Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Doniago

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

Doniago

Final (14/17/1); ended 14:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate, see here. Kraxler (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Doniago (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen , I would like to present User:Doniago for your consideration. I have encountered him on several occasions and was surprised he was not an administrator already due to his calm demeanor. Doniago first joined the project in May 2008 and has accumulated 50,000 edits since then. He is active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and does a lot of gnomish edits including vandal patrol. When I approached him about the bit, he said "I tend to believe that sometimes the people best able to handle additional power, as it were, are the ones who aren't specifically looking for it." This is the perfect attitude to have, since it shows he is not seeking the mop as a source of power but rather an opportunity. He will be a net positive with the tools. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I would like to thank EDDY for the faith and confidence that they have shown in me by nominating me for adminship. I am surprised and grateful to be spoken of as they have done above, and I am happy to accept their nomination. DonIago (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2015 (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: Based on my practical experience with Wikipedia, I believe my skills could best be utilized off the bat at WP:RFPP, WP:3RN and WP:AIV. That said, while this may sound a bit wishy-washy, I have no objection to learning about other areas of Wikipedia where it is felt that increased administrator presence would be an asset. The majority of my knowledge of Wikipedia has been self-taught, which is to say that when I learn about situations where I think I can help out, I try to do so.

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

A: At the risk of sounding overly-humble, I daresay my best contributions have been the "little things". As noted by Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs) I have been active at WP:FILM, including in conversations that led to refinements to related infoboxes and the Manual of Style. I played a primary role in developing Template:Uw-plotsum1 and Template:Uw-plotsum2, user warning templates that the community seemed to feel were helpful in cases where an editor was adding too much detail to the plot summary of an article (film or otherwise), and which were recently added to WP:WARN.

I have also been very concerned with and active with regards to Wikipedia's verifiability policy and have participated in multiple conversations there. This stems from the fact that one of the activities I regularly partake in is patrolling new edits, and I take particular interest in cases where editors are adding information without providing reliable sources. It could probably be said in all fairness that I tend towards the deletionist side of the spectrum, though I make an effort both to inform editors about the verifiability guidelines and assist them where I can.

On another front, I was heavily involved in a discussion regarding appropriate usage of the Religion field at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 26#Straw poll. When conversation there was, in my estimation, becoming difficult to manage, I started a straw poll to try to gain a more clear understanding of what editors' opinions where. I feel this was a generally successful effort that led to a path forward.

More recently I've taken more of an interest in both AfD and CfD, moreso the latter. I've also been monitoring RfCs in areas where I think I may have useful input and have contributed on occasion.

The blunt truth is that for the most part I'm a gnome. It's where I'm most comfortable in my involvement with the project and I think working in this capacity plays to my best strengths.

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: Quite recently I was involved in a disagreement at Talk:Inception#Analysis of the ending. Because a limited number of editors were involved in the dispute, I solicited additional opinions at WT:FILM. When the conversation continued with a limited number of editors and it, in my mind, was no longer being productive, I proposed an informal closure of the discussion. When no editors supported by motion, I let the matter drop, understanding that I had no consensus for how I felt matters should progress.

I think it would be safe to say that the majority of arguments I find myself in here revolve around my removal of unsourced information. While these situations have generally been localized to either my Talk page or the appropriate article's Talk page, they have on occasion been escalated to WP:ANI (recent examples [1] and [2]) and I believe it would be fair to say that the feeling is that while my actions with regards to unsourced material may not always be "best practice", they are well within policy.

I think in the end it all, perhaps unsurprisingly, comes down to WP:CONSENSUS and knowing when to walk away from an argument. If I'm the only editor who can or will take my side, I have to consider that I probably don't have a very good leg to stand on with regards to Wikipedia. If other editors support my perspective, then what's most important is to be civil and try to find a compromise that will satisfy as many editors as possible. I think it could be argued that one of the greatest problems that can emerge in any debate here is editors who become entrenched in their views and lose flexibility.

Additional (optional) questions from users

Additional questions by Carrite

4. Are there any other account names that you have used to edit Wikipedia? If so, what are these?

A. No.

5. If you could change one thing about English-Wikipedia, what would it be?

A. I'm not sure whether you'd prefer an answer that I would consider realistically attainable, or are open to a pie-in-the-sky answer, but in general I wish the overall atmosphere here (and perhaps it's just the areas where I've tended to focus) was more collaborative and less confrontational. I've found myself in more situations than I'd like where if editors had focused more on civility and expressed more flexibility when expressing their opinions than disputes might have been resolved (more) cleanly rather than either continuing or, worse, escalating. "Hi, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but we have a guideline about that..." and "Hey, stop what you're doing right now, that's not how we do things, you have to do it this way!!!" may convey the same underlying message, but are likely to cause very different reactions. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way we can tell editors "be nicer to and more patient with each other", so we're left just trying to appreciate the disputes where everyone is reasonable and civil for the duration of the conflict.

Additional question from SilkTork

6. I've just read User_talk:Doniago/Archive_38#Lawrence of Arabia (film) in which you explain how you deal with unsourced content: if it is recently added you remove it, if it was added a while ago, you tag it, and when tagged you wait a year before removing it. Given that we have a serious problem with pre-existing unsourced content (see Category:Articles lacking sources for example) would you expand upon your thinking on this.

A: I think you may have misunderstood me; what I was saying there was that when information has been tagged for over a year an editor is well within their rights to remove it (though per WP:MINREF they're not really required to wait at all if they're removing it as a challenge, and whether the information is previously-tagged is technically irrelevant). Personally I tend to consider anything tagged and still unsourced after 2-3 months fair game (which isn't to say I'd necessarily remove it, the exact text is always pertinent).

But this is, as I indicated above, a matter of "best practice" versus "is permitted". Personally I think it's somewhat poor form to summarily remove unsourced text that's been stable and untagged, and when I remove substantial amounts of text I often relocate it to the Talk page rather than simply deleting it. But I'm not going to revert them solely because I think it was poor form.

I hope this sufficiently addresses the question, but I'm happy to speak to it further.

Additional question from SilkTork

7. You come upon a discussion or AfD to close it and find all those involved seek A, with nobody seeking B, yet B is the appropriate option. What do you do?

A: Assuming that extending the duration of the AfD (and perhaps mentioning it in appropriate locations to draw additional feedback) was not an option, I would cast a vote in favor of B. We don't close simply in favor of majority rule when we know that the majority's preferred action is blatantly inappropriate.

Additional question from Ritchie333

8. A brand new user creates an article, with no sources, that reads "Bernie Drummond wrote Batman and Head over Heels with Jon Ritman". What do you do?

A: I think I'd want to try to initiate a conversation with the user, given that we have articles for Batman and Head over Heels and Jon Ritman. It seems reasonable to assume without more context that whatever they're attempting to create has "already been done", but there's no deadline either, and if they're going to build an article that would contain something that isn't already captured, that might be worth pursuing (perhaps Bernie Drummond is due for an article). Though I'd likely drop in a mention about WP:V as well. In any case, if this is really among their first edits, it seems needlessly bureaucratic and likely alienating to take administrative action without giving the user a chance to discuss their intentions.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

9. What is your view of Process is important?

A: In general I agree with it. If acting in an admin capacity I would consider myself bound by it...it's not an admin's role to unilaterally decide which processes are or are not effective and consequently worthy of being followed. That said, there may be times when existing process is impractical for one reason or another, but at such times there should be a discussion of whether it's best to waive the standard process, not a single admin or cabal deciding for themselves which processes actually merit being adhered to. I think there should be an underlying assumption that the processes are there for good reason; a form of AGF if you will.

10. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: My feeling is that when there's any question as to whether an article sufficiently meets the criteria it is best not to delete. In general there is no deadline, and other deletion processes exist if there are ongoing concerns.

11. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion?

A: WP:CCS seems to have this issue surrounded, but I would be happy to discuss it further.

12. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: I wasn't aware that it had one, but might be open to carefully exploring possibilities. Certainly as a new admin that's not a policy I'd be planning to use as a potential defense for any actions in the near-future, and I wouldn't expect any editor who fell afoul of my actions to be particularly thrilled if IAR was the best argument I could muster. Speaking as an editor, I don't think I've ever relied on IAR as a reasoning for any action I undertook. In short, I'm highly dubious that IAR should have any place in carrying out administrative actions.

13. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A: Having participated at WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:ANI, and probably other such locales, I think it's safe to say I have a reasonable degree of familiarity with the dispute resolution process. As an editor, when I find myself in disputes with others I try to make an effort to point out that there are options if we cannot reach an agreement (i.e. they don't ever have to just take my word for it). I don't see that advising users of their options and encouraging them to seek such options if they're dissatisfied would be much different as an Admin, though in terms of conduct I feel Admins should endeavor to hold themselves to a higher level of professionalism. Certainly my word doesn't become law just because I'm suddenly an Admin.

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support as nom. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support - Adequate tenure (very active since March 2009, more than 50K edits), clean block log, no indications of assholery. Excellent content-creator's sort of contributions graph. Good luck. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support — I first encountered Don as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and helped him along in his early days there and have worked with him on a number of occasions since then. Don demonstrates a fine, reasoned approach to all that he does and would make a great admin. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   voter was canvassed. Townlake (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

   Support I haven't done much digging but I reviewed the discussion at Talk:Inception and the ANI's link in question 3. A few spot checks on their talk page showed no issues and generally I like their demeanor thus far at this RFA. Otherwise, this editor more than meets my RFA standards which has me here early in the support section. Mkdw^talk 17:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Regretfully, moved to oppose

4. Support Per basically, everyone above. Doniago is one of the good guys. --Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support. Nothing wrong with an editor who spends a lot of time doing a lot of little things that each make our articles a little bit better. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   Support why not? Jianhui67 ^T★C 19:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

6. Support. I have never heard of Doniago before seeing this RfA. But that is not required. Some of the best admins are those who keep to the shadows, do the job and are happy to do so. I checked an extensive sample of their edits and couldn't see any red flags. Doniago appears to be a level-headed, friendly editor who likes to help people and keep the place tidy. If there is any major drama concerning them, I couldn't find it. Doniago admits (in A3), that he has a rigid view of WP:V and removing unsourced information which has led to some friction but I can understand (although I don't necessarily share) his point of view. What I think matters most though is that he is capable of accepting when consensus disagrees with him. While I do urge him to take concerns over such editing seriously, it does not effect my assessment of whether he should be an admin because those edits can be made regardless of it. But there is no instance I could see where he misused the tools already granted to him (rollback, reviewer) to further his point of view, so I don't think he will misuse the mop if granted.
   As for the opposes at this moment (and hopefully there won't be more of this kind) regarding a lack of content creation: The notion that admins should be really good content creators completely fails to take into account what we are: We are - hence the mop symbol - this project's janitors. We clean up the mess and take care that the project keeps working so that the content creators can do their job. An editor can be a great admin without writing a single line of new content for articles as long as they demonstrate that they can distinguish between good and bad edits others make. One doesn't expect the janitor at the museum to also create its exhibits but only that the janitor doesn't damage the exhibits while doing their job. So why should this project be any different? With this in mind, I did check a random sample of the candidate's edits in Mainspace and imho there is no reason to assume that they don't know what they are doing when it comes to encyclopedic content (edits such as [3] [4] [5] [6] demonstrate a skill in content editing in line with our policies and guidelines).
   Regards SoWhy 20:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Oppose votes after the first two have provided reasons to reconsider. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

7. Support Doniago has been an asset to the project for some time. having the mop and bucket will increase that. MarnetteD|Talk 21:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   voter was canvassed. Townlake (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

   Support as an excellent candidate, No issues, The opposes don't bother me in the slightest. –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) (Moved to Oppose. –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

8. Support. I haven't come across Doniago before this RfA but his log looks good to me. There are a lot of edits spread out evenly over the last 7 years; mostly mainspace. I'm not concerned that Doniago hasn't done much "content creation" as the opposers below all seem to focus on - the fact that Doniago's edits are 63% mainspace convinced me that I shouldn't be concerned about his quality to enrich content. Deryck C. 23:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
9. A valued contributor who performs an essential task: maintaining high-traffic pages by keeping off unsourced and poorly written rubbish. At this stage in Wikipedia's development that very much counts as "content contributions".--Mkativerata (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
10. Support I see no issues + Your daily reminder content creation is completely irrelevant to being a capable sysop. —Frosty ☃ 00:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
11. Weak support I don't agree with those opposing because he has not created any articles. If Wikipedia has just content creators, Wikipedia would be terrible. However, I do agree that canvassing this RfA wasn't a smart idea. Datbubblegumdoe^talk_contribs 01:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
12. Support I agree with those who say lack of article creation has no bearing on one's fitness for adminship. The most important thing is a sense of calm and fairness, and I've seen that with Doniago. The occasional snark in an edit summary need to be taken in context; some people clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia and don't want to learn policies and guidelines, and you need to get their attention before anything else. I've seen admins who condone swearing and f-bombs, and I cannot imagine Doniago condoning incivility or being truly uncivil himself. I believe he has a good grasp of policies and guidelines, and his holding the line on such basics as WP:BURDEN demonstrates to me that he takes seriously the fact that many, many people believe what's written in Wikipedia, cited or not, and inaccurate information is a clear and present danger to Wikipedia's credibility. I think such things form the foundation for informed decision-making and good judgment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    voter was canvassed. Townlake (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    Support Per nom. Trustworthy and experienced candidate. (moving to oppose) INeverCry 01:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

13. RFA sucks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    +1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    -1. Sorry, Floquenbeam, not everyone should be an admin, even if RfA sucks. I shouldn't, for instance. BMK (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    Support -- Yeah seems good to me. I have also noticed him on vandal patrol which is excellent. I believe he is a trustworthy and experienced candidate and we do need him as an admin.(moved to oppose) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

14. Support- one of the good guys. Oodles of clue and does not put up with nonsense. Reyk _YO! 08:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Per this. Not only no FA/GA articles, but no article creation at all? Ah, no. GregJackP Boomer! 18:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   There are some of us who think the GA/FA process is a crock of shit. Just sayin'... Carrite (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   LOL, then I would suggest that you don't use it as part of your criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 22:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   ... and for the record I don't mandate GA/FA, and even though I like improving stuff to GA I've got no problem with Carrite taking an opposing view at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose - no article at all created, total of 15 votes at AfD and half of them "red cells", doesn't inspire much confidence Kraxler (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose - sorry but "Was it good for you? Next time just add your sources instead of wasting everyone's time." and "Pot calling kettle, given that you're talking about sources but apparently can't be bothered to provide a single one thus far. You are, of course, welcome to reinsert the material with reliable sourcing. Which might be a better approach than bickering about the need for sources" falls below the level of WP:CIVIL I expect from an admin. Also your AfD experience is weak as documented in the "neutral" section. Even without the tools you must take a more compassionate approach for newcomers and stop thinking "verifiable content" means "has a ref tag" - WP:SOFIXIT. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   I respect your right to oppose my nomination, and I won't argue that I may not have addressed that particular incident as level-headedly as I might have, but in case it's of any bearing I did reply to your question above. DonIago (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reply, I think I should apologise for not doing as much research as I should when I asked it, as I was still open minded at that point. However, what has now cemented my oppose vote is your edit warring on All Along the Watchtower here, here and here (I can only assume you released that had you reverted again with that 24 hour period you could have been blocked for violating WP:3RR) and zero discussion on the talk page. The other party took you to ANI, you didn't respond, Moonriddengirl did the right thing and added sources, while your response was the rude reply on your talk page I listed above. Utterly unacceptable behaviour for an admin. Not only am I continuing to oppose, I would actively encourage all support voters to look at this candidate's edit-warring history and re-evaluate their position. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

4. Oppose- per the three opposes above me: inadequate article creation, inappropriate attitude. Also distribution of edits shows an inordinate percentage of User talk page edits, often an indication of a contentious editor. Let me add that I'm not particularly impresssed by the nominator. BMK (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Continued misunderstanding/misuse of BURDEN, V; non-use of BRD. Many instances of edit-warring when his wholesale unwarranted removal of non-contentious unsourced material before {{cn}} tagging or discussion is questioned or reverted. Poor AfD record. Canvassing of this RfA. Way way too many appearances, as accused or plaintiff, on the noticeboards [7]. And that's just my cursory examination. Not looking good at all. Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC) ETA: And he's had the "administrator hopeful" userbox on his userpage for 3.5 years, so this whole When I approached him about the bit, he said "I tend to believe that sometimes the people best able to handle additional power, as it were, are the ones who aren't specifically looking for it." This is the perfect attitude to have, since it shows he is not seeking the mop as a source of power but rather an opportunity in the nomination sounds like a load of hooey to me, especially since in addition to the many years–old userbox he pretty much begged for an RfA nom on AN in October 2014 and May 2015. Softlavender (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC); edited 01:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

   Can you provide evidence of canvassing? I don't see any?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   Check his recent edit history -- he has announced the RfA to five people so far, one of whom has >96 page watchers, and three of whom have >120 page watchers. If that's not canvassing, then you and I have different definitions of the word as it concerns RfA. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   Oh. I don't know how I missed that. To whom all is concerned, the edits in question are these ones.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

6. Oppose: Sneaky "My life may have just gotten more interesting" canvassing (see contribs from 14:47 to 14:55, 21 August) is an insta-oppose. Esquivalience ^t 23:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
7. Canvassing via votestacking is cheating. Townlake (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
8. Oppose - We're not only here to sing Kumbaya and simply edit articles, but an editor who edits since 2009 and has over 50k edits, but yet no article creation? No way. Attitude and canvassing is not appropriate as well. Racer-Ωmegα 00:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
9. Oppose Bluntness is not a problem for me, and article creation is not a must, although I'm in the camp who believes that experience with FA/GA processes is helpful. The combination of things mentioned by Softlavender, however, is individually and collectively inappropriate. That alone is enough for me to oppose at this time. However, I will mention for the benefit of the candidate that I felt their reply to question 13 suggested a "business as usual" approach to ANI et al., which is not something we need more of. We need admins who are willing to go the extra mile in looking at the details of a case, and who have the guts to defend unpopular and empathetic proposals based on such an assessment. Giving simple answers and telling people to escalate it to the next level if they so wish is not the path of wisdom. Samsara 01:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Unfortunately I've moved from Support - I'm not bothered in the slightest about content creation, What I am bothered about is the fact you decided to canvass this RFA on 5 editors talkpages which lets be honest isn't a very smart thing to do!, Some may or may not see it as canvassing but I do and I can't support that sorry. –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    "I'm not bothered in the slightest about content creation, What I am bothered about is the fact you decided to canvass this RFA" - Hey, that's Wikipedia's motto! --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    Was , Think I'll make it my own motto now lol. –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

11. Oppose Looks like I was a bit too quick with my original support vote. Softlavender's oppose rationale makes me doubt the trustworthiness of this candidate upon more consideration. INeverCry 02:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
12. Oppose per canvassing and inappropriate behaviour. Sorry. Jianhui67 ^T★C 02:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
13. Oppose Per Jianhui67. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Softlavender and those citing zero article creation. I do thank the candidate for a long block-free history of extensive service and suggest coming back in a year or so when you have made a few articles and done some "adminny" things. Jusdafax 07:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
15. Oppose I was going to start doing my research for this candidate today, but a cursory glance at some of the moves to oppose and the other opposes and then following up, I obviously don't need to bother. Not even a redirect created. Very poor performance at AfD. And of course there's the canvassing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
16. I'm going to give Doniago the benefit of the doubt and assume that his cross-post to TransporterMan, MarnetteD, Millahnna, Tenebrae, and Betty Logan was not intended as canvassing. Even so, it was a major lapse in judgment to comment about his ongoing RfA at their talk pages. He should have considered the possibility that these notifications would contribute to the perception that he was attempting to shore up support for his candidacy, and that it would reflect poorly on him. We all make mistakes, but I think this one could have been averted by doing a little extra reading beforehand to get a sense of how editors should conduct themselves during their RfA. There's no shame in that - in fact, resourcefulness is one of the most important traits that an administrator should possess. You may not always know what to do offhand, but knowing where to look will help you to figure it out, as would have been the case here.

    The lack of article writing doesn't concern me at all. There are a myriad different ways for anyone to make significant contributions: writing content, cleaning copyvios, reverting vandalism, participating in deletion discussions, etc. Each and every one of those tasks are essential to building and maintaining Wikipedia, and it is harmful for our community if we devalue a person's contributions solely because they do not place an emphasis on article writing. However, Ritchie's points about Doniago's communication skills are a cause for concern. Let's say a new editor makes a stereotypically "new editor" cock-up - for example, nominating an article for deletion based on faulty reasoning (i.e. "the content of this article is too trivial to warrant keeping it"). Closing the AfD and chastising them on their talk page about it, especially in a tone like this, could seriously put them off. Administrators have a tremendous impact on editor retention; they are often seen as authority figures to those who are just starting out. Rudeness on the part of a sysop can give off the impression that Wikipedia condones incivility amidst its upper ranks, which would alienate potential contributors. The edit war is also a concern, although it appears to have been an isolated incident. We all have our off days. So long as Doniago avoids making the same mistake twice, I'm willing to look past it.

    Ultimately, I don't think what we have here is a case of somebody not suited for the role, and I could easily see myself supporting a future bid for adminship if Doniago works to moderate his tone a little bit; it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for him to diversify his portfolio, either. Once he gets those obstacles out of his way, I'm sure Doniago would make a great administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

17. Oppose Unfortunately I find myself in a position where I have to switch to an oppose. I had been wondering about how prepared this candidate would be for this RFA because it truly appeared to be an out of the blue nomination, for which they accepted, and the series of events took off quickly from there. Nonetheless, any experienced editor would know about WP:VOTESTACKING so I am very surprised in a process that seeks community trust and consensus that this would be done. I feel like my oppose now is a bit of a pile on at this point, but since the candidate hasn't withdrawn their RFA, I feel it's important to let them know how serious this is taken here at RFA, and in general. I would like to add that the lack of content creation doesn't bother me; this is a long standing discussion here at RFA. Mkdw^talk 11:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - First, thank you Doniago for your contributions. The candidate's AIV reports and overall demeanor are positives. I would like to see at least a couple of articles created and more insightful participation at AfD (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-go area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni). I also recommend getting involved in new page patrol to get an understanding of CSD. - MrX 20:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

   Holy moley, and those were within the last 8 months. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (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.