Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Morbidthoughts

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

Morbidthoughts

FINAL (14/29/10); Ended 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC); Withdrawn by canidate[1] - Icewedge (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs) - Originally known as Vinh1313 until changing his name in July 2008, Morbidthoughts has been editing Wikipedia for nearly a year. Having known him for much of this time, I know that his relatively low edit count of around 2,600 does not fairly indicate his level of policy and guideline knowledge. He doesn't have a load of FAs or AIV reports, but it's the comments he makes during discussions that prove his suitability for adminship. His contributions to AfD discussions, mainly specialising in pornstar articles, have been excellent; he gives fair and rational opinions without an inclusionist or deletionist slant, and thoroughly researches the availability of sources on a subject before voting, which often leads to the significant improvement of articles, eg. here, here. His sensible approach to AfD and his knowledge of the relevant guidelines convince me that he is well qualified to close AfD discussions. His article works consists mainly of WikiGnome activities on pornstar articles, such as adding bits of info, reverting vandalism, adding photos, and removing content per WP:BLP, which his strong knowledge of can be seen from various discussions on his talk page. Therefore, being able to occasionally protect a page or reverse a page move would be of use to him. Morbidthoughts is a mature, civil and intellegent user who I'm sure would use the tools wisely. Epbr123 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination and would like to thank the nominator and the reviewers for considering me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear a choir and a very large lady is breathing down my neck so I'd like to withdraw from consideration. Thanks for taking the time to give your comments. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: 1. Intervention against vandalism 2. Copyright problems 3. Candidates for speedy deletion

I am especially interested specifically in intervening against BLP-related vandalism. I would also use my legal and photography background to help out with reviewing copyright issues regarding images including those that are candidates for speedy deletion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

A: My best contributions have been in the pornography-related subject area of wikipedia. I scrutinize every article I come across to make sure it complies with WP:V and W:BLP (when applicable) because of the sparse independent reliable sources available that covers the subject. I edit mostly in pornography-related articles because I know a lot about the subject. The available knowledge on the internet tend to be sensationalistic and many people assume that if something is repeated enough on the internet (without regard to RS) it must be true. Even though I know a lot about the subject, as Epbr123 noted, I do not hesitate to research further any issue when there are any WP:V or notability concerns with an article. I also plan to expand my editing (and scrutiny) into other fields of interest such as basketball and boxing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally most proud of transforming the AVN article from a promo piece by the company to this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

A: No other users have caused me stress, but I have been involved with conflicts over enforcing WP:BLP and WP:V in the pornography articles. The users I have come in conflict with substitute personal analysis and opinions into articles when there are no reliable sources to support their additions. Some are just stubborn in continuing to add the content despite being warned not to. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Dekkappai

4. In this edit a user has "Removed dead links from refs and sources", leaving nearly the entire text of the article-- a biography of a living person with controversial statements-- unsourced. The dead links are all from Mainichi Shimbun, one of the major news sources in Japan. In spite of any disclaimers originally appended to the columns, and outrage from Japanese Internet forums, these were articles translated from publications owned by the company. I know they existed, because I provided them. But now a formerly well-sourced article on a Japanese subject could now be seen as a subject for AfD. In light of your statement below-- "I am skeptical when someone claims that reliable sources exist and then fails to provide me reliable citations verifying the notability claim and instead claim the notability guidelines are biased"-- what are your feelings on this?

I don't agree with removing citations simply because they are dead links (unless they can be replaced with a still active link). I will presume they are legitimate pointers to reliable sources that have gone dead. The only exception is when I know the source itself is not reliable from the past (like if it was a self published blog with no editorial oversight or a vendor site like Amazon). If the citation was removed, I would encourage the original author to reinstate them without the link but with a citation of at least the author, title, date, and publisher with a deadlink tag so that someone can verify them non-electronically. I'm not going to personally challenge a citation that I don't have the ability to verify especially when there is someone else that can Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but suppose for a minute that I had not shown you the evidence of this particular sourcing, but that you now understand the subject to be notable-- having been the subject of multiple, mainstream, reliable articles. Suppose the original author is no longer a contributor, and not watching the page. Suppose that some time from now, someone removes this now unsourced material, leaving the article basically a stub with some database listings. Now, suppose that you see this article listed at AfD. You know that the subject is notable in Japan, and that sourcing on the article must exist, yet you search and there is none to be found on the Internet, and you don't have time or money for a trip to Japan to research old entertainment columns. At the AfD, state that you know the article to be notable in Japan, you research as much as you can, but can find little, and the article is deleted. Meanwhile far less-notable U.S. subjects survive because they are far easier to source, and have a far greater number of editors who are interested in working on and saving the articles. All the supposing aside, this type of thing occurs daily at Wikipedia-- even extremely notable, award-winning foreign films and TV shows constantly show up at AfD. I see a notable Japanese subject was just "speedied" by two editors who show no evidence of having done any research, or any knowledge of Japanese subjects. Do you think this is the way "notability" and deletion should work in these cases? Do you see anything wrong with this? And if I, as an editor with specialized knowledge and interests, come here to contribute content, not to squabble over guideline and policy criteria, become frustrated enough to leave Wikipedia, do you think these rules are, in the long run, being used for the good or the harm of the project? (I'm not asking all this just to be a smart-ass, by the way, I'm considering removing my "Oppose".) Dekkappai (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If I had not seen any evidence of sourcing (and I just mean citations), then I wouldn't presume a subject to be notable. Now if I learn the subject is notable through independent research, then of course I would put the fruits of that research in if it's not there. If I don't think I am able to do that kind of research, then I put the notability tag and lack of sourcing tags up. Speedies (CSD A7s) are different in that the article has to put some claim of significance or importance that doesn't need to be sourced. Due to the lesson learned in not comprehending an Erotic Cinderella is an award in the Chihiro Hasegawa speedy, I am much more liberal in interpreting the claims and don't like to speedy tag articles. Articles should not be speedied simply because they don't include reliable sources. If the two editors ignored or miscomprehend the claim, then they were wrong to speedy tag it just like I was wrong to try to speedy Hasegawa. I believe wikipedia policies and procedures are sound in theory but flawed in practice when multiple people have different standards of applying them and some just ignore them altogether. I believe a loss of good editors with specialised knowledge is a loss to wikipedia, but I think proper application of policies and procedure strengthens the encyclopedia. If they keep being misapplied and drive good editors away, then they are harmful in the long run and have to be re-reviewed in the proper channels. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from RyanLupin (talk)

5. In what situation would you administer a cool-down block. This question is entirely optional.

A. I assume you mean a 24 hour block to let the user cool down and think about what he did. The only scenarios I envision administering a cool-down block is if the person was repeatedly warned for violating policy like WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL or if he violated 3RR in the course of edit warring with someone else. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification. I don't believe in blocking someone solely to cool them down but the block is also supposed to prevent disruptions due to violations of wikipedia policy. The cool-down is an incidental effect, hopefully. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Gnangarra

6. In this comment you say ..Wikipedia is biased toward verification against online sources compared to offline sources... what policy says that paper sources are unreliable and that online should be used in preference?

A. I don't think the bias is based in policy. Just in practice. I believe people prefer to verify things for themselves easily and quickly and express skepticism over sources they can't verify themselves. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from GO-PCHS-NJROTC

7. If one of your real life enemies came on Wikipedia and inserted a test edit onto your favorite article, how would you react?

A If it's just a test edit, I would recuse myself so that there is no seeming conflict of interest and another person will likely revert him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions from GlassCobra

8. This is normally Xenocidic's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. Well, I will assume good faith and will consider the user's apology sincere. I believe most outright vandalism to be due to a lack of maturity and that it is possible for a former vandal to contribute in a positive manner in the future. Since I made the weeklong second block in the scenario, I would reduce the length of the block to two days and send him the welcome to wikipedia template his talk page so that he can learn how to contribute in a positive manner before the block ended. I would also caution him that due to his history, administrators may respond to a future act of vandalism with a lengthy block without a warning. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

9. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. If a respected user or admin asked me to resign or run for reconfirmation due to what they feel is any abuse/reckless use of powers by me or actions that cause a loss of trust from other editors, I would do it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

10. Please give a precise explanation of what you believe WP:BLP means. When should one ignore the policy?

A. I believe that BLP means that biographies must be written conservatively with respect to the person's privacy and strictly adhere to all of the wikipedia content policies. Any material that is contentious and unsourced should be removed immediately without any discussion. The purpose of the policy is to for wikipedia itself to do no harm to its living subjects and I can't imagine a scenario where one should ignore the policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

11. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?

A. Admins should not remove blocks that were done in good faith by other administrators without discussing it with them. I intend to adhere to this policy. I would not remove another admin's block if I disagree with it, discuss why I disagree with the block with the other admin, and would get feedback from the admin noticeboard if the discussion was not resolved. If the block was made in seeming error, I would still discuss the issue to confirm if there was an error. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Autumn Fall

12. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: Please see my answer to question 8. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

13. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: In that nutshell, verifiability. Consensus can change and one that goes against policy like WP:V is a case where a specific consensus (in the article) does not override the general consensus behind policy. I would add my opinion to the article talk page to oppose the specific second consensus based on WP:V and remind them about WP:BITE. I would explain to the newbie about the issues going on and assure him that his edits are not permanently lost on wikipedia. I would remove the unverified second consensus edits but not reinstate the newbie edits before studying why it went against consensus and if that first consensus is based on other wikipedia policy like WP:BLP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

14. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Yes, there was a user who didn't understand why several editors (including I) were removing links to his website that he put in.[2] After several rounds of discussion that included an incidental in-person meeting with one of his agents/employees[3], he followed my suggestions and continues to contribute to wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

15. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: It's hard to predict but I think my current activities would continue. I would continue to prevent drive-by vandalism through reverts and verify existing content in articles. I would continue adding content to articles that I am interested in academically. I think I would simply supplement my current activity with the administrative activities. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Morbidthoughts's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Morbidthoughts: Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

There were two votes before transclusion before I figured out the process hours later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to withdraw or ask to be be withdrawn when the tally is at 12/25/8 in recognition of this Christmas. Heh. This has been a learning experience for me. When Epbr first told me I was qualified to be an admin and would nominate me if I was willing, I was taken by surprise because it was a scenario I had never thought about. It was only when a second admin supported the idea a month later, did I decide, "oh okay, maybe I should". I didn't know much about the RfA process which probably showed when fumbling around the transclusion of the page and I didn't know that people who participated in admin-related whitespace were not all admins. I answered the questions as honestly as I could without realising I could study for them like a test. I hope my inexperience has not reflected badly on the people that nominated and supported me in this process. Thanks. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - I've found Morbidthoughts to have grown into a solid editor with a firm grasp of the various Wiki-related policies; one small example of this which I can think off the top of my head can be seen here. Tabercil (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Moral support on behalf of the CCFU. user:Everyme 17:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   No deal-breakers in sight, therefore changing to regular support. user:Everyme 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Support per nom. Too early for moral supports. Epbr123 (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   Shouldn't that be as nom? user:Everyme 20:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Agree that it's too early for 'moral' anything. I reviewed Morbidthoughts' contributions and found nothing of concern, and find the responses to questions completely satisfactory. S/he seems to be willing to learn and has a good attitude, and on this very page has made several lengthy, in-depth responses to concerns, which I think shows that s/he can and will communicate in the future. I don't find anything brought up by the opposers to be a problem in the slightest. naerii 18:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Support I don't think he would do any harm with the tools; the opposes simply don't make sense to me, except for the first one. He seems like a reasonable person. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support The candidate communicates well, and from what I've seen remains civil despite specialising in a controversial area. Having looked through some recent contributions and the talk page I see thoughtful edits and clear communication with a proper concern about verifiability and other Bio issues. But the clincher for me is the way that Morbidthoughts has defended Wikipedia against both the censorious and their opposites. ϢereSpielChequers 12:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - changed from neutral, see comment in that section. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - I see no reason not to. The cool down block question is just a dumb trick question to trip up people who don't regularly participate in RfAs. --T-rex 22:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   Comment I don't see it as a "dumb trick question to trip up people who don't regularly participate in RfAs" at all. WP:BLOCK has its own section for CDBs so for someone who wants to be an admin should be familiar with that page. If they haven't heard of a CDB then they haven't read the blocking policy and shouldn't be an admin. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: And personally, I think the candidates should have experience here at RfA, so I don't think the question is inappropriate at all. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   Why on earth? It is completely irrelevant to whether they will be a good admin. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 15:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   I say this because unless somebody has seen the question repeatedly on RfA or have read WP:COOLDOWN within the last week, it is unreasonable to expect an editor to pick up on the loaded words "cool-down", and instead (as Morbidthoughts did) give a perfectly valid answer about 24 hour blocks. Even then Morbidthought states that the block would be "for violating policy like WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL or ... edit warring", which are all perfectly acceptable reasons to block. --T-rex 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Support. I believe this user is ready for adminship. I have no problem supporting a user who has 2,600 edits. 2,000 well placed edits are worth 10,000 robotic ones. Malinaccier (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - I only occasionally participate at RFAs - usually only if I see a name I recognize or one, like this one, that seems to be garnering a lot of opposition. In the latter case, I generally review it, decide that the likely SNOWBALL or NOTYET close will be well-deserved, and don't bother to add my thoughts. Here, though, I'm completely mystified as to why this RFA is failing this badly. Having reviewed the editor's contributions and responses to questions (including question 5), I think he's ready for the mop. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Per Sarcasticidealist (though only the second part, obviously) Majorly ^talk 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Answer to Q5 and Q6 are perfectly acceptable. As T-rex noted, the CDB is a ridiculous trick question, and it is pathetic that this RfA is failing because of it. Q6 is a good question; however, opposing for the answer is similarly silly. It's obvious that WP has a blatant online source bias, our extreme diversity in terms of age and geolocation makes it nearly impossible to verify the vast majority of offline sources. How is that at all something to quarrel over? Also, answers to my questions were satisfactory, this user has clue and knows policy. GlassCobra 23:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Support I trust him with the tools. Q6 doesn't bother me at all. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support I am afraid that this RfA is going to fail, and that is in my view regrettable, given that the majority of the oppose !votes appear to made on the basis of what is in fact a perfectly good answer to Q5. Please apply again after a wait of 2-3 months.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose The editor works primarily in the subject of pornography, and generally does a good job in that difficult category. However, in edits and discussions he has shown a persistently myopic U.S./Anglo-centric outlook. One of the stated reasons he is seeking Adminship is the ability to "Speedy delete" articles, yet here he attempted to "Speedy delete" an article on an award-winning Japanese subject within four days of its creation because of "No indication of importance/significance." Unlike the U.S., winning awards in the Japanese industry is very scarce and even harder to to verify. The award was mentioned in the article at the time the editor tagged it, though presented in less-than-perfect English (I assume the creator of the article was not a native speaker). But rather than tag the article for sourcing and/or notability, he would have deleted it. In my own work in the Japanese erotic cinema, I have found that the Wikipedia porn-bio criteria are-- understandably-- tilted towards the U.S. industry and U.S. porn-culture. These guidelines can still work fine if they are used as indicated-- to be interpreted with common sense. Common sense should tell us that subjects from an entirely different culture and industry need to be looked at with some degree of understanding for those differences. The biggest obstacle to working on the Japanese subjects is the knowledge that good, reliable sourcing exists-- often in much greater quality and quantity than comparable U.S. subjects-- but that sourcing is unavailable, or extremely difficult to obtain for anyone outside of Japan. The many news articles which are run in mainstream media on these subjects are put in the Internet rarely, and taken down and removed from archives quickly. During this discussion, Morbidthoughts was shown clear evidence that "reliable" sourcing on Japanese subjects exists, but is often intentionally kept from outsider eyes. This was a case in which a major Japanese newspaper-- printed in English-- had a column which occasionally translated articles on Japanese erotic entertainment which are readily available in the mainstream print press in Japan. The column was shut down due to complaints that it "embarrased" the Japanese, and all evidence of the column was wiped clean from the Internet. This case showed the common practise of removing news articles not only from the site archives, but also preventing the Internet Archive from saving it. Yet Morbidthoughts-- expert editor in pornography-- showed no concern over this evidence of loss of one of the very few "reliable' English-language sources on the Japanese industry, commenting blithely that those old, now useless, links could be kept at articles because editors are supposed to "assume good faith that the article existed at one time". The editor indicates a refusal to understand that this situation gives validity to my point, to which he has persistently refused to give any credence: Such sourcing existed online, but is now completely unsearchable and uncitable to an editor wishing to work in the Japanese field. It still exists in print... but only in old newspapers in Japan. Morbidthoughts showed, and continues to show contempt for arguments for a common-sense interpretation of notability criteria for the very different Japanese culture and industry by characterizing them as a "Chewbacca Defense". When questioned on insulting characterization of my views here, he engaged in verbal hocus-pocus and Wiki-lawyer-speak to weasel out of any admission that his words could have caused offense. The type of circular argument in which the editor engages here seems designed only to wear the opposition down rather than, not to work with fellow editors to resolve conflicts-- essential qualities for a Wikipedia Admin. This exchange took place in January, but because of the editor's small edit-count, we don't have much other evidence of how he will act in a conflict-- except for the exchange in June (linked above) which shows that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, he has not changed his outlook, nor his defense of his original statement. Wikipedia is a volunteer project which depends on good will and making its contributors feel valued and welcomed. Promotion to Adminship of editors who do not hide their biases and prefer to err on the side of Deletion rather than Improvement give an extremely negative impression to fellow editors, resulting not only in the loss of content, but the loss of productive editors. I hope he continues his good work in the subject of pornography, but feel that he does not need Amin tools to do this, and that his promotion, in light of the above, sends a very bad message to editors working on non-U.S. subjects. Dekkappai (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I apply WP:V to claims of notability also: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The person who adds or restores content bears the burden of evidence of verifying it to reliable sources. I am skeptical when someone claims that reliable sources exist and then fails to provide me reliable citations verifying the notability claim and instead claim the notability guidelines are biased. Example What you believe is a reliable source, other people dispute. For example, about your "loss of one of the very few 'reliable' English-language sources on the Japanese industry", another user described the source as "was written by sex maniac ausie called Ryan O'Connell, based on the Japanese tabloid magazines such as Spa!, Shukan Jitsuwa, Shukan Gendai, Asahi Geino, etc.. with a bit of extra spices put by Ryan O'Connel, and this waiwai section was not reviewed by The Mainichi executives at all so The Mainich says that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENTS IN WAIWAI at all." Cultural bias or not, if the waiwai is under no editorial oversight and its contents are disclaimed by the umbrella Mainichi (which is a major newspaper and presumedly an RS), then it is not a reliable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  Please, this RfA is not about me, my views, or my edits-- which are history now anyway. The rampant pro-deletion, anti-contributor, and Anglo-centric biases which I have seen taking over here at Wikipedia finally drove me away from contributing, and I have made this clear at my own userpage, so there is no need for you to attempt to shift the subject to me. It does seem to me that if were really interested in the good of Wikipedia's coverage of erotic entertainment, that you would welcome an editor who has attempted to improve the extremely difficult Japanese subjects. Take a look at the state of the category before I started working on them and where they are today. Yes, this Japanese editor opposed the Mainichi column-- This Japanese editor was part of the Japanese internet group which shut it down. I found the discussion thread, in Japanese, and could hunt it down and link it here, if this had anything to do with your RfA, which it does not. Their personal smearing of Ryann Connell is also irrelevant to this discussion. The articles he translated to which they objected were of an entirely different nature than the ones on the erotic entertainment industry-- which he also sometimes translated. But back to your RfA: You make my point for me. It is well known by anyone who has been in Japan that Japanese erotic entertainers have much higher mainstream profiles than their U.S. counterparts. Let's look at some sourcing: In 1994 it was reported that "approximately 14,000 "adult" videos were being made yearly in Japan compared with some 2500 in the U.S."[4]. Also, "In addition to the influence of pornography on mainstream cinema, the line between pornography and family entertainment, such as daytime television, is blurred. It is not uncommon in Japan for a waning female television star or singer to feature in pornographic videos. Similarly, there are women actors from pornographic videos who move into daytime television."[5] And further, "By the late 1970s the production of pink eiga together with Roman Porno amounted to more than 70% of annual Japanese film production."[6] And finally, "The market for pornographic videos is worth Y400 billion annually, accounting for around 30 percent of [Japan]’s video rentals."[7] Now, in spite of all this evidence of the high profile such entertainers have in Japanese culture, you would have us stick to guidelines which insure that non-U.S. subjects face charges of "non-notability", while much less-notable U.S. entertainers squeak by because their scant sourcing is easily available, and in English. This is a recipe for bias at Wikipedia, which is something I feel an Admin should work against, not for. Dekkappai (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  I do appreciate your efforts to improve the extremely difficult Japanese subjects. I understand your arguments for general verification of subjects but I believe that specific verification is necessary or we run afoul of the prohibition against original research. If there is a bias in the system, I believe as an online resource, Wikipedia is biased toward verification against online sources compared to offline sources. However, suggestions for ways that guidelines and policies can be improved should be done at their respective talk pages; not as a consistent defense during the AFDs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose per question 5. --Cameron* 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   There's something wrong with blocking people who have repeatedly been warned for civility, personal attacks and/or violating 3RR? naerii 16:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   I agree. WP:BLOCK says you shouldn't use cool-down blocks solely to calm down a user, but there's no reason why you can't block someone when faced with incivility, personal attacks or 3RR. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   RyanLupin seems to have the same concern. His answer reflects my views exactly. This isn't the only reason for my oppose though, anyway. I am also worried about the lack of edits in the project space therefore lack of policy knowledge. --Cameron* 17:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   Then I suggest you to modify and clarify your reason because if you say "per question 5", that implies you're unsatisfied with only question 5. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose due to limited familiarity with Wikipedia policies and processes, as evidenced by low level of Wikipedia-namespace contributions. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose Answer to Q5 was a killer.--LAAFan 16:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   See the supports from Sarcasticidealist and myself. Please be more specific with your reasoning. GlassCobra 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose sorry, not happy with question 5. Users may be blocked for incivility and violations of 3RR but you never impose a cool down block as this will only inflame the situation. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   Let me see if I follow the logic here

   Morbidthoughts thinks of a cool-down block as a block given for multiple instances of incivility or personal attacks, and/or violations of 3RR

   A policy somewhere says that cool-down blocks are bad

   Therefore, blocking for incivility, personal attacks, or 3RR must be bad.

   Y/N? naerii 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   No. Morbidthoughts didn't know what a cool down block was. That's not a crime in itself. However he didn't find out what it meant prior to answering. Axl (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   I assume you mean a 24 hour block to let the user cool down and think about what he did. naerii 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   How could he have looked it up if he was unaware that "cool down block" was a specific terminology? Probably the only people who know that are RfA regulars. Epbr123 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   He should have reviewed the blocking policy. If he doesn't know enough about Wikipedia to realise this and find the blocking policy, then regretfully he is not yet ready for adminship. Axl (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   It's just common sense that you shouldn't block someone to let them calm down. However, in less obvious situations, I'm sure he would review the policy. Epbr123 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   His answer to the question suggests to me that he is unfamiliar with the blocking policy. This doesn't inspire much confidence especially if he wants to work at AIV —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   Unpopular CommentIf it's 'common sense' that cooldown blocks are not allowed, why do some current administrators blatantly do it? They even specifically use the terminology. "24 hour cooldown block for continued incivility towards other editors." by a Hemlock Martinis, and, "nasty personal attacks - cool down and come back," by one Doc Glasgow. This practice of issuing or advocating cool down blocks has also been blatntly used by Alison, Netsnipe, Jmlk17, Chrislk02, Tawker, Cyde... do I really need to keep going? I do think cool-down blocks are unacceptable, but admins need to practice what they preach and stop allowing those with the tools to do it anyway because they are almost untouchable for sanction. SashaNein (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   The point of the "no cool down blocks" rule is that at admin shouldn't block a user who is angry and therefore might do something wrong. To be fair to the admins you mentioned, the users they blocked had probably already done something wrong and had been warned for it. Epbr123 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   This is a stupid question which is going to keep coming up until we stop quizzing people on goofy jargon and resume speaking in plain english. See my previous comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Today's question about puzzling stuff in RfA. — CharlotteWebb 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose The nomination is compelling, but he simply doesn't have enough edits under his belt for me to feel comfortable giving him access to the tools. Plus, cool down blocks, always a bad idea. A more experienced editor would know that. AniMate 16:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose due to limited familiarity with Wikipedia policies and processes, as evidenced by low level of Wikipedia-namespace contributions. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)(Duplicate with above — Coren ^(talk) 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

6. Oppose since this user does not meet my criteria for adminship for several reasons. I don't think you're active enough on the project, with between 200-300 edits per month on average. For someone who wants to work at WP:AIV, the lack of AIV reports mentioned by your nominator worries me. Whilst trying to review your contributions, particularly regarding article work (which is a big area for me), I couldn't do so accurately without looking at every single diff because you have missed many edit summaries. In addition, I feel a sincere uncertainty about this candidate. I may move to neutral or support in the near future pending answers to questions that will come up. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Most vandalism I come across, I just revert and give warnings. Rarely, the vandalism I encounter is persistent enough that necessitates admin intervention. Even then I ask an admin I already know to look at the issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Morbidthoughts has provided valuable contributions in the Pornography project. However he would benefit from a lot more experience, both in AFDs and discussions in general prior to adminship. [Also, as others noted, Morbidthoughts didn't understand the meaning of "cool down block". This points towards a general lack of knowledge of admin-related issues.] Axl (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Doesn't meet my criteria. Shouldn't have mentioned AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   So would you have supported if he hadn't mentioned AIV? naerii 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   Yes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   Morbidthoughts actually mentioned "intervention against vandalism" rather than "AIV". As Morbidthoughts has said in reply to Cyclonenim, he only intends to block vandals on rare occassions. Epbr123 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   Semantics. The candidate should have had the sense to not mention an administrative area that they have no experience in. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose per lack of experience in admin areas he wants to work in the most. No experience in AIV, very little experience in CSD (one in last 500). Anglo-American biased admins are exactly why Wikipedia is often criticized for systemic bias. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Per lack of significant experience. No substantial article work. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose; this admin hopeful's answer to question three indicates that (s)he has less than average experience with conflict, and admins see conflict and disagreement on a regular basis. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    Weak oppose for now because this Wikipedian often neglects to use edit summaries, and I don't think (s)he is quite ready to receive the tools, but this may change if and when my question is answered. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    Comment - I would like to improve on this. Studying the contributions without the summaries, the majority seems to be when I am engaging in a direct discussion on a talk page or a project page. Right now, it's still awkward for me to remember to provide a summary for a response even if it's just "response". The other time is when I am (re)writing content section by section using multiple edits, I provide an edit summary for the first and last edit and neglect to provide the in-between. I'm not sure why I even use multiple edits rather than just one edit beyond the neurotic fear of saving something before the changes get accidentally lost or conflict with another person trying to edit at the same time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose Per Q5. America69 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    See the supports from Sarcasticidealist and myself. Please be more specific with your reasoning. GlassCobra 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose- I hate to join in on the pile-on, but the answer to Q5, and some of the comments above prevent me from supporting. PerfectProposal 00:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose as per question 6. Lack of understanding of WP:V many articles use paper published sources to establish notability because they arent available online doesnt make them unreliable. Gnangarra 00:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    Comment I don't believe paper sources are inherently unreliable. I think many online editors seem to favour online sources, ignoring WP:V. That's the bias in practice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    In the above you maintain the argument that because the sources arent online they arent unrelailable specifically I do appreciate your efforts to improve the extremely difficult Japanese subjects. I understand your arguments for general verification of subjects but I believe that specific verification is necessary or we run afoul of the prohibition against original research that is the issue WP:V doesnt say the source needs to be online but you insist on it, I dont/cant trust your judgement with the tools because of this. Gnangarra 02:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    Comment No... when I talk compare about general verification versus specific verification, I'm not talking about online vs. offline. Deppakai provided citations or evidence that in general japanese porn stars are likely to be more notable than american porn stars supported by academic research. However, I need specific evidence of that specific japanese porn star being notable. If I have to rely on that general premise to presume that the specific actress is notable, I think that is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose - Does not show a fair understanding of WP:BLOCK or WP:V; believes offline sources are inferior because they can not be immediately verified and advocates practices that are contrary to the blocking policy. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    Comment As the editor to whom the online/offline source comment was directed, I have to say my interpretation of the statement was different from the one being used to oppose. I understood Morbidthoughts to mean that Wikipedia (i.e., Wikipedian editors) are biased towards using online sourcing, since Wikipedia is an online project. This is partly because, as an online project, it is much easier to verify online sourcing. (It's also because, working online while editing at Wikipedia, online sourcing is easier to find and use in the first place.) I do not think Morbidthoughts meant to imply offline sourcing was inferior. I think he was just stating the situation. Dekkappai (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose per Q5, sorry. --Winger84 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    See the supports from Sarcasticidealist and myself. Please be more specific with your reasoning. GlassCobra 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose per Q5 and Wisdom89.--KojiDude ^(C) 15:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    See the supports from Sarcasticidealist and myself. Please be more specific with your reasoning on opposing per Q5. GlassCobra 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose for now as you don't fill me with confidence at the moment. I don't see any harm in you getting more experience in areas related to administration. Unfortunately it seems that you haven't learned the "right answer" to the CDB question, and unfortunately came out looking a bit naive. I suggest spending some time at RfA just so you can jump through the hoops, and if coupled with some more experience, I don't just not object to you running again, I really hope you do, cause I recon you could make a good one. All the best! - Toon⁰⁵ 21:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Weak Oppose Meh. He looks like a good guy, and I doubt he would abuse the tools, but he doesn't have the level of knowledge and judgment I usually see in good RfA candidates. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Weak Oppose - seems like an uncommon guy, which are always nice to see on Wikipedia. Lack of edit summaries usage caught my eye, lack of AIV disclosure was noble and honest. Basically, I can see this user to be a good admin later on, just not right now. I understand why the user wouldn't know what cool-down block is prior to this RfA, but I hope now he does. I remember all of the oppose votes I got on my first RfA and I had over 4000+ edits. I'd advise Morbidthoughts to do some more vandal fighting, new page patrols (they're fun!! :D), more AfD participation, and provide some good feedback to the more controversial subjects on Wikipedia to help settle disputes. Oh did I mention admin coaching? (Moral Support for the user, I'm sure every editor who's on RfA goes through enough scrutiny for them not to get some decent moral support.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Clearly in need of more experience. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Per Q5 cannot support Lajolla2009 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    See the supports from Sarcasticidealist and myself. Please be more specific with your reasoning. GlassCobra 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

23. Oppose per stating the candidate would use cool-down blocks in question 5. It says at WP:CDB, "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should never be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." That speaks for itself, cool-down blocks should never be used, and the candidate says s/he would use them in certain situations. Also, you do have a rather low edit summary usage. Would like to see edit summaries used more. -- RyRy (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    At no point did he say he'd block someone solely to cool them down. - Bobet 09:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    "I assume you mean a 24 hour block to let the user cool down and think about what he did." —— RyanLupin • (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    "... if the person was repeatedly warned for violating policy like WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL" Epbr123 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    It seems you're misunderstanding the whole cool-down-block issue. The policy regarding it is only in place because certain admins seemed to lack the common sense not to block people who weren't being disruptive in any way. The candidate's answer indicates he understands when someone should or shouldn't be blocked and the fact he's failing this rfa (partially) because of semantics is a disgrace. Memorizing random jargon doesn't make anyone a good admin. - Bobet 12:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

24. Oppose Given the low edit count and the question answers, I would suggest Morbid gain a bit of experience with policy before running again, but other than that, he looks like a good future candidate. MBisanz ^talk 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Sorry, does not meet my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Not enough experience. Afd contributions are helpful, but there are more things to RFA than Afd contribs. —L.Sunday ^Scribe 00:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Lacks other RFA qualifications Lajolla2009 (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Indent as double !vote. user:Everyme 09:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

27. Oppose - Although the candidate has little experience in the admin related areas he wishes to work in, I am also concerned about the response to some questions, but from a different angle. Admins need to be careful when conducting admin related tasks, but in addition to this they must be clear and unambiguous in their communication, especially when working in an area they are not familiar with. The confusion surrounding Q3 (vandalism types) and Q5 (cool down blocks) makes me feel that although his actions may or may not be solid, his rationales and reasoning might well be weak. This might be do to a misunderstanding or knowledge gap, or it might be due to an incomplete, confusing or ambiguous statement. I would urge the candidate to consider improving the clarity and comprehensiveness of what they write, at which point I would be happy to support. Many thanks, Gazimoff 11:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose - Per Q5.  Asenine  17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose, but only for now. This user is certainly "on the right track" (I say that without the intent of patronising the candidate), but I don't see enough experience in areas directly pertinent to adminship to offer my support here. As stated, his work so far has been admirable, and, if he keeps it up and involves himself more in adminship related areas and thereby demonstrates in a pragmatic sense his knowledge of attached policy, I would certainly be looking to place my signature in the "support" section in a few months. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral; sorry— the rate of editing isn't an issue for me, but the quantity is. Your contributions seem to be of a high quality, but I think you need more experience before I would trust you with the mop. — Coren ^(talk) 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral - I don't want to pile up at the oppose section, but I believe you need more experience on admin-related areas. Macy 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Changing to Neutral. I was hoping to get some statement of understanding from the candidate at how the guidelines, when followed without common-sense interpretation, lead to the unnecessary loss of good contributions, and how this leads to a sense of frustration and futility among contributors to articles on non-traditional subjects. The candidate seems to prefer to stick to the "rules" regardless of whether good content and good contributors are lost in the process. But this seems to be current Wiki-consensus. I actually find his disagreement with Wiki-blocking rules to be encouraging. Clearly destructive, incivil and arrogant editors are too often allowed to continue and prosper here. At least one such editor has even played the game well enough to gain Adminship. In this case, the editor was desysopped, yet continue disrupting repeatedly to this day when he should have been perma-blocked long ago (in my opinion). This leniency towards disruptive behavior coupled with an overly harsh and skeptical view of contributions outside of the mainstream, also, I feel, leads to the loss of good editors. It would be petty and arbitrary to oppose Morbidthoughts' Adminship because I personally think the guidelines which he closely follows have gone beyond the point of being helpful "guides" they are meant to be when applied equally to all subjects. But I can neither with a clear conscience support a candidate who supports guidelines with which I have such strong disagreement. Morbidthoughts: Don't let the growing "Oppose" section discourage you. Keep working on articles (though this has really has very little to do with winning an AfD, it does make a good Admin in my book), polish up the stock answers-- Your nominator can help you here, I'm sure :-) -- and I'm sure you'll breeze through a second RfA with flying colors. Dekkappai (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral to avoid piling on the oppose section. -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   You shot yourself in the foot. Better luck next time. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

   To clarify my position here (as it has been questioned off-wiki) - I do not believe your answer to Q5 was taken from the page on the subject. By this, I see that you haven't read the page (or are not willing to read the page again during an RfA), and because of this I cannot trust you to follow instructions on these pages (or similar pages, like WP:DGFA and the whole of WP:NAS), and thus I feel you may accidentally put many a foot wrong. I feel genuinely hypocritical here, and therefore I'm changing to support per your excellent contributions that many people appear to have bypassed. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Non-Pile on "Opposey" Neutral - WBOSITG says it best (edit: the first line about the foot and the shot and whatnot). Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral Your enthusiasm for the project is commendable, but I believe your RfA is a bit premature. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral - not yet.   jj137 (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral: I dont think you may abuse the tools, but I fear you dont have the level of knowledge and judgment for good admins . I am sorry. but Best wishes.. do come again after not more than 6 months -- Tinu Cherian - 12:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral - Just to avoid pile on at this point. Morbidthoughts, I think it would be best to take the constructive criticism listed in the oppose section to heart, withdraw this RfA, and come back in 4-5 months when you have a more experience. Tiptoety ^talk 03:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral IMHO, you need more edits with the same value and prove that you can expand into other topics.spider1224 19:36, 3 September 2008 (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.