG's comment, and it clarified my thinking as to what's held me back. I hope Steven continues the good work he's been doing, but I'm going to '''oppose''' per DGG; sorry. [[User:Paul Erik|<span style="font-family:Comic sans MS;">Paul Erik</span>]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Paul Erik|<span style="color:blue;">(talk)</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|<span style="color:green;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup></small> 03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' There are concerns raised about Steven's honesty, trustworthiness, and influence. His potentially disturbing influence is shown by the fact that he persuaded not one but two admins to breach their accounts, was offered another account to breach, and - as has been pointed out - this RfA has attracted some rather uncritical and unseemly badgering by supporters. He has misled people in the past, including his academic credentials, and in his previous RfA he comments on editing when banned: "From memory, I once edited outside my ban...." The fact is that he was caught once, and admits to that one incident. There is a possibility of other occasions hiding behind a vague "from memory". His memory seems to be that he remembers abuse when it is pointed out. He had to be pushed to "recall" that he had breached someone's account on Simple. There are questions of poor judgement - he allowed an RfA in 2009 when he had not long returned from the ban, and had little positive content to show for himself. But, as people are pointing out, let us judge Steven not on the past, but on what he has done recently. And what he has done recently has been very positive. Good works in dispute resolution. Helping out on ArbCom cases, closing AfDs securely, reverting vandalism, and occasionally adding content. If taking this AfD as if Steven had gone for a clean start and looking at his contributions from after his previous RfA, I would see a good editor, and certainly one who I would see as a potentially god admin. But my response would be that as the contributions are patchy with eight months of only 12 edits in total before the recent 6 months worth of decent work, I would say that it is too soon to make an accurate and considered judgement. I would encourage Steven to apply again in six months. It is a rare case for someone to be given the tools after only six months contributions. I think it has happened, but those candidates would have had more outstanding contributions in terms of quality and quantity. Steven's contributions are good, but not outstanding in terms of quality or quantity. So as a new editor I would say no; given Steven's past I think he additionally needs to show us that he can be trusted, so there is again that question of good judgement in allowing this RfA when there is not quite enough recent extended material on which to make a secure decision. I would be very happy to look again in six months. '''[[User:SilkTork|< |
#'''Oppose''' There are concerns raised about Steven's honesty, trustworthiness, and influence. His potentially disturbing influence is shown by the fact that he persuaded not one but two admins to breach their accounts, was offered another account to breach, and - as has been pointed out - this RfA has attracted some rather uncritical and unseemly badgering by supporters. He has misled people in the past, including his academic credentials, and in his previous RfA he comments on editing when banned: "From memory, I once edited outside my ban...." The fact is that he was caught once, and admits to that one incident. There is a possibility of other occasions hiding behind a vague "from memory". His memory seems to be that he remembers abuse when it is pointed out. He had to be pushed to "recall" that he had breached someone's account on Simple. There are questions of poor judgement - he allowed an RfA in 2009 when he had not long returned from the ban, and had little positive content to show for himself. But, as people are pointing out, let us judge Steven not on the past, but on what he has done recently. And what he has done recently has been very positive. Good works in dispute resolution. Helping out on ArbCom cases, closing AfDs securely, reverting vandalism, and occasionally adding content. If taking this AfD as if Steven had gone for a clean start and looking at his contributions from after his previous RfA, I would see a good editor, and certainly one who I would see as a potentially god admin. But my response would be that as the contributions are patchy with eight months of only 12 edits in total before the recent 6 months worth of decent work, I would say that it is too soon to make an accurate and considered judgement. I would encourage Steven to apply again in six months. It is a rare case for someone to be given the tools after only six months contributions. I think it has happened, but those candidates would have had more outstanding contributions in terms of quality and quantity. Steven's contributions are good, but not outstanding in terms of quality or quantity. So as a new editor I would say no; given Steven's past I think he additionally needs to show us that he can be trusted, so there is again that question of good judgement in allowing this RfA when there is not quite enough recent extended material on which to make a secure decision. I would be very happy to look again in six months. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:#8D38C9; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time</sup>]]''' 10:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Strong Oppose''' His stance/POV stance on China-related issue is problematic. Giving him the mop will no doubt compound the problem.--[[User:NWA.Rep|NWA.Rep]] ([[User talk:NWA.Rep|talk]]) 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#'''Strong Oppose''' His stance/POV stance on China-related issue is problematic. Giving him the mop will no doubt compound the problem.--[[User:NWA.Rep|NWA.Rep]] ([[User talk:NWA.Rep|talk]]) 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:'''Comment''' I'm more than a little suprised that a user sporting a "Retired" banner on their user page, whose last edit to RFA was their own in 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=NWA.Rep&namespace=4] and who has made 14th edits this year pops up from "nowhere" to oppose this RFA. Or maybe I should not be suprised. And before anyone screams "bad faith" [[WP:AGF]] does not mean "shut your eyes to the blindingly obvious". <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<span style="color:#accC10; background:#0000fa;"> Chat </span>]] </span></small> 12:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:'''Comment''' I'm more than a little suprised that a user sporting a "Retired" banner on their user page, whose last edit to RFA was their own in 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=NWA.Rep&namespace=4] and who has made 14th edits this year pops up from "nowhere" to oppose this RFA. Or maybe I should not be suprised. And before anyone screams "bad faith" [[WP:AGF]] does not mean "shut your eyes to the blindingly obvious". <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<span style="color:#accC10; background:#0000fa;"> Chat </span>]] </span></small> 12:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 402: | Line 402: | ||
#:I'm afraid your comment does not make an awful lot of sense. Since he was never an administrator in the first place, it is not within the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction to grant him administrator access. Were he to apply to ArbCom for administrator access, they would point him here as it has nothing to do with them. --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]] [[User:Deskana| ɐuɐʞsǝp]] 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:I'm afraid your comment does not make an awful lot of sense. Since he was never an administrator in the first place, it is not within the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction to grant him administrator access. Were he to apply to ArbCom for administrator access, they would point him here as it has nothing to do with them. --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]] [[User:Deskana| ɐuɐʞsǝp]] 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:I must agree with Deskana. Have you actually researched this, as it appears not. I quote from you ''"It wouldn't be fair for Chet B Long and PeterSymonds to only be able to become admins again by applying to the Arbitration Committee"'' .... PeterSymonds ran RFA 2 rather than asking ARBCOM (and passed). Chet is now also (renamed) an admin although he did request the tools via arbcom - th epoint being that any sense of "fairness" is irrelevant as both th eothers are now admins. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<span style="color:#accC10; background:#0000fa;"> Chat </span>]] </span></small> 18:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
#:I must agree with Deskana. Have you actually researched this, as it appears not. I quote from you ''"It wouldn't be fair for Chet B Long and PeterSymonds to only be able to become admins again by applying to the Arbitration Committee"'' .... PeterSymonds ran RFA 2 rather than asking ARBCOM (and passed). Chet is now also (renamed) an admin although he did request the tools via arbcom - th epoint being that any sense of "fairness" is irrelevant as both th eothers are now admins. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<span style="color:#accC10; background:#0000fa;"> Chat </span>]] </span></small> 18:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' per Elen of the Roads and many of the concerns above. Steve has matured as a person, but this RFA is premature, because he is not ready to hold any kind of permission yet. I have told Steve repeatedly that I don't think he should submit an RFA, and he was unhappy but accepted my view. Seemingly, he simply asked around until somebody said they would nominate him, and I cannot interpret that in any way other than that it reflects an unnerving desire to be an admin. With the benefit of retrospect, I know that people who have to ask around for nominations are probably not ready, and the concerns raised above about judgement and respect for account security only compound my nervousness about this candidature. I think Steve is a good contributor and has a lot to offer the project in his own way, but I would not be comfortable with Steve being an admin (though I say that without prejudice to changing my mind at some later date). Sorry, Steve. [[User:AGK|< |
#'''Oppose''' per Elen of the Roads and many of the concerns above. Steve has matured as a person, but this RFA is premature, because he is not ready to hold any kind of permission yet. I have told Steve repeatedly that I don't think he should submit an RFA, and he was unhappy but accepted my view. Seemingly, he simply asked around until somebody said they would nominate him, and I cannot interpret that in any way other than that it reflects an unnerving desire to be an admin. With the benefit of retrospect, I know that people who have to ask around for nominations are probably not ready, and the concerns raised above about judgement and respect for account security only compound my nervousness about this candidature. I think Steve is a good contributor and has a lot to offer the project in his own way, but I would not be comfortable with Steve being an admin (though I say that without prejudice to changing my mind at some later date). Sorry, Steve. [[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User talk:AGK|•]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
#:AGK, I respect you as an editor and an admin, so I'm going to assume for the time being that you didn't really think about how that sounds. You may not have intended it, but it reads like "Oh I warned Steve over and over again not to run but he would listen to me or anyone else and then he finally found two suckers who didn't care about his background". |
#:AGK, I respect you as an editor and an admin, so I'm going to assume for the time being that you didn't really think about how that sounds. You may not have intended it, but it reads like "Oh I warned Steve over and over again not to run but he would listen to me or anyone else and then he finally found two suckers who didn't care about his background". |
||
#: |
#: |