Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 4

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

Slon02

Final (84/13/4); Closed as successful by ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! at 04:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Slon02 (talk · contribs) – Friends, Wikipedians and "other ones", allow me to present Slon02. Slon02 is one of our hardest working editors, spending large periods of time fighting vandals, and helping out at Articles for Creation, New Page Patrol and Articles for Deletion. Slon02 has helped out significantly with the Guild of Copy Editors and regularly participates in their backlog drives. He may not be the most prolific creator of content, but he has spent time working on creating articles, even gaining a good article regarding Renewable energy in Russia.

I do know that Slon02 has run for adminship in the past, though I believe he has matured significantly on each attempt, reaching a level I'm happy to not only support but nominate at. One example of the improvements he's made is with regards to speedy deletions, where previous concerns were raised. I believe it shows his character that he not only took this criticism on board but also worked to improve his submissions (see his CSD log) Worm^TT · (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I nominated Slon02 the last time and I'm doing it again simply because I personally trust him more than I do most current admins. In the 7,000 edits he's made since his previous RfA, Slon02 has continued his involvement in AfC, as well as the GOCE, new page patrolling, and recent changes patrolling. Particularly in the area of CSDs, his accuracy and analysis in tagging articles has greatly improved. I don't see any more reasonable obstacles for Slon02 to overcome at this point before handing him a mop. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your nominations- I accept.--Slon02 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I intend to participate in counter-vandalism, specifically in areas such as AIV, RfPP, and CSD. This would be a continuation of what I'm already doing, since I patrol new pages for CSD and, while reverting vandalism, have contact with AIV and RfPP. I've been keeping a CSD log since my last RfA.

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

A: My best contributions would be the ones that I feel have permanently improved the quality of Wikipedia- which is content creation and improvement. Although I'll be the first to admit that I haven't created as much content as many, I do feel that those are among my best contributions nonetheless. Content improvement, especially in the form of copyediting, is a place where I've been more active, and that would deserve as a spot among my "best" contributions. I'd say that my best articles are Renewable energy in Russia and Arctic policy of Russia. I've also contributed 3 articles to DYK (those two and Environmental issues in Russia). I also contribute somewhat to quality through the Wikipedia Typo Team. At the same time, I'd like to say that these comments should not be seen as me trying to diminish the value of counter-vandalism, since that protects the quality that other people worked hard to make. I've made over 200 reports to AIV, have an 80% match percentage at AfD, and vandalism reverts probably make up a majority of my edits.

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 instances of conflicts over editing on Wikipedia come to mind. Any time I experience a disagreement of any magnitude over editing, I keep in mind, and will continue to remember, that every editor here is equal and has good ideas, and that consensus is an integral part of Wikipeida.

Additional question from Crazynas

4. If you could eliminate a single process on Wikipedia, what would it be and why?

A: I've held off on answering this for a while, but even after thinking about it for an extensive period of time, I can't think of any process that I'd want to eliminate. There are ones that I feel could use improvement, like PROD and RfA, but I don't think that I'd want to remove any current process.

Additional question from Chzz

5. Are there any current Wikipedia policies or guidelines which you, personally, do not agree with? (Particularly, regarding any inclusion criteria - but any will do). Can you explain how you reconcile your own opinions when they are different to Wikipedia "rules"? In case this is unclear, I'm looking for an answer like, "I don't think we should permit non-free images, but that's no problem because... etc"

A: I've similarly delayed answering this question, and for the same reason. After very careful additional review and consideration of all policies and guidelines, I've concluded that I don't disagree with any of them, and that all of my concerns are about how they are applied by editors, not their existence. As for inclusion criteria, for CSD I must say that the same applies as before- the criteria are well written, but often not well applied. I also agree with all of the content policies. Unfortunately, since I don't disagree with any current policies or guidelines, I can't really answer the second part of your question.

Additional question from —cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)

6. If you are ever dragged into an edit war that is out of control and extremely disruptive to Wikipedia involving numerous users and numerous sides, how do you plan on going about this if you are an admin? In other words this is an edit was involving 5 or more editors. How would you solve this dilemma?

A: Given that multiple users are involved, I'd first protect the page to stop the edit war. If they are IPs or new users, it would be semiprotected- if at least one is autoconfirmed, I'd use full protection. The goal here would be to try to get the involved parties to the talk page to sort out their disagreements without disrupting Wikipedia. I'd issue warnings to everyone involved reminding them of policies against edit warring & 3RR, and I'd direct them to the talk page. Editors who clearly refuse to cooperate and go back to edit warring after protection is lifted would be blocked.

Additional question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish

7. The accuracy displayed in your CSD log is impressive. The same is not always true of other new page patrollers and, as an admin interested in CSD, you may frequently find yourself having to decline speedy deletion nominations. Which CSD criteria do you think are most likely to be misapplied? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A: I've seen CSD criteria consistently applied incorrectly. Very often editors will attempt to squeeze in articles under criteria that really don't apply, just because they don't want to take them to PROD/AfD. More often than not, G1, G2, A1 or A3 are used for these purposes. I have very rarely seen something that qualified as G1 or G2. I generally follow this guide, and feel that it is remarkably written. Those 4 criteria that I've mentioned are very often not applicable, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that they're the most common ones. G11 might be close, but I'd go for A7. I'm sure that some people confuse A7 with notability, and some probably use it as a way to delete non-notable articles quickly. I tend towards a fairly strict interpretation of the criteria, and I don't believe in applying criteria that just don't work to articles.

Nail hit fairly firmly on the head... NPP often attracts people who jump in and start tagging without having a clue of what they're doing (other than bumping up edit counts). A1 and A3 within seconds of article creation, G1 for physics articls, G11 for articles that simply present the subject in a favourable light... but yes, A7 is the most commonly misapplied in my experience. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

8. You have limited experience writing articles or discussing articles with other writers.

Details

Even your good article about Russian renewable energy, which was approved by incorruptible Fetchcomms, seems based on on-line trade, industry, and Russian-governmental sources. I don't see that you went to the library to find academic journal articles or monographs. There doesn't seem to be any discussion of geopolitical aspects of Russian renewable energy policy, either with respect to other countries or with respect to minorities; c.f. James Bay and Native Americans. There doesn't seem to be any information about downsides of "renewable energy", e.g. thermal pollution or stressors on aqualife. The prose, even in the lede, feels a bit clunky to me. I would have hoped for more from a GA.... One of your 2011 DYKs used the present tense for this 1996 document (which had no internal references to support the "statistics" quoted): Curtis, Glenn E., ed. (1996). "Environmental problems". Russia: A country study. Washington: GPO (United States Government Printing Office) for the Library of Congress. Retrieved 2011-12-13. Your citation lacked the editor, the title, the location (no big deal), the publisher, and THE YEAR. That said, I trust your nominators' judgment about your character and helpfulness.

Will you pledge to let other administrators handle editorial disputes and civility issues concerning content writers?

A. I'm not the kind of person who dives headfirst into a situation without knowing what to do. I am, however, likely to focus my work on areas where I have experience. Those areas are listed in Q1, like AIV and CSD. If a situation arises where I'm not sure about what to do, I'll ask for help. Also, thank you for your constructive criticism. I'd be the first to note that any work of mine can be improved, but I'd also note that I never forget about my work, and consistently go back and see where improvements can be made. If you have more suggestions on specific articles, I'd love to discuss them on the appropriate articles' talk pages.

Additional question from Keepscases

9. What was your rationale for adding RfA criteria to your user page last month?

A: I haven't been very active in RfA's before. In fact, I think that I only started actively !voting on them last month, when I decided that I would become active in that area. I felt that, since I was going to be active in RfA, I should develop some guidelines so that people can see my usual rationale for considering candidates.

Additional question from —cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)

10. A.) What do you think about WP:RECALL? B.)Are you open to a recall?

A: I think that it's great that so many admins have volunteered for recall, even if it's not mandatory. I strongly believe that editors who are entrusted by the community with certain additional tools should be held accountable for their actions, and that if they lose the trust of the community, they should no longer have those tools.

B: Yes. I don't have a firm criteria decided on for recall yet, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to this one.

Additional questions from Hurricanefan25 (four additional questions will be added later)

11. Say you come upon an article that reads:

"Blue Yellow Green Inc. is a company that is dedicated to research.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} It is the largest research company in Oregon, and has been awarded the ABC Award for Quality and the ZYX Award for dedication.^[1][3][7] It is criticized because it often considered smelly!!!!!"

Google only shows 1,500 hits on the subject, yet nearly all of the Google results say "BYG Inc. is the largest research company in the state of Oregon" or similar statements. The article is currently tagged as a {{db-hoax}} article. There are two editors to the article, one who created it, and another who said "it is smelly!!!" The writer of the article then removes the "smelly!!!" vandalism. The seventh source links to a Facebook page promoting the company; however, it lists the CEO as "Bobby Zinner," which upon a quick search of the company's official website, is not the actual CEO of the website. Further content is added to the article, citing an eighth source with more false information from the creator. However, upon further inspection of the blog, reveals it to have been created in a city in Brazil, not Oregon. You check back at the first Google search, and it is revealed that there is another source that says that the company was fake and promoted Brazil; however, it is a MySpace page; while you stumble upon another webpage (called blueyellowgreenresearchco.org), claiming the company had shut down. However, the MySpace page was created after the .org site. What would you do? (I originally used this question in another RfA back in October and once in November.)

A: Well, the person who added the vandalism would definitely have to be warned. Next, I'd search for sources for the company. If I can find reliable sources other than those you've mentioned in this scenario, ones that could verify whether or not this company exists, I'd remove the tag. However, if I'm bound to just the sources given in the scenario, I'd review each one for reliability (although I'd do that anyway). The sources include a Facebook page with a wrong CEO (possibly out of date?), a blog that reveals that the company exists, but in Brazil, a Myspace page that says that the company is fake, and a website that says that the company has shut down. The existence of so many conflicting sources shows that something is definitely wrong, but at the very least it shows that nothing is "blatant". G3 says that the hoax must be blatant, so speedy deletion doesn't work here. I'd remove the tag, inform the tagger of my reasoning, and recommend that the issue be pursued at AfD. However, I'd also talk to the author of the article and try to get his version of what is going on, in hopes of getting a better understanding. Ultimately, an issue this convoluted is best left in the hands of community consensus and discussion, rather than in the hands of a single person.

12. You are an admin and see the uncensored version of say, this posted to a user talk as, say, File:lemonteaparty.jpg. Describe your actions step by step. I realize this spontaneous question is a bit vague, thus if you see multiple scenarios, please cover main ones in your answer. Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A: My first step would be to immediately remove the image. I'd give the user that posted it a warning, probably an elevated one because of the degree of vandalism that this would be. If the user had already been warned for vandalism a couple of times, I'd strongly consider blocking, especially if it was a vandalism-only account. After I got the user sorted out, I'd move on to the image itself. Since, in this scenario, it's probable that this image had been uploaded by the vandal just for the purpose of the vandalism, I'd delete it if it were a Wikipedia-hosted image, or tag it for speedy deletion if it were a Commons-hosted image. This would be done under Wikipedia:Vandalism#Image vandalism.

Additional question from FleetCommand

14. I see that you would like to participate in AIV. Please review this situation and say what would you do with respect to Wikipedia policies if you were to handle it: A hypothetical User:A is reported to WP:ANEW for having committed four reverts on an articles within the last 24 hours, meaning that he has violated WP:3RR and must now be blocked. User:A defends himself by saying that he was under the impression that the reverted contributions by User:B have been blatant advertisements, that he has stopped reverting 14 hours ago when a third opinion told him that it is not the case, and that the Wrong Version was now in effect. You investigate the matter and see that the reverted contributions are not what you would call blatant advertisement but the warring is indeed stopped. You also discover that both User:A and User:B have received blocks in the past. Will you block User:A? Why or why not?

A: Well, I'd first breathe a sigh of relief that the edit warring stopped. Since User:A was acting in good faith, and stopped reverting when he was told what he is doing was wrong, I would probably not block him (I'll explain what the circumstances for which I would block him would be). To block him would go against our blocking policy and its goals of being preventative, not punitive. The reverting had stopped, and User:A had shown a positive response to correction and constructive criticism. However, the presence of past blocks would be a cause for some concern, and I'd investigate the causes of those blocks. If they were recent, and I judged that he was very likely to repeat his offenses, and it was blatantly obvious to me that he was not acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, I would block. If I determined that there wasn't a good chance of him disrupting Wikipedia again, I wouldn't block him, but I'd give him a personalized warning about 3RR and tell him to be more careful in the future. Finally, since the wrong version was still in effect, I'd correct that by changing the page to the correct version that User:B had added. Since the addition was enough to be considered advertising by one person, I'd either try to change the addition myself to make it more NPOV, or I'd place a relevant template on the article.

Additional question from Townlake

15. Four RFAs in 19 months. Why so eager to become an administrator?

A. Looking back, the first two RFAs were made without a good knowledge of what RfA is really about. I didn't have the experience to be an admin then, but I also didn't have the experience to see that I didn't have the experience. My third RfA was made with understanding of RfA. I was prompted to go for it then because I needed the tools- I was frustrated every time I saw a vandalism backlog, at places like CSD, AIV, or RfPP, that I couldn't fix. I would not call myself "eager" to become an administrator, but I would say that I would like to have the tools, since it's an important part of my line of work.

Additional question from Leaky

16. A change to a fellow Admin's talk page pops up on your watchlist. You read the dif. which is along the following lines: "I had hoped that you would stop making the edits that are driving people mad. However, it appears that like everyone else who runs bots you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum. Or at the very least, you can't figure why what you do is annoying people......" The message is (a) from a sitting Arbcom member, (b) an new editor. Outline your course of action in each case.

A. That's clearly a personal attack, and it should not be tolerated. I would remove the attack and leave a {{RPA}}, so that the admin could then decide whether he wants to keep it removed or reinstate it. I would also give a strong, personalized warning to the person who made the attack, regardless of whether it was an Arbcom member or a new editor. The rules are the same for everyone, and I'd actually expect better behavior from an Arbcom member, as someone who has the trust of the community. Any continuation of that behavior after the warning (or if a pattern of similar behavior is present) would result in a block for the new editor, and me taking the issue to ANI in the case of the Arbcom member.

In reality, the ArbCom member retracted and apologized for the statement. Further, the member's personality (usually for better) is non-negligible and sometimes expressed in riffs, which sometimes should be understood as affectionate/playful teasings rather than personal attacks. As always, an examination of the surrounding diffs and an attempt to understand the user's history of contributions is more useful than a summary execution.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Going back to this question, I'd say that a "strong, personalized warning" is not the best warning for what should be done in this case. The words "polite notice" would be better, so as to not cause the situation to deteriorate.--Slon02 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that the attempt at humour from me which sparked this question was in truly bad taste and offensive to members of the Wikipedia community who live with autism and make great contributions, often while working through the idiosyncracies of the condition. I fully deserved all the brickbats, oily fish and other items thrown at me. It was not, and was never intended as, a personal attack on the editor it was said to, although it made him justifiably pissed off. Where new editors are concerned, you've no background to go on, and it is important to realise that they may talk like this because that's all they've ever heard. The aim of Wikipedia is to educate, and editing Wikipedia provides an opportunity to educate people on things like the perniciousness of stereotyping, and how to discuss something without holding an argument, as well as educating people in how to use sources and how to write prose. You may need to attempt to engage the new editor in a dialogue, reserving the block button for stopping disruption if they turn out to be incapable of adapting to editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Σ

13. 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: I'd ignore it. According to our unblocking policy, it is the place for an uninvolved admin to review the unblock and make that call. Since I'm the one who blocked the user twice, it would be improper of me to review the unblock request.

Additional question from Katarighe

17. What about reviewing unblock requests to blocked users?

A: I would participate in reviewing unblock requests.

Additional question from —cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)

18. I would like to know more about your unblocking criteria. In other words, are a believer of second changes for any user, and I mean any for the sake of Wikipedia?

A: Luckily, in Wikipedia, editors, if they use the same name, can't escape their history. Any damage they cause is most likely only temporary (and easily reverted), and contributions can easily be monitored. These things in mind, I do believe in second chances, because I know that if a user isn't sincere when expressing a desire to change, a block can be restored swiftly. In some cases I may use the 2nd chance template. Overall, however, I am open to giving users second chances- but if they've already had their second chance and they betrayed the trust of the unblocking administrator before, then I'm not likely to commit the same mistake (fool me once and all that).

Q: What if they have a second chance they show improvement, make a severe mistake, and get themselves blocked again. Would you unblock them? Why and/or why not?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)

A: If I was the one who unblocked them to give them a second chance, then I wouldn't touch that unblock request again because I would be an involved admin. If I had no previous relationship with that case, I'd be hesitant to unblock again, but I'd still consider it. Unblock requests tend not to be colored black or white, and cases like these are solid shades of grey. I'd consider all of the user's actions, including the value of the contributions made, the seriousness of the mistake that let to a second blocking, etc. If, by reviewing all of that evidence, I reach a conclusion that there would be a greater chance for Wikipedia to be improved by unblocking, I would do it.--Slon02 (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

R: Exactly what I wanted to hear.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 19:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Question by Jehochman

19. I think there is often confusion about what constitutes a personal attack. Here is a statement I recently found on my very own talk page: "You sir, in my opinion, use Wikipedia to simply further your own business. I don't like you, I think you're a nasty piece of work frankly, and I certainly don't want to lower myself by interacting with you." How would you respond if you saw a statement like that posted on somebody's talk page?

A: It's definitely not a civil comment, and I'd call it a "personal attack". However, I wouldn't think of it as a very serious one, and would leave it alone, letting the editors involved sort it out amongst themselves.

The answer is okay. It was a very nasty attack, especially because I am a real named person and such a remark could affect me in real life. That is something to watch for. Doing nothing is correct, or you could leave the attacker a note suggesting that they remove the personal comment, and stick to commenting on the edits, not the editor. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Question by Tom Morris

20. Do you think twenty questions is too many for an RfA candidate?

A: I'd say so, but if people need it to get an accurate impression of me and my readiness to be an administrator, then so be it. However, I must say that it doesn't seem very fitting with WP:NOBIGDEAL.

General comments

• Links for Slon02: Slon02 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Slon02 can be found here.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Slon02
• Requests for adminship/Slon02 2
• Requests for adminship/Slon02 3
• Requests for adminship/Slon02 4

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Stats on talk page. →Στc. 04:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion regarding Question 8 moved to talk page Worm^TT · (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Why do we have questions #1-#12, then #14? Is #13 too unlucky? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• #13 has been asked. →Στc. 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Now #14 has been asked again! :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I can't figure out what Q17 is trying to ask. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly certain it is asking if he intends to participate in reviewing unblock requests. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Supported last time, happy to support again. 28bytes (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   Looks good. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Moved to oppose

2. 28bytes took the words out of my mouth. I confidently support, of course. (Also, Worm tends to have an eye for this sort of thing. :P) Swarm ^X 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Sure, why not. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Looks fine to me. I see nothing wrong. -- Luke (Talk) 03:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Support Don't see any issues. Might ask a question later. Beyond495 (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
6. No problem –BuickCenturyDriver 04:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
7. Support ; I opposed Slon's previous RfA. A couple weeks ago I thoroughly reviewed his editing, with a view to nominating him myself, and found it not only to meet all my exacting crtiteria, but also found every reason to strongly support a new RfA. He has addressed all previous criticism, and I hope that the community will concur. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
9. Secret ^account 04:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. Why not? James500 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
11. Supported last time, I see no reason to change that now. Last nomination got derailed by a pile on about CSD taggings, of which the only result is we had one less good admin doing work between then and now. Thankfully I don't think we'll make that mistake again this time. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
12. Strongest Possible Support A hard-working editor who deserves a promotion. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    With respect, this isn't a "promotion". — Joseph Fox 12:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    Er, okay --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    Of course it is/would be. Let's not kid ourselves, Fox. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    It's more of a graduation... -- œ^™ 02:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

13. Seems as though they will make a fine admin. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
14. Support, per exceptionally trustworthy and clueful nominators... Worm^TT · (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
15. Support. Ha, I saw a hint last night that this was coming, and was pleased in anticipation :-) I was undecided last time, but this time I have no hesitation in supporting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
16. Strong support — Absolutely. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
17. Still supportive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    I still support you for administrator, but the answer to Q16 raises some grave doubts in my mind. Somebody blowing up is not a sufficient reason for a block or ANI drama, since that only tends to escalate the situation. The best thing you could do would be to either politely point out beneath that message that it was inappropriate or just ignore it. Most likely, the user will later feel embarrassed about posting such a nasty message and possibly retract it himself after some thought, whereas taking him to ANI or blocking him would put him on the defensive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

18. Support - Had a quick look through contribs and can't see any reason not to. Normandie 13:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
19. Support, as usual :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 13, 2011; 13:54 (UTC)
20. Support a fine candidate - what issues I saw in previous RfAs seem to have been addressed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
21. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
22. Support. Never worked with this editor, but they seem to be a hard worker so I support! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
23. Support/ No reason he shouldn't Mrlittleirish 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
24. Support. Good contributions. Significant improvement since March 2011. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
25. Strong Support -- Great improvement since the 3 nominations had failed. --Katarighe (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
26. Support The user seems to have a good grasp of the policies, an example of which is the CSD log. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
27. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
28. Looks good to me-No problems here.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 18:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
29. Support - From what I've seen, he seems to be a dedicated & trustworthy editor. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
30. Support good contributor and many useful work done on patrolling and AfD. GreyHood ^Talk 20:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
31. Support If nothing else, to balance out the ridiculous ageism. causa sui (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
32. Strong Support Slon02 has grown a lot in the past year and is ready for the mop.VictorianMutant^(Talk) 22:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Per answer to q7. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
34. Support. I supported last time, and I believe that there was too much demand for perfection then. This time, I see some thoughtful editors say above that their previous concerns have now been addressed by the candidate improving in response to the feedback from before. I think it's clear that the candidate has amply earned the trust of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

    I've checked back as the RfA has continued, and, respectfully, I find the opposes unconvincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

35. Strongest Support: Excellent contributions to Wikipedia. Good intentions and has a great attitude. I trust Worm's nomination. Great answers to my questions. No reason why this candidate shouldn't pass.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.)

    I don't mean to intrude here but in all honesty I'd hardly call 13 articles in his entire history on wikipedia excellent. Excellent would be 100 Good Articles or 10 FAs or 1000 start class articles. But he has done some good work on Russian topics. I'd love to see more content work from him on topics like Renewable energy in Russia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    And this my friend, is exactly what is wrong about RfA. A good admin isn't a person who writes a thousand articles. A good admin I believe is one who can be trusted. It is a person who can definitely prove they can be trusted by having consistent good faith contributions. It is an editor that, if ever blocked, is able to learn from that block and avoid it from ever happening again. It is a person who is able to learn from mistakes and build upon it to become a better editor. It is an editor that has shown his experience by making contributions to Wikipedia other than articles to help improve the overall experience. It is an editor that is knowledgeable of its policy and conduct. No where in those statements includes that a candidate has to prove himself by writing 100 GA's or 10 FA's. I don't see how that shows me that he is able to be trusted as an admin. Sure I have my concerns about this user as we progressed through the RfA which is why I asked additional questions. Due to my respect for the nominators and the contributions that I see prove his trustworthiness and his abilities to admin, nothing is going to change me from that. Perhaps you can enlighten me about how writing FA's or GA's proves that he can properly use the block function or delete pages or protect the, and so forth.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

36. Support - I've had excellent interactions with this editor on IRC, and xe seems to have a good grasp of policy.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 01:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
37. Support- Reviewed during RfA3, but forgot to support before it closed; no concerns since. Dru of Id (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
38. Support – No issues here. —mc10 (t/c) 02:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
39. Support — Good candidate. πr² (t • c) 02:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
40. Support I see no problems now, and I'm glad he persisted. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
41. I supported last time, on the basis that he seemed open to learning from mistakes and was appropriately cautious. Since then, he has only been improving. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
42. Support as last time, albeit at RFA 3 I had a few concerns - this time I don't. Pedro :  Chat  07:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
43. Support. Why not? Mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
44. Support I supported last time, I see no need to change my mind.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    Support Per answer to question 8 [1], trust placed my nominators, and excellent CSD log. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    My Support is strengthened due to his actual answer to question 8. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

45. Support Happy to support this time. Candidate has resolved the policy knowledge issues that caused me to vote neutral last time.--Hokeman (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
46. Weak support. Kiefer Wolfowitz puts it too harshly. This user does have a GA, and it's not a bad one; there are plenty of admins who can't even show that. In my assessment this user scrapes through, in large part because he's open to recall, which means that if this candidate proves to be a problematic admin, his appointment is at least not irrevocable.—S Marshall T/C 18:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
47. Support - Concerns about this being the 4th RfA, and the candidate seems to be (or at least used to be) in a big rush to get the mop. From what I can tell, he seems to have calmed down about adminship and made some substantive improvements to CSD tagging and such, so I think it's safe to support now. I also feel the need to cancel out some unreasonable oppose votes below. —SW— ^express 19:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
48. Support - While the response to the above questions is lacking in imagination at times, the responses and the edit history show a thorough (if recent) understanding of Policy and its application, and is more than capable of handling the, frankly, mundane tasks of adminship.
49. Support I don't see any reason not to. Opposes are unconvincing. Malinaccier (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    Great answers to 8 and 9. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC) I am no longer comfortable with this position. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

    Pleased to support. Thank you for taking Question 15 in the constructive spirit intended. Best wishes. Townlake (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Won't oppose, but striking support per engagement with opposers. We already have plenty of overly-defensive admins. Townlake (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC) // Moving to oppose after re-reading the RFA. Townlake (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

50. Support. I've seen your good work; your answers are good; I'm sold.--Kubigula (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
51. Support - There are three fundamental functions of useful Wikipedia volunteers: content creators, quality control workers, and rules enforcers. The janitorial toolbox corresponds to the latter two functions, not at all to the first, so with due respect to the objection of my friend K-Wolf, any shortcomings of Slon in the writing department, real or imagined, are irrelevant. This seems to be a quality control worker who might benefit from the tool set. No indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC) There are also a fairly large number of unuseful people at Wikipedia — drive by vandals, POV Warriors, and people here to create and regale in drama.

    Issues raised in the previous RfA and this one's neutral section have been dealt with. —WFC— 07:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

    I won't oppose over an answer to a question that probably didn't need to be asked. But for this user to criticise others for failing to treat adminship as no big deal is hypocracy. —WFC— 13:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

52. Support - Seems ready for the bit.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
53. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
54. Support - He should have been a admin by now.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 16:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
55. Support. Good contributions and answers, and no concerns — Frankie (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
56. Support - Good answers above that show good policy knowledge, contributions (including a GA) show experience in article work and in admin areas. The last RfA was a close one and I see improvement since then so I have no concerns. -- Atama頭 19:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
57. Support For some reason, in spite of the length of time I have been here I have failed to interact with this editor (correct me if you find a diff). But looking through her/his work s/he is clearly competent and I see no problem in awarding the tools. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
58. 'Support Looks good than from last time. Baseball Watcher
59. Support looks good to me. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
60. Support. mabdul 03:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
61. Like -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
62. Support - Demonstrates good comprehension of wikipedia regulations. Monterey Bay (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

    What regulations are those? Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

63. Support - I don't remember ever bumping into this editor but they seem like a solid candidate. I see no reason to oppose other than speculation and since my crystal ball is broken, why not! --Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
64. Support - No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
65. Support. Supported last time and will again. A quick learner, he's already carved out a niche in those areas he feels he has enough clue and can help make a difference in, and giving him the tools will allow him to do all the good for Wikipedia that he's already eager and driven to do. His enthusiasm and passion to improve Wikipedia is what allows me to assume good faith that he won't use the tools recklessly. -- œ^™ 02:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
66. Support - Oh, I forgot to support, silly me. ResMar 02:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
67. Support – Slon02's got my trust through his demonstration and understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. Don't think he'll be troublesome with the mop. Good luck ;) --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
68. Support seems very good at counter-vandalism and deletion in accuracy and tenure. I don't see how he could misuse the tools given that he has never misused them before and also it looks like he/she has the potential to grow and become a better editor with admin tools. Cheers! Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

    By that logic, you would not see how he could misuse the power ring of Green Lantern given that he has never misued it before. Further, don't most users have the potential to grow and become a better editor (especially with admin tools)?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    Doesn't that run counter to AGF? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

69. Support Most definitely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
70. Support With confidence and enthusiasm. My76Strat (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
71. Support. Some of the candidate's answers are imperfect, but none are disqualifying. The candidate has done good work for the encyclopedia, has a clue, and wants to do the right thing. That's all that should be required to learn the rest. Lagrange613 16:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
72. Support The reason I opposed last time, namely poor CSD tagging, is no longer an issue, so I consequently have no issues supporting this RfA. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
73. Weak support I think your answer to Q7 is good, but some of the others seem rather generic/clichéd, as others have said. For instance in Q12 it would have been nice to have seen mention of MediaWiki:Bad image list, since people might not only upload images exclusively for vandalism, but can misuse pre-existing images of genitalia/whatever (e.g. by posting them on others' user pages), where these files ought not to be deleted as they appear on other articles. Indeed, the latter is probably going to be more widespread than the former, as you need to be autoconfirmed in order to upload files. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
74. Support I have been impressed with Slon02's sane and sensible work in the deletion processes, and trust him to handle speedy deletions of new pages and blocking of vandals directly as well as handling of AIV. Opposition over content concerns when the candidate is primarily interested in handling anti-vandalism and CSD of new pages is unconvincing. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
75. Don't see any real arguments coming out of the peanut gallery, as is often the case. The candidate raises many green flags for me. Juliancolton (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    What peanut gallery? Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

76. Support. Some solid content work, a great deal of maintenance work of a very high standard, and thoughtful and competent answers to questions. Opposes are unconvincing - quibbling over not-quite-perfect answers is unhelpful. This process hands out mops, not sainthoods. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    What it hands out is a licence to be an arsehole for life. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    Having the license to do something doesn't mean you will do it. As someone who recently became an admin, I can assure you it doesn't cause a sudden desire to power trip upon seeing a few extra buttons appear in various places. If someone has that desire, they'll have had and exhibited it before they get adminship; it's not the cause of it. You'd think we're determining whether he has access to the nuclear football or something; when it comes down to it, it's just some maintenance tools for a website. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

77. I've had a scan of Articles for Creation work, and it seems Slon02 rejects pretty much everything there, which is a good thing of course. I'm not seeing any red flags arise from Slon02's recent contribs or talk page history. Doesn't seem to be a massive wanker either. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    You seem to leave open the option that he's a wanker, although not on a "massive" scale, whatever that might mean so far as wanking is concerned. Was that your intention? Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    Exactly. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    So you're calling Slon a wanker? Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    It's perfectly natural for a bee (his) age to bend his barb.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

    Of course not: you had it right when you said "leave open the option". I've merely scanned Slon02's history of evidence of egregious wankery, and haven't found any.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

78. Support Opposes unconvincing, imo. The candidate seems clueful and competent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
79. Weak Support Q11 gives me pause because the candidate fails to discuss reliability. Facebook, MySpace, and personal blogs are not reliable sources, and that needed to factor into the analysis. Ultimately, however, the user has shown that he has and therefore will most likely continue to do good work, and he has handled himself very well in a pretty confrontational and rough RfA, which does inspire confidence. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
80. Support Bejinhan talks 10:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
81. Support Works hard in support of the project, and would be able to aid the project better with a few more tools. Angryapathy (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
82. Support per User:Mkativerata assertion that there is no excessive wanker behavior.--v/r - TP 19:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
83. Support I've decided to get down off this rather chilly fence. They also create the encyclopaedia who copy-ed. I've seen Slon around and don't associate the name with any problems. Stats are quite impressive, and so is the calm response here. Good nominators. That's enough for now. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
84. Support. Perfection is not required. I've had dealings with the candidate, and I like several of the question answers, 7 and 13 particularly. Others show that you are not yet a highly experienced admin, but with experience such things can be fixed. I'm not convinced by the answer to q5, anyone who understands enough of our policies to be here will have some policies that they disagree with; But I think you have the sense to remember that we are all volunteers, and if as an admin you disagree with a policy so strongly that you don't want to be the one to enforce it, then simply leave the enforcement of it to others. I think you have the nouse not to use the tools or your admin status in contravention of policy. ϢereSpielChequers 23:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'Weak Oppose.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Questions about intellectual maturity and ability to communicate with new editors about policy, based on limited (and somewhat problematic) writing, as noted in Question 8, above, and in the grammatical problems and cliches in candidate's RfA criteria. The early edits, and misunderstanding of policy, raise other issues about intellectual development. The frequent schoolboy vandalism of the user page and the too early and too frequent RfAs make me wonder about social maturity, also. (Fetchcomms's support reduces my worries that the candidate be a minor; this is the first case where I raise maturity as a concern, I believe.) I wish the candidate well and I expect continued contributions to the project, but I see no need for administrative tools.

   I've read it about three times now and can't see any grammatical problems or cliches from the user. Could you point them out for me? Perhaps I can't read properly at this time... Normandie 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   I find it painful to read my own prose, which is why my articles have frequent rewrites. I understand that my reactions are overly sensitive. I shall put my comments above. It should be understood that my oppose is not strong, and I welcome evidence-based rebuttals.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   Note: Candidate's RfA criteria (originally posted by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz) moved here from the questions section: —SW— ^verbalize 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   I've had to remove it since it would mess up the numbering. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   That was why I put it up top, next to Keepscases's question about it! I'll move it to the back page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   Generally on Wikipedia, providing a link to a page will suffice, and is usually preferable to reproducing the page in its entirety. Sorry about messing up the numbering. —SW— ^chatter 19:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   I did not reproduce any page in entirety. I annotated his RfA critera directly in response to Normandie's request for clarification. Of course, a link to the page would have lacked the annotation and not answered Normandie's question.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Well that tears it, whoever granted Slon's Good Article status needs a firm trouting, and the criteria page should be sent to GAR, post-haste. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   All of us can improve our writing, and the candidate's ambitious and generally well written article on an important and broad topic deserves praise. (I stated that I like a bit more polished prose, not that anything was unclear, etc. I raised the question of finding higher quality more reliable sources; the article may well meet GA standards.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   Slon02 is intellectually mature—although one must take my word for it lest I inadvertently compromise his identity—and cliches are not always bad, contrary to the belief of an English teacher I had years ago. Grammatical errors in userspace, heaven forbid, are simply inexcusable though. Regardless, I'm slightly dismayed that my support vote indicates that this candidate is unlikely to be a minor; I have guesses but no concrete knowledge of his age, nor have I discerned it from his editing habits. If Slon02 happens to be 12, then I would continue to support him. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

   What does "intellectually mature" mean? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   That he is more intelligent than 98% of all Americans (although that's not too a difficult feat) and has developed his intelligence to understand concepts such as uncertainty or a lack of absolutes (IAR). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'd be happy to address any concerns that you might have, but I'm a bit confused at one of your concerns. You mention questions about my ability to communicate with editors about policy. You seem to relate it to concerns about the articles that I've written, but I'm having some trouble drawing much of a connection. I can, however, bring up multiple examples of me being able to explain policy to new editors. I'd appreciate some examples of policy misunderstanding so that I can better understand your oppose, and I'd also like to know how my userpage being vandalized detracts from my ability to be an admin. Finally, I'd like to point out that I do need administrative tools, for quite simple reasons- vandalism-related areas on Wikipedia tend to be in need of admins, and areas such as AIV, RfPP and CSD are areas that I work in that require admin tools.--Slon02 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Hi Slon02, the too early and too frequent RfAs raise concern about maturity. I would like you to take a year before another RfA. I think that you are doing a good job and want you to continue contributing both behind-the-scenes and as a writer. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Why did you not answer my simple question above, when you were answering later and more complicated questions? If you would pledge to limit your activities, then many of us would welcome you as an administrator.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Wikipedia already has too many kiddie admins. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   I propose we make Malleus administrator for a day, I'm curious what he would do; who's with me? ;) ResMar 04:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   What leads you to believe that I'd agree to be an administrator, even for a day? Malleus Fatuorum 06:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   I can just imagine someone who's stood for election to Parliament twice, asking what makes anyone think they would agree to be a Member of Parliament. Classic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Clearly you have no imagination at all. Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of a kiddie admin?--Slon02 (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Regardless of its meaning, Slon02 will certainly not be among the "kiddie admins". --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   You have your opinion and I have mine. I doubt I'll change your mind, but I'm damn sure you won't change mine. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus and are are unenforceable - any individual making them is either dishonest or inadequately aware of how a promise they made actually works, and is unfit for adminship. Hipocrite (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   This discussion has been moved to the discussion page.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   As a further and unrelated note, per "The rules are the same for everyone... would result in a block for the new editor, and me taking the issue to ANI in the case of the Arbcom member," I additionally oppose as "civility for thee, but not for mee" does not work. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose Seems too lightweight. The hasty CSD work seems have persisted after the last RfA, e.g. Army Values. Warden (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   Hasty CSD work that produces an accuracy of 454/456 (99.6%), with no mistakes since April?--Slon02 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   You're opposing because he started CSDing after his last RfA and made 2 mistakes out of hundreds? That's a bit too strict don't you think?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'm opposing mainly because this editor's contributions seem lightweight and insubstantial. The CSD example was provided because this was an issue at the previous RfA. When I browse his contributions some more, I notice some copy-editing of paperless office which adds little value. And then there's a new editor who is given a templated welcome followed by a ugly whack by proposing that his article on the topic of Media and crime be deleted. Now, the relationship and interaction of media and crime is a highly notable topic, being the subject of literally thousands of books. I can't see the draft now that it has been deleted but I doubt that there was anything very original there. This seems to be a case where a new editor needed some help in developing an article which would survive the NPP. Instead, he was bitten and we notice that he gave up editing soon afterwards. My impression is that the candidate didn't give this editor any real help because he doesn't know how. It's this sort of behaviour which is driving off new editors in large numbers and the Foundation is properly concerned. Warden (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Your nitpicking and opposing for just about every RFA, especially the ones that is deletion related is basically WP:POINT. You know for a fact that one poorly tagged CSD dif out of hundreds he has done since April won't change this RFA. Why do you even bother? Secret ^account 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Let's not badger the good Colonel. He's entitled to have a different view of the candidate than you and I do. 28bytes (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Really? Surely the ultimate aim is to crush all opposition at RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Secret and others,

   Please stop blue-linking WP:Point until you've read and understood it. (Point rivals WP:NotNow as the most miscited guideline.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Also, Secret you said that you would avoid conflict and stressors, for your own good, at your RfA. I was happy to support you and I want you to follow through on your plan of productive healthy editing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Timeline for User:Kashanova7, creator of Media and crime:

   • 22:09, 22 May 2011 the user posted a huge opininion piece into the article Manslaughter in English law [2] and removed by Kashanova7 a few minutes later.
   • 02:17, 22 May 2011 Media and crime created by user a few minutes later.
   • 22:20, 22 May 2011 PRODED by Slon 10 hours later. The PROD uw was placed using Twinkle and automatically accompanied by a standard welcome template matched for the occasion.
   • 22:24, 22 May 2011 PROD seconded by by User:De728631
   • 00:11, 23 May 2011 Media and crime Blanked by the creator
   • 01:00, 23 May 2011 Deleted by User:Optimist on the run
   • 23:07, 10 June 2011 (diff | hist) User:Kashanova7 ‎ creates a draft in their user space, ES by a bot: 'Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace)'
   • 23:03, 19 June 2011 last edit by User:Kashanova7

   I see nothing other than a completely normal deletion process for an inappropriate article that probably no regular user would have the slightest interest in recasting and referencing, and nothing whatsoever to suggest that the user was frightened off by a normal process or by any communication by the candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   The edit made to the manslaughter article was not an opinion piece; it was an explanation of the concept of manslaughter by gross negligence supported by sources. It was a rather hamfisted insertion but that's not surprising for a new user and it's to their credit that they reverted themselves - perhaps it was a practise edit. I see nothing here but a normal good-faith newbie being attacked aggressively by editors who show not the slightest concern for them or what they are trying to achieve and how they might be helped.

   I agree WP:POINT is a completely misguided guideline (and note I wasn't aiming at the first three opposes including yours as I know it was in good faith, because people assume that because if they have viewpoints that is considered "radical" to the community, they instantly assume OMG bad faith). But I was commenting on Colonel Warden (more later as I'm typing this right when I'm leaving work). Secret ^account 03:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Re "Your nitpicking and opposing for just about every RFA...". I don't attend or oppose in every RfA but, when I do, I try to provide examples because this is expected of opposes. This candidate is clearly weak because they have failed at RfA three times before and, iirc, I didn't attend on any of those occasions. My examples may be weak but so is the candidate. I will tend to oppose if I don't feel comfortable with a candidate because admin status has no term limits and is not easy to revoke. Warden (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   The Army Values CSD was indeed a bit quick, but it was over nine (9) months ago. The Media and crime issue was six (6) months ago. These isolated incidents do not appear to present a pattern of the candidate's current editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose Answer to question number 14 was concerning and Slon02's further justifications were even more so. Seems to me that Slon02 seeks an excuse to go around Wikipedia blocking policy and inflict unjustifiable blocks. In addition, his first and last reply (i.e. last until now) show that he did not read the situation carefully. A careless person is not fit for admin tools. Fleet Command (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   The real irony in this is that what you see as me trying to cause an unjustifiable block, I see as me seeing good faith edits and stating that blocking him would probably be against our blocking policy (mentioning that the only time I would block him under those circumstances would be if he had been a person who consistently edit warred, had been blocked recently for edit warring, and was probably going to edit war again). I did not say, as you seem to have interpreted, that I would block him if he was just recently blocked. I clearly stated that he must be "very likely to repeat his offenses" and even used the term "blatantly obvious". I'm sorry that you have misinterpreted what I thought (and still think) are fairly clear words.--Slon02 (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   • Oppose (moved from support) per q16. Why would you treat a new editor differently than you would an ArbCom member (or a sysop, or any other member of the community)? If you intend to block said new editor, than surely this is a grave enough situation that it warrants a block for whomever carried the action regardless of their position. Didn't you say yourself the rules apply for everyone? Why the different treatment based on status? This either makes you reckless, or like Ryan Vesey puts it, "too anxious to wield the tools", take a pick. Sorry. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   It depends on how "new" is new. If an editor has made no real contributions to Wikipedia before causing that disruption, of course a responsible administrator would treat them differently than another editor who has done a lot of good for Wikipedia. Every action an administrator makes with the tools should be for the net benefit of Wikipedia. A vandalism-only account with 3 bad edits should be indefinitely blocked, while a productive editor who made a few bad edits may or may not be blocked but should definitely be talked to, if for no other reason than to determine if they're just having a bad day, or maybe to see if the account is compromised. On the other hand, a brand new account who might be causing disruption out of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia should be treated more gently than a known troublemaker with a pattern of abuse. So to sum up, you treat new and established editors differently, but you don't necessarily value one over the other, it all depends on the circumstances. -- Atama頭 08:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Assuming the editor is not a vandal, it shouldn't matter if he has 15 or 50,000 edits. Blocking a new editor for personal attack, edit warring, civility or any type of conduct enforcement because you're not able to determine if the contributor is productive per low edit count, while you wouldn't do the same block to an "established" editor, is a very damaging double standard, and assumes bad faith on the part of the newer editor (e.g. you are/will be less worthy than the other editor). It might be common community practice, but it doesn't make it any less wrong. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Fine. It's a product of the community more than of the editor, and I feel bad taking my grievances on an otherwise fine admin candidate whose q16 answer was apparently (and shockingly) within the (un)reasonable expectations of the community. But said community would be well advised to realize this double standard is wrong; especially when based on an incredibly lazy and gutless "new editor, it's safe to block" vs. "I'm stepping on a minefield here". More (or less, not sure) details below. Not opposing, not supporting. Good luck, Slon02. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose New users should be treated equally with others. So I echo Charlie's comment. Strengthened by Atama. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   That assertion is incorrect. For example, new users should be treated as if they are unaware of Wikipedia's policies, while experienced users should be treated as if they are aware of the policies. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Yeah, let's recklessly block the new guy who wasn't aware of the rules while taking the guy who was aware of them to a slap-on-the-wrist discussion. Shouldn't it be the exact opposite? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not sure why we're talking about recklessly blocking anyone, much less anyone unaware of the rules. I did state in my answer to the question that I would warn first, and only block after a shown pattern of bad-faith personal attacks.--Slon02 (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Fine, not reckless. But why the double standard? You stated yourself that you'd expect more from an ArbCom member, and yet you would be harsher to the newer editor. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   When I wrote my answer, I had in mind the idea for the user to be removed from ArbCom because of a continued pattern of disruptive behavior. However, I see that for this to happen, the case needs to be taken to ArbCom for them to vote on the suspension/removal of those privileges for failing to "act with integrity and good faith at all times." But, in all honesty, the reason for why I put that I'd take the case to ANI (instead of blocking right away), would be to get other administrators' input on blocking. I'm not entirely sure on the consensus towards blocking administrators or ArbCom members, and I said in Q8, I'd ask others for help instead of making a mistake.--Slon02 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   If you want my opinion on the matter, I believe when it comes to attacking users deliberately, It doesn't matter if new or not, editors don't do that and that's a something that you shouldn't need to look at a policy for. It's not like you have an editor that goes, "I'm on Wikipedia now. I am going to attack editors because I don't know of any rule that prevents me doing so." If it was an unintentional attack, I would warn the ArbCom member but I would point the new user to WP:CIVILITY.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

7. Sorry, just too many red flags for me. In Q15 you say you're not "eager" to become an admin, but 4 RFAs in 19 months is a little worrisome, and in some dialogue here you're indicating too much (IMHO) eagerness to use the tools once granted. So the Q15 answer ultimately rings hollow. Moreover, your engagement with opposers and neutrals, while not against any rules, is ill-advised. For those of us who have had bad dealings with defensive administrators, this is troubling. Townlake (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
8. Reluctant Oppose I have been debating this for some time now. While you are a good editor, your policy knowledge is a bit lacking. You appear to have a strong grasp of policies related to new page patrol and anti-vandalism. However, you do not appear to have much experience with administrative work outside of these two areas. I am particularly concerned on how you will handle XfD's, file CSDs, and especially content disputes. Your answer to question 14 raised additional concerns, so I decided to wait on question 16. The answer to question 16 solidified my concerns. After reading your answer to question 16, I do not have much confidence with you handling 3RR violations, incivility, and disputes between editors. I am truly sorry, but I do not believe I can support at this time. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   I have to wonder how Q16 is any different from community practice. Why did it take days for any administrator to block Orangemarlin? (Rhetorical, no one please address this question, you can address the rest if you want to). Had the personal attacks he made been from a new user, any administrator would've blocked on sight. However, not a single one (including me) blocked him until an Arbcom member came along and did it. It's clear that users are given extra weight based on their contributions. Not that the behavior should be tolerated. I think, from my perspective, that the amount of discussion needed to block a user correlates to their edit count. How is community practice any different from Slon02's answer? I already understand what an ideal situation would be, I'm not asking that. I'm asking what the difference between how it is and how it was explained.--v/r - TP 21:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Personally, I don't see a problem with the different treatment between an arbcom member and a newer editor. The different treatment though should come because it is most likely that the arbcom member had a pattern of constructive edits prior to the incident while a newer editor is less likely to have that. However, while Slon02 did address the pattern of behavior, I don't think he elaborated well enough. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   I think that many users are unwilling to block more established editors or admins simply because they know there will be drama and they are unwilling to deal with the inevitable outcry at AN/I (or simply don't have time to). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Exactly. Slon02's answer was consistent with community practice.--v/r - TP 21:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Agree with Fetchcomms. But then, if they are unwilling to block more established editors, they should stay out of the business of enforcing user conduct. Taking an inconsistent approach and blocking newer editors only because it's easier to do is plain wrong. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not saying this is appropriate, but consider this. When you first got your own bicycle, did you have training wheels? There is a lot of drama and wikilawyering involved when it comes to blocking an editor with 100,000 edits versus an editor with 10. I can justify a block, that's not a problem. The problem is can I justify it under the microscope of 5 other editors who disagree and have the nerve to support my own position. I recently blocked a user and was questioned by another admin. If I didnt have the experience of blocking other editors, I may have lost my nerve and unblocked the user. That could've sparked even more drama as well. I recently discussed a blocked with another admin who had never blocked a user before. They had completely valid justification for the block but wanted reassurance. This isn't uncommon. There are certain admins that feel more confident and more comfortable dealing with the fallout of a block for someone like Orangemarlin than for user JoeSmith1234 who just registered even when they are blocked for the exact same reason. I know it's not ideal, but it is what it is.--v/r - TP 01:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

   Fair enough in that this is a reality, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sysops working user conduct enforcement (3RR, NPA, etc) should have the necessary nerve to support their position whatever the circumstances in order to be consistent in their application of what are essentially punishment blocks (otherwise, why take to AN/I? There is only one way to prevent disruption). But then, like you say, it is what it is. I've retracted my oppose because Slon02 has little to do with all of this, and his q16 answer was apparently within the community's expectations. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

   While I'm opposing for other reasons, there's a difference between acknowledging our wikiality, and enforcing rules of user conduct inconsistently. Simply saying "I'm not going to block Orangemarlin, tough turkey" would be an example of the latter. The former requires the understanding that while blocking User:Jane Doe should have adequate justification, and be defensible if necessarily, the pace of inquiries, if any, is unlikely to be brisk, nor the discussion heated. By contrast, blocking Orangemarlin (by an ordinary sysop, not an arbitrator) would probably set off a firestorm of controversy. One should therefore have the materials, such as an extensive list of diffs and the concurrence of other admins, prepared before starting the job. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose per drastically incorrect answer to question 14. Taking administrative action on a content dispute, which a refusal to perform a block is, only to forthwith become editorially involved in the same disagreement, is inelegant form. While knowledge of the subject matter may be required to distinguish legitimate points of contention from vandalism, since much physics, math, chemistry, medical, etc. content is written so as to be incomprehensible to the average citizen, "administrative reversion" to the "consensus version" in an actual dispute (following RFC closure, for instance,) is never to be taken lightly (be exquisitely well prepared to defend the propriety of your actions if you ever do such an extraordinary thing.) Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

   Your response also seems to demonstrate a misunderstanding of m:The Wrong Version, which is now something of a cliché. The page is intended to demonstrate, in a humorous fashion, how many content disputes do not have any "correct" or "consensus" positions discernible to neutral third parties, i.e. administrators. The parties can either meet in the middle, or continue edit warring until they are topic-banned. Endless variants of these outcomes, and interminable arguments on talk pages, are also possible. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose I've also been giving this a lot of thought. The later question/answers have tipped me over into this section. Sorry. I am not convinced that, at the present time, you have an appropriate depth of understanding of the project. The answers to some questions give me the impression that you are striving hard to follow policy/guidelines, but I am not convinced you understand the rationale behind them; I think that is the reason for some of the errors (which others have elaborated upon above). That was my initial concern too, and the reason I added Q5. Admins do not just click buttons; it's necessary to have dispute-resolution skills, which are best learned through experience in some of the more contentious areas of the wiki. I just think you need more experience.  Chzz  ►  14:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

    Not yet. The answer to my question was okay, but I do not like the answer to 20. Adminship is a big deal because it takes a really major effort to reverse a bad decision. The large number of questions reflects the community's concerns with the candidate. When you become an admin, people will ask questions, challenge you, bait you, and even curse at you. You need to handle all that with aplomb. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

11. Oppose. There are various little things, such as an apparent overeagerness to get the tool or your answers to questions 14 and 19, which, taken as a whole, lead me to believe you're not ready yet for the mop. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose Per Q20. No matter how many times people try to claim otherwise a lifetime right to block and apply AE + discretionary sanctions is a very big deal.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Chzz and Salvio. Sorry. No prejudice against trying again in a few months. --John (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Progress has been made on the concerns I raised in the previous RfA (where I opposed). Will decide whether to stay here or support based on how questions 7 and 8 are tackled, as I consider them to be of relevance. —WFC— 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While I don't think question 8 was asked in a reasonable way, I do think it touches on something which is fundamental to your suitability for adminship. Specifically, how you will deal with "difficult" editors, where the "difficulty" is content-related and the people being "difficult" can both reasonably claim to have more experience in that field than yourself. I can perfectly understand why you might not want to dignify question 8 with a direct response, but the underlying point needs to be addressed IMO. —WFC— 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1. The answers leave me doubting your confidence a bit. I'm not sure yet. ceranthor 01:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   I will just observe for now. I am waiting to see what you are going to do with Q8. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   I was going for support but the answer to question 14 was concerning. Basically, Slon02 says if the blocks were new, he'd be willing to overlook the blocking policy which he himself cited and inflict a block upon a user that, according to Slon02 himself, was acting in good faith and the result of which is, again according to Slon02, not preventative. Fleet Command (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   Just so explain my answer, the reason for why I would consider recent blocks is the second part of the "preventative" part of the blocking policy- "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" as well as "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition." If recent blocks had such a context to show me that repeat offenses are likely from that user, and to show me that the user was not acting in good faith, I would block. If those two parts are not proven to me by the past blocks, I would definitely not even think of blocking.--Slon02 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   Deter what is already stopped (=fully deterred) long ago? You only end up embittering User:A and contribute to the current constant decline of the number of Wikipedia user. When somebody stops, the likelihood of repetition is zero. Fleet Command (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

   Nothing in the question says that it was fully stopped. It just says that there were blocks in the past. It doesn't mention how long ago the blocks were or what the behavior of User:A was like after the blocks. --Slon02 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Low content creation. TCO (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
3. I am actually leaning towards oppose but am voting neutral due to the respect I have for your nominator. There are two major problems I have seen here. First, while I support your ability to discuss issues with people who !vote neutral or oppose, your discussion with Fleet Command is one you should have dropped. I believe knowing when to drop an issue is an important skill for an administrator to have and I'm not sure that you show the level of maturity required for that. Second, I disagree with your response to question 16. I believe the clarity of the personal attack is less intense than you say it is. Sure, the editor wasn't completely civil, and did stray off the content and onto the contributor but in a relatively minor way. The worst part of the statement was the reference to autism; however, if you notice he stated "like everyone else who runs bots" making it slightly more of a statement on people who run bots. Now, I am not saying it wasn't a personal attack at all, I am just trying to point out that it wasn't a major personal attack. Continuing on, you stated you would leave a "strong, personal warning" on the talk page of the editor who left the attack. That will do nothing but inflame the issue. In a case like this, it would probably be best to ignore it and allow the other administrator to take his own actions to the statement on his own talk page. There is no reason for you to get involved here. Remember, "Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." -Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Responding to personal attacks. This issue makes you seem too anxious to wield the tools of an administrator and I'd like to see you wait a little while longer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

   Q11 gives me pause because the candidate fails to discuss reliability. Facebook, MySpace, and personal blogs are not reliable sources, and that needed to factor into the analysis. Other concerns. Weighing how I'm going to vote. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

4. Too soon for me to support The answer to my question was okay, but I do not like the answer to 20. Adminship is a big deal because it takes a really major effort to reverse a bad decision. The large number of questions reflects the community's concerns with the candidate. When you become an admin, people will ask questions, challenge you, bait you, and even curse at you. You need to handle all that with aplomb. I've moved this to neutral because you seem to have learned a bit from this process, which can be quite difficult. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 19 December 2011 (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.