Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Decltype

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

decltype

Final: 73/5/3, ended 12:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

decltype (talk · contribs) – All, I'm delighted to offer up for your consideration decltype. A long time user, decltype has been very active for the last 4 months. Now, at first glance this may seem to be insufficent tenure for some - but a review of edits demonstrates that during the several years decltype has been editing only sporadically s/he has clearly gathered more than sufficent WP:CLUE. I'd also ask that participants note the 350 or so edits between December and February which is hardly "inactive". So, on to the rationale;

Content

• high quality articles at DYK
• 45% edits to the main space - clearly here for the right reasons
• creation of quality material in user space before moving over to the article space
• Self evidently knows how to write, source and reference

Maintenance

• Very active at the WT:DYK template - an area where more hands with the tools are always needed
• Over 140 WP:AIV reports - and all look good, with the correct warning procedures etc.
• 600 deleted contributions of which around 500 or so are via speedy requests or WP:PROD
• A cautious approach to deletion, generally taking the PROD or AFD route

Other

• Active on article and user talk pages showing a desire to collaborate
• Quality input at WP:AFD evidencing policy knowledge and a desire to keep where possible[1] [2] [3]
• Great input at the helpdesk, reference desk and at articles needing translation

Housekeeping

• Sensible Sig
• Sensible User Page
• Clean Block Log
• Rollbacker
• E-mail enabled

All, I think there's no question decltype would be an asset with the tools and that we would all benefit from them being granted. I hope that the community finds themselves in agreement with this. Pedro :  Chat  10:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by SoWhy

To quote Dweller (talk · contribs) who nominated me: "Long-term user, who has recently become much more prolific." The same applies to decltype who has become more active since December 2008 and who has since that time demonstrated to be plenty clueful and knowing their way around the page. So much in fact, that I took quite a liking to them and asked decltype whether he would want to run for adminship. But given my possibly biased view on this user, I recommended to ask Pedro for a third-party view on whether my impressions were correct - Pedro's nom confirms that they indeed were and I am glad for decltype to have such a prolific RFA nominator like Pedro.

decltype is interested in policy and discussion but also in creating and building an encyclopedia. Their main area of expertise admin-wise is probably CSD which they frequent with discussion and already decltype helps with CAT:CSD by removing incorrect speedy tags. That said, the candidate's own speedy work is nearly flawless and no reason for concern (they even keep a detailed log at User:Decltype/Speedy), at least not for me (and you know, I'm usually the one concerned with these things). So, to echo Pedro's nomination, I think decltype is a clueful editor who has demonstrated both patience and friendliness when dealing with others as well as clue when it comes to both building content and policies and guidelines and as such, he will probably be an asset to the project if given the extra buttons. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I am very, very happy that my nominators believe I can contribute positively in the administrative areas of Wikipedia. However, whether I really have the required experience, knowledge, and trust to be granted administrative tools is for the community to decide. Or, at the very least, the subset of the community that participates at RFA. Since many of you may not know me, I will do my best to answer any and all questions you may have. decltype (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: More or less a continuation of what I already do, new page patrolling with a strong focus on CAT:CSD, which seems to be backlogged the most. When needed, I will also be responding to AIV reports in a timely manner. RFP/R is another venue where I would like to work. The throughput there is usually very good, though. I will gladly be handing out rollback proactively if I come across someone who does good manual work. While I occasionally contribute to T:TDYK, I do not see a need for the tools there. I also believe responding to all sorts of inquiries in a proper manner is an essential part of the administrative role. In the new page area, this often takes the form of "Why did my page get deleted?" Civility and patience is key here.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Regretfully, I may never be able to produce featured-quality content, and I have the utmost respect for those that do. However, with the generous help of others, I have been able to produce a few GAs. A complete listing of those articles and my involvement can be found here. Objectively, I guess they would probably be considered my best content contributions. Of the three GAs to which I am a major contributor, I believe two of them are the most comprehensive and factually accurate sources of information on their subjects, period.

However, I can't really make any other assertions about the quality of those articles or, except that at least one person found that they satisfy the WP:WIAGA criteria, and are reasonably well written, whatever that means. That said, I was particularly happy about the listing of Allocator (C++), and the kind words I received from three reviewers. It is currently the only C++-related GA on Wikipedia. I have put up a reward (non-monetary, of course) to inspire others to remedy this situation, but so far there have been no takers :)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Of course there's been some disagreements over content. Fortunately, they have all resolved themselves in a dignified manner. An important part of collaborating is to be willing to make compromises.

As for stress, I don't think stress has ever caused me to make rash or unwise decisions. In other words, whenever I do something stupid it's likely because I don't know any better :)

More seriously, an important principle for me has always been to never ever write anything that could be conceived as an insult or personal attack by anyone. While pretty much anything we do here on Wikipedia, even blocks and deletions, may easily be reversed, an attack directed at another editor, written in anger, may not. That said, we are all human, and mistakes are bound to happen from time to time. Nevertheless, I profoundly believe that administrators should be held to the highest of standards in this area.

Questions from CIreland

4. You have said that you would help at CAT:CSD. Could you explain or give some examples of what constitutes an "invalid fair-use claim" that would permit deletion using WP:CSD#I7?

A: While my experience with speedy deletion of files is very limited, the policy is rather clear.

I assume that you are referring to the first case, where the file may be immediately deleted, and not the "semi-speedy" cases of (2-7 days). If the fair use tag placed on the image is clearly invalid, the file may be immediately deleted, but notice the use of may.

As with all speedy deletions, the history should be examined to determine whether there is a version with a correct tag. Of course, this is rather unlikely.

Another case would be where the uploader failed to provide the correct tag, but the file's use in a given article would otherwise be justifiable and tenable under WP:NFCC. In this case I'd add the correct tag myself and provide a proper FUR. Same with missing tags.

In the common case where someone adds a promotional still to the infobox of a BLP, or the like, I'd use {{rfu}} instead, or {{dfu}} if applicable.

I guess the intention of the first case is to cover invalid tags clearly placed in bad faith. I do not think such an assumption should be made unless there is a good reason to, for example, if the user has a long record of copyright violations, and has been clearly warned. And in this case, it is more common that their images fall under F9, because they claim them as their own work.

tl;dr summary; I can't imagine that I would invoke I7 very often or at all, as most candidates can be dealt with using rfu, dfu or "fix it myself".

5. It is a common occurrence at WP:RFPP that an editor involved in an edit war will make his third revert and then attempt to game the system by quickly making a request for full protection. How would you deal with such a request?

A: I haven't really intended to work much in the area of page protection. Thus, my action would probably be to simply observe how the issue would be dealt with at RFPP. I should note that it is within an admin's disgression to choose an earlier, undisputed revision to revert to, in the case of temporary full protection.

However, when an editor has reverted three times, they haven't even violated 3RR, and if someone requested temp full protection from me personally in this case, I would certainly not grant it. If only two editors were involved, an advice to refrain from further reverts, and seek a 3O, or other means of dispute resolution in the case of multiple editors would be a better course of action. In the case of one editor reverting "against" multiple others, if they revert again, a report to AN/EW should result in a block.

Additional optional questions from Steve Crossin

6. As an administrator, do you feel it's more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of policies and guidelines? Additionally, in the event that you feel a policy doesn't quite provide the best possible solution to a situation, would you use your administrative judgment to implement a different solution? Give an example if possible (and it's a tricky question, sorry)

A: It is no secret that I believe that our policies (more so than the guidelines) should

• be treated as normative
• be as unambiguous as possible
• be strictly followed unless it makes no sense to do so

You're right, it's a rather tricky question. I'll attempt an example: The CSD policy, which I am most familiar with, presents a clear solution on how to deal with problematic articles (deletion). However, this is not always the best solution. There are numerous other measures that can be taken to deal with articles that clearly fit the intentionally narrow criteria. Complete rewrites, redirects, and userfication comes to mind.

On the other hand, in the event that a clearly inappropriate article tagged for speedy deletion is found not to satisfy any of the criteria given by policy, I would not use my administrative judgment to delete the article, even if that may objectively have been the "best possible" solution. So I guess that would be an example of the converse.

Edit, per Balloonman: Yes, I would of course delete if it was mistagged, but met a different criterion. decltype (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from User:Wizardman

7. When should no consensus closed on AFDs default to keep, and when should they default to delete, and why?

A. No consensus normally defaults to keep. The only case I can think of, is if a WP:BLP subject, typically a WP:NPF, has requested deletion (verified through OTRS). If it is unclear whether the subject meets the guideline for inclusion, and therefore no consensus to delete or keep exists, I do believe the subject's wishes should be taken into consideration. decltype (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions from ChildofMidnight

8. What article and dispute resolution work have you done?

A: My article work is outlined here. Per Q2, it is what it is. As for dispute resolution, not much "formal" experience there, I'm afraid. I did offer a 3O fairly recently, here.

Questions from Tony1

9. Extending Q8 on dispute resolution: In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?

A: Definitely, given that we're talking about a relatively isolated incident, this would be a good alternative to a block. After all, blocks are intended to prevent further disruption, not be punitive. In the real world, if you happen to insult someone in a heated situation, the proper thing to do is to retract what you said, apologize, and hopefully you can move on. Of course, it doesn't always work out quite like that, but I'm sure you get the point.

Apart from the risk of repetition given a pattern of bad behavior, I should mention that the severity of the insult could justify a block in the most extreme cases.

10. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy? (Critical response, please!)

A: At first glance, this seems very similar to ArbCom, but without true power. You characterize it as a "community-driven" process, I assume something similar to the Mediation Cabal. The nutshell description states that "AdmRev" will not issue blocks, topic-bans nor desysop anyone, but instead rely on good faith. I think it's a nice sentiment but am unsure how it will work out in practice. It seems likely that the defendant may simply refuse to recognize its jurisdiction. Would breaching an AdmRev judgment in itself be considered administrator misconduct?

In its current form, the charter also fails to answer what would be considered reasonable punishment for various forms of admin tool abuse.

It may not be intended, but it seems odd that the list of Coordinator qualities does not mention conduct / temperament, and explicitly states that little weight will be placed on Coordinator candidates block logs. Should we not expect Coordinators themselves to adhere to high standards of conduct?

All that said, I'm sure AdmRev could have merit. I myself have never had any grievances with administrators, but I can see how an editor that did, would want a presumably "neutral" venue to properly present their case.

11. I notice you're interested in resolving ambiguous/unclear policy text. Do you believe the policy on admin behaviour as expressed at WP:ADMIN should be set out in a codified and easy-to-read form on that policy page? An example of such a codification is here. Would this make the policy appear to be inflexible?

A: Well, take the non-free content guideline for instance. It contains a lot of background information, legal rationale, examples, and other useful supporting text. However, the actual policy is short and to the point, and actually transcluded into the guideline. I don't see why WP:ADMIN couldn't adopt a similar format. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that I endorse User:Tony1/AdminReview#Wikipedia's policy on admin behaviour. It looks reasonable, though.

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

12a. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?

A. Many essays do a good job of summarizing key passages of policies and common practice. They have weight in that many people agree with what they say, so they will simply cite the essay instead of typing out the rationale. But it is the argument inside the essay that has weight, not the essay itself.

12b. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?

A. My personal opinion is that it'd be best if they didn't. Project guidelines should supplement WP guidelines, not contradict them. In deletion debates, community-wide consensus policies and guidelines will have to take precedence. On the other hand, notability guidelines like WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER are very broad, and I think they could benefit from having more specific and relevant criteria for individual branches, like baseb...I mean FooSport ;). One shoe simply doesn't fit all.

Optional questions from KillerChihuahua

13. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?

A: Administrators may implement changes that have consensus on the talk page, and proposed edits that are non-controversial.

14. An article is on Afd, nominated as a violation of BLP1E. The subject is a one-off from another, notable, article subject. The views are more or less evenly divided between "Keep" and "Merge or delete". When pressed for rationale, the Keeps respond that the subject is not attempting to remain private, and has been on Letterman, although they concede he has only done the One thing (Two if you count being on Letterman talking about the One thing, and many of the Keep views DO count Letterman.) How will you close this Afd?

A: I think merge is a good compromise here. The information is preserved, and in the event that media coverage becomes so substantial that an article is warranted, the redirect can be upgraded to a stand-alone article, without going through the tedious

1. Recreate
2. G4
3. DRV
4. Overturn and relist
5. No consensus/Keep

process.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

15. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Yes. In particular, I think it's important that editors are properly attributed for their contributions (if they wish), in accordance with the GFDL (and the new CC-BY-SA). On Wikipedia, I would encourage everyone to be wary that they do not lose their attributions through an improper copy-paste move or merge.

While the TOU state that re-users need only provide a URI to the original Wikipedia article to properly attribute text contributors, I think this is at best dubious. There is no guarantee that the article history will be readily available from this URI at some point in the future, especially if said article fails to meet our guidelines for inclusion.

As for enforcing these rights, a single administrator can't really do that much, except making sure merges and moves are done in a proper fashion, and if necessary, restore redirects who were mistakenly deleted. And of course, provide the history of a deleted article if it is requested by a re-user who previously attributed the authors through a URI, and still wants to credit them properly ;)

General comments

• Links for decltype: Decltype (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for decltype can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/decltype before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. – (iMatthew • talk) at 12:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support Per high quality nomination statements :) Pedro :  Chat  12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Modesty once extinguished knows not how to return. - Seneca =P ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Support per Pedro above Regards SoWhy 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Excellent candidate! – (iMatthew • talk) at 12:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I like what I am seeing. MBisanz ^talk 12:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Support has clue, and to say it short: would benefit our community. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Rettetast (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good to me. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Make it so. Knew this was one of Pedro's nom statements before I got to the sig. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Switch to strong support per Lomn. A cautious admin is undesirable? Candidate is less likely to abuse the tools than if they played fast and loose with the rules. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

9. Support. Contribs back up noms' high praise. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Support per nom and per Maxim's oppose. Caution at CSD is by no means a bad trait, and between our many deletion options, no one user can prevent a consensus deletion (nor even long delay it). This contrasts strongly with the potential results of an admin who favors more lenient CSD standards. — Lomn 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    My examples aren't examples of caution—they're examples of sloppiness. Maxim_(talk) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    I disagree. Take Michael J. Levine, which contained the text "... is the star of a hit viral video." Per A7, that is arguably (not definitively, granted) a "credible claim of significance". No verifiability is required to overrule A7, and some viral video stars are notable. As such, I cannot accept your claim that failing to speedy this article is in error, though I will grant that it is open to interpretation (Note: the article also referenced the specific video in question, which rules out A1). Deep central similarly asserts that a claim of notability. While I wouldn't have tagged it as a stub, I can't fault a decision to not flag it as a speedy deletion candidate. Similarly, you dismiss Statian Rummy as a "blatant hoax". At the time of decltype's AfD nom, it described the rules for a card game variant. I saw no indication whatsoever of a hoax, merely what was likely someone's set of home rules. A subject for deletion, to be sure, but nothing that qualified as an immediately-deletable hoax. I fully reject your assertion that this is in any way evidence of "sloppiness". — Lomn 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

11. Decltype is a net positive in my eyes for sure. He knows what he is doing and is willing to help out those who wish for some additional guidance, which is especially important for an administrator.[4][5][6] His work indicates to me that he is both polite and clueful, and I believe that he willing be an excellent benefit to the project as a sysop. NW (Talk) 14:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Some seriously glowing nomination statements from two editors I very much respect the opinions of are a good start, and a review of contributions reveals a dedicated and sensible user who could make effective use of the tools. ~ mazca ^talk 14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
13. The candidate's speedy work has been very good when I've seen it. The first article that Maxim cites includes "[This card game] was invented by Christopher Lauzon ... on June 10, 2009." It's true that many think that this should be sufficient reason to speedy an article (it sure wouldn't bother me), but the consensus currently leans in the other direction; see for instance Wikipedia_talk:CSD#Früctan. And of course, the best evidence that decltype's speedy tags are in line with present consensus is WP:CSD itself, which doesn't have that speedy criterion; that's what policy pages are for, to record consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    This non-admin has done a great job reviewing and sometimes changing the speedy deletion tags of others (see User:Decltype/Speedy), and it seems to me that if someone is doing admin work already, competently, that's a good reason to promote them at RFA. But, predictably, it's a little harder to deal with the taggers when you haven't been promoted yet, and declining speedy deletions will almost guarantee that people will turn up at your RFA and vote against you ... I don't know, but that's probably one reason that most people wait until after their RFA before they do this kind of work. I'm going to keep this RFA in the back of my mind for the next time someone makes an argument that we don't need so many admins because non-admins can do most of the work ... it's not that simple, and it's very uncommon to see candidates show up at RFA with a history of this kind of work. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

14. Support, great user, answer to question is good. Wizardman 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Great user. My interactions with him have been very positive. TheLeftorium 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
16. I explicitly looked at the oppose raised by Maxim, and have say that it is the reason why I am supporting. Michael J. Levine which Dec tagged for prod, and Maxim claims should have been deleted A7 does make a credible claim to significance. It claims that Levine was the star in a viral video. A7 does not require that the claim be true or even sourced, it only has to be credible. The viral video, made the following claim, The film won the award for Best Comedy [at the Campus MovieFest national competition] and has had continued success as a viral video on YouTube. Hong Kong Trade Centre is clearly about the building, not a business as Maxim claims. As for Rajko Purovic the article included two sources, [7][8] both of which reference Rajko. Two days AFTER dec worked on the article, it was discovered taht Rajko was a hoax and that the sources were duped. How you can blame Dec for this I don't know, because he never edited the article after it was deleted---once let alone three times as claimed in the oppose. (Dec's last edit 12:42 on June 12, first of 3 deletions 23:58 on June 12.) How about Statian Rummy Maxim says this was a clear hoax, but according to WP:Hoax Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax. While this may have been a hoax, it was not such blatant vandalism that having it around for a few days (tagged for deletion) would cause problems. The article, at least when Dec edited, gave the rules for a variation of Rummy. Even if made up, it is in no way a CSD candidate. As for Business Development Centre (Hong Kong) and Deep central, yes they probably are CSD candidates, but I would much rather haver a person err on the side of caution than go off half cocked and delete everything under the sun. Deep Central did make a vague claim to significance, but not one that generally would save from most CSD'ers (including myself). There is a reason Why I Hate Speedy Deleters. (I will admit, the answer to number 6 is a concern, if an article is mistagged, assume it was tagged wrong by mistake, you WILL delete articles with the wrong rationale, it happens.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    I have amended the answer to emphasize that I would delete if it met one of the criteria, regardless of tagging. I didn't realize my answer could be interpreted in another way. decltype (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    The way you had written it, it read that if an article was a clear attack page, but was tagged say A3, you wouldn't delete it---which I suspect is part of the reason for Z-Man/Tan's opposes below. Thank you for amending your answer.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

17. Weak support per my struck neutral !vote and amended Q6. I see a lot of fence-sitting; I prefer admins with stronger convictions. Preferably that match my convictions :-) Tan | 39 15:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Weak support; yeah, the answer to Q6 is disappointing, but cluefullness is generally suppressed by the stress of RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Seems to be a good and clueful contributor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support per noms. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong Support would make a great admin. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 16:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. ERK ^talk 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Support decltype is one of those editors that somehow seems to pop up everywhere I seem to go with the right answers. dec's work has always been excellent in my opinion, and seems to often hit the proverbial nail on the head. I am unswayed by the Opposes, but rather remain confident in the above answers. Caution, they say, is the better part of valor, and decltype's head seems to be in the right place. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. I see plenty of clue and no evidence the tools would be abused. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. The opposes are not convincing. Even if you only use the admin tools once, there will be a benefit to Wikipedia. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Excellent user with excellent judgment. Triplestop (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - good user: helpful for CSD, where more hands are always useful. I also disagree with Maxim that articles that don't meet the criteria should be speedied anyway. IAR can go to far, and if in doubt for CSD, we go through AFD - you don;t just make a unilateral decision to delete under your own criteria. Ale_Jrb^talk 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Good candidate, am not impressed with the opposes, caution in the use of the tools should be encouraged not discouraged. Davewild (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Support The points stated in the oppose section appear to be (partly) valid; though, altogether not enough to oppose. — Aitias // discussion 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Per noms and great work. -download ׀ sign! 21:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. My finger was already on the Support button when Maxim posted his oppose, and I decided to wait for a while to see if the opposers came up with something I might have missed. I'm still pretty confident you won't abuse the tools, especially after the correction to question 6. Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
33. --Giants27 (c|s) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
34. Support due to the candidate's view on speedy deletions. Carelessly performed speedy deletions for poor reasons are one of the major ways Wikipedia drives away newcomers. We need more admins willing to challenge dubious speedy claims. Also, decltype seems to be clueful and dedicated to the project. Questwolf (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Seems like a sensible editor. I've seen no problems in my interactions with the candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Support I like a man who's had a go at some articles. Unconcerned by the opposing arguments. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Support As per track and see no concerns nd feel the rpoject will gain with the user having tools .The user has been in the project since Dec 2005.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
40. Support - Unconvinced by the opposition - also, I trust Pedro's judgment more than most. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    You almost persuade me to switch to oppose, 'cos Pedro opposed my RfA, so I know his judgement is suspect. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

41. 'Support better to err on the side of caution when using the tools. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
42. Support no problems, no reason to expect abuse. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
43. Support this clueful candidate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
44. Support 100% yes. Good luck. America69 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Even though your answer to Q6 is a complete disaster. As I think about it, as much as I dislike the answer, it will only be a hindrance to you as an admin... but it won't cause you to be a hindrance to others. In other words, I don't see it as a problem, so much as a self imposed limitation, and that poses no harm. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    Excellent point---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

46. Support I noticed Decltype's good CSD tagging a while back. (For non admins, in this particular incident he retagged a couple of A7s as G10s). ϢereSpielChequers 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. The candidate appears to be trustworthy, hard-working and thoughtful. From what I can see decltype is both a good content builder and has a good track record in xxD space. Majoreditor (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
48. support much better that we have admins who are restrained in their use of CSD than those who are over-expansive. DGG (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
49. Support I have formed a positive impression of this user's contributions (which I've seen in various places) and (like several other !voters here) I'm impressed with the way decltype "errs on the side of caution" in dealing with articles that are candidates for deletion. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
50. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, but by contrast has User:Decltype/Awards. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Looks like long tenure is spotty until late 2008, but solid work in the time since then. Solid AIV work. Fantastic work on NPP! (+700) Good article contribs. (esp. C++ related material) with collaboration on talk page. Have seen some helpful work at HD and RefDesk/Computing. I think Q6 (both question and response can be taken in several ways), and I think the more positive aspects of that exchange are not enough to oppose. I believe this candidate will add strength to the admin. corps. — Ched :  ?  19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
52. Support I see no issue with your CSD tagging and everything else looks good as well. ThemFromSpace 00:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
53. Support per above. One two three... 10:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
54. Answers show clue; also seems clueful enough not to get too anal about verbiage over meaning; hopefully will IAR if necessary; support. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Should have happened years ago (Mjal (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
56. Support. I sympathize with the oppose votes. If something is obviously inappropriate, we should be abiding by the spirit of the rules, rather than contrained by the letter. Additionally, I'm particularly concerned about a "weak" deletion position on noncompliant non-free content. Since the software allows undeletion of images, less harm is caused by deleting such images (which can be undone if someone is willing to provide a reasonable rationale) than by leaving copyright infringing material in place. Also, I'm wary of a "soft" approach to non-free material in the context of our free content material and mission. However, these are matters of wikiphilosophy. As much as I may disagree, that is not a reason to oppose. This is about whether or not this editor is suited to the mop and bucket, not whether this editor will bend a knee to my wikipolitics. --Vassyana (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
57. Support per excellent knowledge of the CSD.Fingerz 12:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. Generally good contributions, including CSD work. However I am slightly concerned by this comment in the answer to question 6: "I would of course delete if it was mistagged, but met a different criterion." The best approach should be to remove the incorrect tag and replace it with the correct tag. Prior to speedy deletion, both the tagger and the deleting admin should agree on the criterion used. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

    I think that is a view that most people, including myself, reject. While I do prefer to see two people viewing CSDs it is not required. And if two people agree that an article needs to be CSD'd then the exact criterion under which it gets deleted is secondary.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

59. Support good answers to questions (including q 6). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Solid candidate. — Σxplicit 19:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
61. Support, very good answers to questions 12a and 12b. --Aqwis (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
62. Støtte Erik9 (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Good AIV, CSD work. Would make a great admin. Aditya ^α _ß 09:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
64. Support I share Vassyana's concerns esp. regarding somewhat diffident approach towards nonfree image abuse, but overall answers are excellent. I have every confidence that Decl will be an excellent admin. Best wishes,  JGHowes  ^talk 13:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Does very good work, always polite and helpful. I'd be more than happy to have decltype helping in admin areas, esp. deleting pages. And his work in other areas seems pretty good according to other !voters and a quick glance. Whole-hearted support - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Seems clueful indeed. -- Banjeboi 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
67. Support - Good work; will do well as an admin. --~   Knowzilla   ^(Talk) 08:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
68. Support for another programmer :P ... Not really, but I trust you with the tools -- Tinu Cherian - 10:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Does great work, and I see absolutely no reason that he will abuse the tools. UntilItSleeps ^{Public PC} 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Give him the tools. :) LittleMountain5 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
71. Support, sorry for being late but I definitely think decltype can be trusted. Jozal ^(talk) 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
72. Support. Dwr12 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
73. Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per CSD work. We don't need more admins who are going to stick by the exact letter of the rule, or worse, adopt a stance more lenient than even exact letter of the rule of CSD. Examples: Statian Rummy was a blatant hoax—this article would have been deleted on the spot if you tagged it as such; we didn't need to go through the hoops with PROD and AfD. Rajko Purovic was a hoax too, and deleted three times, yet decltype didn't tag even though he reviewed it. Hong Kong Trade Centre should have been a db-corp candidate: the article is about the business, and not the building itself; I wonder if any extra homework was done here: the first 10 of the 809 G-hits for "Hong Kong Trade Centre" yield no useful information to establish importance, and the only link to the article on WP is from Business Development Centre (Hong Kong), which should be deleted too. (Since I want non-admins to review this too, I have not deleted these two articles). Michael J. Levine was tagged as a PROD, yet it met WP:CSD#A7. Deep central is another clear A7, from today, which was deleted as such yet not tagged by decltype. To resume, I feel that the candidate doesn't put attention to his CSD work, and I'm sensing him as someone who'd decline to delete something that really should be deleted, based on a technicality. Something borderline spammy and non-notable as the Hong Kong Trade Centre is still hanging around there, and the related article, when both should not be included in WP. Maxim_(talk) 14:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Strongly disagree with answer to Q6. Maxim_(talk) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   See Supports by myself (currently #16) and Lomn (currently #10) where we both disagree with Maxim's assessment above.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Maxim mentions SoWhy below, which threw me for a moment, SoWhy's response is on the talk page.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'll quickly respond both to Balloonman and SoWhy here. There is certainly conflicting philosophy here, and I expect admins to use judgment and clue, and not be policy-bound robots (supporters and opposers say Decltype has a lot of clue -- too bad he doesn't plan to use it). Putting aside all examples (it's stuff I'd summarily delete, and stuff I've deleted in my nearly two years as admin), I'll just focus on the example SoWhy looked at, Statian Rummy. I fail to see how an admin cannot speedy delete. If it's crap that it's invented in one day -- clearly not encyclopedic -- and it's even admitted, why go through with PROD and AfD? It's an obvious delete that's going to make sense and be uncontroversial. If the only objection is the fact that it doesn't meet something in WP:CSD, that's just silly... admins are picked for their judgment and they should use it. It's the same way one would summarily delete a blatantly obvious essay: by the time you edit it to comply with WP:NPOV, it meets CSD#A1 or CSD#A3. To resume, to me, this shows a preference to stick much too closely to the rules (mindlessly would be a bit strong but on the right track), instead of considering and analyzing the situation, which is not a good trait in an admin. Maxim_(talk) 18:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   The point is not, that it does not meet any criteria. It's the point that it's explicitly forbidden per WP:CSD#Non-criteria. So it's not about using judgment and clue in a case where things are not regulated but where it's explicitly regulated another way. So we are at IAR level and I see no compelling reason why they should be ignored where using the normal venues does not do any harm. But that's the main point: It's a question about IAR, not slavishly following the rules. And I honestly fail to see how different interpretations of when to IAR can be a reason to oppose. But then again, I am not neutral in this case. Regards SoWhy 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per answer to Q6. According to the nom, he has plenty of clue, but if he's not going to use it, what's the point? Mr.Z-man 14:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Mr.Z-man. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose He looks clueful and his Norwegian language ability enables to expand related articles and to help Norwegian editors but I have to agree with Maxim and Z-man. Aside from it, he has been very "vigorous" only in the latest 4 months and that does not make him simply labeled as a "long-term editor". That implies that he's undergone every possible experience within Wikipedia, which is not. I'm not sure the candidate fully pre-discussed with the nominators about his adminship because some of the flowery introduction does not match to what the candidate wants to dedicate with the bits such as DYKs. The candidate is not highly active in the field (also 1/5 edits there is for his DYK nominations), and he's never participated in discussion for improving DYK policies or general situation. I think I can support him if he come back at least 4 months past after the RfA.--Caspian blue 18:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) The nomination statement is a stark opposite to Balloonman's, that is interesting.--Caspian blue 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Could you please explain the DYK bit to me? According to Q1 decltype says that he does not want to work in DYK, so I wonder why you think they will. Regards SoWhy 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   I of course read it, but please see again the Pedro's statement. "Very active at the WP:DYK template - an area where more hands with the tools are always needed." This mismatch makes me wonder the candidate fully discussed with Pedro. The "sensible sig" mention is also another screwball.--Caspian blue 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ahh, okay. I thought you meant that decl said he wanted to work there. Well, as I read it, Pedro just said where decl works currently, not saying where he will be working. That's the candidate's job to do imho - the nominators can only reflect on previous contributions, not predict future ones. Regards SoWhy 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Why should it be discussed? Do you think RFA's require some deep level of co-ordination to make nominator statements agree with the candidates answers to the questions? I for one would find that deeply concerning. Secondly, why is "Sensible Sig" a screwball? It is a sensible signature in that is adheres to WP:SIG - which is more than some current adminstrators signatures do. Pedro :  Chat  19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks to Caspian for investigating. I think Pedro needs to clarify his nom statement. These mistakes happen.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Delighted to clarify, and thank you for notifying me. This reminds me of my second RFA and the nomination comments by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) regarding my AFD work. I'd made many an AFD contribution yet never closed one as a non-admin. Ryan felt that I had enough general experience to "up my game". This is the same here. No-one makes 80+ edits to a page without getting pretty clued up on how the page works (well except maybe the WT:RFA page ! Heh!) I'm strongly of the opinion (as per the opening lines of my nom) that although decletype has only been highly active for 4/5 months he's clearly been around getting the hang of things - hence my link to WP:CLUE. If he doesn't want to work on the mechanics of DYK then good for him - articles are the key after all - but I felt and feel that he would no doubt be highly competent there. As I stated above to Caspian I am very against nominators and candidates working together in respect of nominaors statements and the candidates answers. Where I think decletype may be a great asset does not mean decletype must go forth and work there. And for the record I've closed maybe a dozen AFD's since my RFA - Sorry Ryan!! Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

   Yes mea culpa, I mean talk not the template itself - although to be fair that should be reasonably clear cut, as non admins can't edit the template - and that's why we have this RFA! Pedro :  Chat  19:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose, per Mr.Z-man. Nakon 23:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Moving to weak support. Tan | 39 15:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC) High-clout nominations, but I can't support with that answer to Q6. If an article is clearly inappropriate, you delete it. What the article is tagged means little to me when I delete a CSD article; I will enter my own deletion rationale. Wikipedia's credibility suffers if you let it linger on a technicality. I like people who will interpret policy and guidelines in Wikipedia's best interests - which isn't always the strict interpretation. Tan | 39 14:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Too much fence-sitting in questions. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I've thought about which way to go long and hard, and I still can't decide. A part of me feels that since I asked such a difficult question that I myself, at this stage, would struggle to answer, I feel that I shouldn't oppose. However, I do feel that administrators are elected because after going through RFA, they have proven to the community that we can trust their judgment, so I feel that when in doubt, administrators should use their judgment rather than worrying too much about whether it fits within a certain rulebook that they have to follow. I feel that admins should use common sense. For example, while an article may not fit a certain speedy criteria, if it's clearly a problematic article, that while doesn't meet a CSD criteria, clearly needs deletion and would be deleted if it were to go to AFD, then isn't it more effective to simply delete it? Some may disagree, and say that process must be followed, but process can be a thorn in the side at times. I'm not saying all admins should start breaking policy, or speedying articles that clearly should go through AFD, but admins are given some leeway. We call it discretion, and I feel that you wouldn't use it. Many of the above editors have commented that you have clue, and I agree. My advice, if this RFA does pass, would be to use it. So..yeah. I can't support because of my above concerns, however I feel it would be hypocritical to oppose...which leaves me here, I guess. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral I don't see anything particularly convincing one way or the other at this point. Don't see any need for him to have admin tools. I have not had experience with this editor. Without a clear reason to support and without a clear reason to oppose, I guess that makes me neutral. Drawn Some (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.