Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Otherlleft

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

Otherlleft

Final tally: 44/17/8 Closed as unsuccessful --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Otherlleft (talk · contribs) – Otherlleft is a low-profile but long-term contributor, with 4,563 edits since September 2005.[1] Although he edited only sporadically for several years, he has been steadily active since mid-2009, with a previous spike of activity in 2008. Among his most substantial article contributions are Survival of the Shawangunks and Sound Ideas, which demonstrate a respectable level of familiarity with Wikipedia's content and the processes used to sustain it. Outside of the mainspace, Otherlleft contributes to XfD and participates in wikignome-ish areas like vandalism fighting. His talk page comments, while relatively few, are generally well-reasoned and professional, leading me to believe he has the necessary integrity and judgment to prove an effective admin. Deleted edits (admins only, sorry folks!) reveals a good 200 solid deletion nominations, but no malice. Clean block log, rollback rights, clean talk page, and cluefulness are all in order, and given the shortage of admins recently, I think Otherlleft would be a magnificent admin. Hope you agree. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It's ironic that I recent admitted that I didn't know if I would ever stand for RfA, but I graciously accept.--otherlleft 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I'm most interested in closing AfD discussions, and frequently take a look at how other admins make these calls. However, that's a fairly high-profile area and I expect that I won't be needed there often, so I would focus on other backlogs that are less glamorous. I edit because I like to help where I can, and I would use the admin tools similarly.

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

A: I have to say Headless Horseman Hayrides is my proudest work. I was surprised to find an entry on this attraction in Wikipedia, and when I looked at it first it read like a brochure. Now I think it's on par with any of the haunted attraction articles on the site.

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: Both of the incidents I've had are available on the archive on my talk page. An anonymous editor was upset that I was making edits to the Heroes article] and told me so. My response was actually embarrassingly snarky, and I was surprised when I reviewed it just now to see that I went so far as to refer to the anon as "poor little boy." I had a very low tolerance for being attacked by someone who wouldn't leave a name, as I've encountered such in blogosphere. I can say that my comment to the editor was stronger than some of the "good faith" comments I've read which have made me cringe. As for the other, I prodded Hugh Kearney and a significant contibutor took me to task for it. We were able to settle our differences on our talk pages.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

4. In lieu of a recently passed ArbCom motion, that said the burden of proof in BLP deletion rests with the editors who want the article kept, merits an interesting new question. If you were to close an AFD, on an unsourced or badly sourced BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus, how would you close it, and how do you think your view conflicts or agrees with the motion?

A. Typically a no consensus close reverts to keep, but I believe that policy will be changing in regard to BLPs before long. I believe that for BLPs it's more prudent to remove an entry if notability has not been clearly established. Certainly I would confer with a more experienced admin before closing a tricky AfD like the hypothetical you've described.

5. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. I think the policy is a good one. Monitoring articles of people I know was one of my earliest editing tasks, and I think holding this type of article to the higher standard that we do is a good idea. Not long ago I nominated John Rossatti for deletion because I was unable to achieve consensus that negative information on the subject was properly sourced and felt that without said info the subject was not notable and didn't really need the scrutiny a Wikipedia entry invites. Mostly I focus on non-BLP articles but I have been watching the unfolding discussion with great interest.

6. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?

A. In the United States the COPPA laws don't allow anyone under 13 to provide much in the way of personally-identifying information, and in those cases I think requesting oversight (apparently now called "suppress") wouldn't be inappropriate. In cases where it isn't strictly illegal I would do my best to encourage the editor not to share that sort of information, and were I unable to convince them I would seek guidance about whether the specifics warranted suppression of the information. I'm a strong advocate for free-range kids, but that only works when they're in an environment which one can reasonably expect to be safe.

Additional optional questions from Shirik

7. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user who has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?

A:If the user is engaging is activity such as making legal threats, disclosing personal information about other users, or engaging in editing which is similarly dangerous this may be appropriate, but four warnings are not hard to give, so those cases are exceptions. If I were to do so it would be because I felt that asking another admin to review in advance would be too late, and in that type of case I would want to ask for a review of my decision after the fact.

8. When, if ever, is uncited content which is present on biographies of living people acceptable?

A. Information which is generally accepted as a fact. That Jimbo Wales is male does not require a citation, but in his case, his birthdate does because it is in dispute. I hold to the rule of thumb that if someone asks for a citation, one is needed.

Additional optional questions from Lambanog

9. How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple?

A: I have only created a small number of articles, including those mentioned in my nomination as well as Kirk White and To come (publishing), ten in all. Most of my article work is copyediting and gnomish in nature, leaving the creative writing to others. I am presently working on some drafts, including Otherlleft/Overlook Mountain and Otherlleft/Catskill mountain fire towers. The only deleted article I can recall is David Gulotta, which I should have started in userspace and probably would still be there, as the artist I was writing about still doesn't have any reliable sources, a standard which I did not understand at the time, and it was speedily deleted.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

10. Would you see it as part of your admin's role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: Topic and page bans are only warranted in cases on longterm abuse and should be issued by the Arbitration Committee. The ban(s) imposed upon a specific editor may warrant blocking prior to issuing four warnings, as this has essentially been addressed in the past.

Comment by candidate on John Rosatti AfD nomination

11. More than one editor has expressed concerned about my reasoning behind this nomination, so I will attempt to clarify my position in the question space for convenience.

A: The debate on the talk page (only visible to administrators, so I will do my best to recall it correctly) centered on whether an article in the Village Voice was a reliable source on the subject. Those editors who believed it was not reliable pointed to the overall quality of the paper in recent years and additionally stressed that this was the only publication which did not use the term "alleged" when tying the subject to the Columbo crime family. Editors trusting in the article's reliability (myself among them) held the number of Pulitzer prizes and the overall quality of the paper at the time of publication to be sufficient evidence of reliability. The consensus was not in my favor, and were the information about crime activity removed what was left was an article about a man who owns some large car dealerships and a very fast boat, and who donates large sums of money from time to time. Accepting the fact that the only source about crime activity was considered reliable by involved editors, I realized that the article had only borderline notability and would be a magnet for more references to criminal activity, which (barring a reliable source) is a pretty terrible thing to do to a living person. User:Crackofdawn, who had specifically returned the article to mainspace after its previous deletion and self-identified as close to the subject, ultimately asserted that the subject preferred the article be deleted and supported the measure as well. The consensus was to delete and salt the article, a close which has not been reviewed. I would not have nominated it had the source been deemed reliable, but absent that it seemed like a particularly egregious BLP violation.--otherlleft 14:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from DESiegel

12. What is your opinion of the essay Wikipedia:Process is Important?

A:I think it does an excellent job of explaining why things on Wikipedia are sometimes as complex is they are. As someone who has served on student governments, volunteer municipal boards, and other organizations of various sizes I recognize that having a process within which many people can collectively work is critical to making sure you get anything done. Our processes can be slow, but there is no deadline and I prefer to see complex issues considered carefully first, rather than after the fact. I think the essay is intended to minimize abuse of such tenets as WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and WP:SNOW, but there is definitely a place for using common sense to achieve the right outcome. WP:DYK, where I recently started lending a hand reviewing nominations, is an area where ignoring rules is going to happen on a regular basis, but if an administrator invokes it (usually as a "snow close") to close a deletion early, he or she better had be very certain lest it come up again at DRV. Snow closes in particular can be an excellent way to ignore process, however; if this RfA were running 90% against me I certainly wouldn't want to have to watch it for another six days.

What's most important is helping new and inexperienced editors understand that value of our processes, and how they work, so they don't get frustrated, confused, or disheartened. That's why we have WP:BOLD, to prevent these processes from getting in the way of creating an encyclopedia. Newer editors can easily be smacked down for not understanding when rules are okay to ignore, and unfortunately none of us can rely on the non-verbal cues that are so helpful in picking up those subtleties, so it's always appropriate to take time out to explain this complicated world of ours to people who are interested in helping out.

I think editors should ignore process only with caution, and I feel that the appropriate occasions for ignoring process with administrator tools are exceedingly rare.

Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert

13. Can you explain a bit as to why it took you so long to establish a regular editing pattern?

A: Primarily it was real-life considerations that caused the fluctuations since I began editing. My peak month was during a period of unemployment, frankly, and I was significantly less active when I was working full-time for someone else.

14. What is your opinion on the Ignore all rules policy?

A: I think the policy is as clear as it is succinct: ignore a rule if it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. This doesn't mean ignoring a clear consensus or ongoing discussion (so long as the editor is made aware of it), but it's a good safety valve to prevent Wikipedia from bureaucratic.

15. What are your views on the Petition against IAR abuse?

A: I think invoking IAR for the use of admin tools is a very slippery slope, because only a fraction of editors have access to those tools. There is a high likelihood of there being a perception of abuse in such cases, so I'd rather err on ignoring IAR when it comes to administrative actions.

Additional optional questions from Unioneagle

16. How would you close this AFD?

A I was unable to review the article itself, so my opinion may lack context. Although the article had significant, reliable sources, there was no consensus that the topic is independently notable, and significant concerns that it was a POV content fork. The arguments against merging because of the size of the receiving article shouldn't be considered, but the fact that the article was moved more than once is very relevant, but I would agree with the closing admin in this case. The information is notable, but not necessarily in the form the article described.

17. Please explain your understanding of fair use on Wikipedia.

A There are times when it's very helpful to have an image in an article, but no free version is possible, as in the case of corporate logos, album covers, and reclusive authors. We don't have the right to simply use a copy; it generally must be the smallest possible version of the image that still conveys meaning. Fair use images are not permitted to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and they are only permitted in article space.

Additional optional questions from Lambanog

18. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close [2]

A: I took a look at this RfD when you asked this question of another candidate and, not realizing I'd been asked the same question I made a comment on your talk page related to it. My review of the discussion shows you really thought about these before creating them, and considered the various policies, particularly focusing on pseudo-namespace redirects. The nominator and other participating editor relied on the prevailing opinion that new cross-mainspace redirects are to be deleted. Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces states: "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects should be deleted, that very old ones might be retained value for extra-Wikipedia links, and that pseudo-namespace redirects (CAT:, P:, MOS:, etc) may be used freely." The essay further concedes that this is a controversial issue. The weakest point I find in the debate is that the templates "interfere with the actual encyclopedia," I would not have considered it while making the close because editors are not expected to worry about the back-end IT issues of the site. As an editor I find this template shortcuts to be reasonable, but as a closing admin I would have closed it as delete.

I thank you for the invitation to expand on this response. I looked at this deletion both as an editor weighing in, and as an admin determining consensus, which really wasn't your question. As the editor arguing to keep you pointed to Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces, which describes the very sort of shortcut you created, and in no way forbids them. The other editors, citing the essay WP:CNR, argued for its deletion. If I saw a policy that expressly encourages or forbids their use I would go with it (and suggesting one at WP:Village pump (proposals) might be in order), but absent that I would close this as a consensus for deletion. --otherlleft 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

19. What are your thoughts on Wikipedia Review? What influence do you think it has on some of the more controversial Wikipedia policies? Do you participate there? Leaky Caldron 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A: I've read through some pages of the site from time to time, but I've never weighed in. Wikipedia has flaws, but the users of that site don't seem to be interested in positive suggestions or feedback, and that gets old pretty fast. As evidenced in some of the my other responses and those of editors weighing in here, I'm not particularly impressed by folks using anonymity as a means to engage in cowardly personal attacks, and I am willing to put my name on any view I hold here or on any other site. If I were to participate there I would do so under this name, because I have no reason to hide what I think.

I think the largest impact it has on Wikipedia is here at RfA - admins and others who are singled out by the site can find a lot of personal info about themselves there, and I think it probably gives some potential candidates pause. That sort of influence is subtle, but so much as it limits the candidates at RfA it has an effect on how policies are interpreted by folks with the most tools to use for their enforcement.

Additional optional questions from Materialscientist

20. Could you please elaborate this thread, stating how do your web-site and job activity overlap with your wikipedia editing? What did you mean by "I offer them updates on what the entries say, but I also coach them"?

A: To answer this fully requires some background. I started editing Wikipedia in 2005, joined StumbleUpon in 2007, Facebook in 2008, and committed myself to freelance writing in 2009. One of my first clients wanted me to write guides on how to promote his business on various social networking sites to help leverage the work of his bloggers into a more popular site, which led me to learn quite a bit about many of these services, and further led me to believe that being a "social networking guru" would be more profitable than just being a guy who provided blog entries and web copy. When I speak about social networking I place it in the broader context of Web 2.0 phenomena, which also include blogs, Wikipedia, information sharing via Google docs and similar services, and the like. Some of my business relations are, not surprisingly, with marketing firms, and when I spoke about these matters I was asked a few times about Wikipedia, with comments like, "Man, we tried using Wikipedia but we got blacklisted," and "Can you get me on Wikipedia?" I discovered that talking to people about Wikipedia was a good way to get them to talk to me about my business, and determined that having mention of Wikipedia on my web site would do the same. Several days ago I expanded the mention of Wikipedia to place it in the context of Web 2.0 where I had originally intended it, as part of a package of services that would have me reading various websites I already visit for new mentions of my clients. That's the background.

My response in the thread listed above was a bit vague because, well, I haven't actually needed to clarify that service in light of the fact that no one has expressed an interest in paying me to read Wikipedia (or any other site, for that matter) on their behalf. (Most of the people I respect and turn to for business advice counsel against talking openly about unsuccessful ventures and ideas for a variety of reasons.) My clients are so small that even the most inclusionist editors wouldn't write articles about them, and in the present economy they turn a deaf ear when I tell them that they could be in Wikipedia if I write 2,000 press releases for them and twenty of them are picked up by major media outlets (an exaggeration, perhaps, but it drives home the point that the road to Wikipedia is called "notability"). My vision of the service as it related to Wikipedia was to monitor via RSS feed to alert them of new changes, explain the details of the conflict of interest policy, coach them on how this community evaluates information, and to teach them how to use procedures like {{edit request}} to request changes if unflattering information is uncited and/or inaccurate, or if they wanted to suggest new information to add, modeling it after the behavior of the CEO of PBWiki, who does an excellent job of working with Wikipedia in a transparent fashion.

I did consider simply removing the reference on my site and not acknowledging SilkTork's comment since it wasn't actually a question, but it wasn't the right thing to do.

Optional Questions by /MWOAP|Notify Me\

Q: Explain the following Criteria for Speedy Deletion criteria.

A: As a general comment, I think CSD is an admin area that is very important to get right, and not one I would want to tackle without mentoring.

G11

A: Articles that fall under this criterion would have peacock terms in them, and are probably either unreferenced or have only references to press releases or other self-published material. I wouldn't delete if there was a third-party reference, a "criticism" section, or other suggestions that it was written in an attempt to conform to WP:NPOV, because its merits should then be properly debated. If the article is about an organization rather than a product, an assertion of importance would invoke A7 (but since G criteria apply to all namespaces and not merely articles, this may not be relevant).

G12

A: An example of this might be Seaford Fire Department, which prior to its redirect had a significant amount of material copied from the department's web page. A review of the history shows this was not always the case, so it would not have been appropriate to delete per this criterion. Pages created by pasting content from other web sites are the target of G12, and it's better to decline if there's any content which is not a copyvio. The key word here is unambiguous.

A1

A: Articles are without context when it simply can't be determined what they're about. The example given at WP:CSD is packed with pronouns; adding a noun might give sufficient context ("Richard Adams is a funny man with a red car" gives some context, but "Richard is a funny man with a red car" doesn't appear to.)

A3

A: An article has to say something or it will be eligible for deletion under this criterion. The "something" can be in the form of prose or infobox data, with the exception of writing which is clearly intended as a two-way communication (i.e., questions for the help desk, fan mail Jimbo, or attempts to start a forum-like discussion). The statement, "However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion," is an important mitigation of this criterion. The two criteria A1 and A3 should both be tested before deleting under either one.

Question from SilkTork.

I've been asking Otherlleft to clarify some concerns I've had about his professional involvement with Wikipedia, as he offers his services to companies in regard to Wikipedia articles on those companies. He has explained his position on his talkpage. As this RfA is not yet settled he suggested I copy this question here as he has some views on the topic.

Q: What are your views on Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy)? SilkTork *^YES! 11:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A: This is essentially the same response I gave on my talk page to this question, barring these two introductory statements. The official evidence available initially made me draw the conclusion that paid editing is acceptable with due caution, but I revised that view once I discovered that's it's not only quite contentious, but would subject any editor to considerable sanctions which would be enforced on an unofficial basis. I think it's a miserable state of affairs. I researched that question when I was studying the conflict of interest policy before providing a notice to an editor at Ebsco Publishing - that policy makes a very vague assertion about not being "paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image." With that information I wrote an article which can be found at [http://business-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/wikipedian_editor_for_hire (with apologies, I cannot provide these external links directly due to the site in question being blacklisted) which explains the principles I had researched at WP:COI. Thereafter I did some Googling and encountered the tale of User:Thekohser. I reviewed the debate on paid editing and interviewed Gregory Kohser, writing another article, http://business-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/dangers_of_hired_wikipedia_editing. (Interestingly, during that period another article I wrote, "Using Wikipedia as an SEO Strategy is a Bad Idea," was temporarily removed from the Suite101 site because I quoted from CEO Peter Berger's contributions here about Suite101 being blacklisted. Not all sites are as tolerant of criticism as this one!) What I found interesting is that I followed a similar research path to Kohser, although I didn't make the entrepreneurial leap he did, and initially reached the same conclusions - that it's not exactly disallowed, but it's a waste of time to put POV info into articles whether you're paid to or just doing it for free. The weird truth is that it still isn't disallowed, but Jimbo will nuke your account if he finds out you're doing it. The policy discussions have halted, I think, because barring finding an offsite advertisement there really isn't any way to enforce it. Where this leaves the situation now is completely untenable, because there might be editors out there accepting payment because they legitimately believe it's permitted. There has been no consensus for either the policy or guideline proposals to limit paid editing, and I expect no proposal that would specifically allow it. I have not had anything constructive to contribute to those discussions, the above being rant not being any more than a statement of the obvious, so I haven't weighed in there. I tend to trust that holding all edits to the principles of WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS protect this encyclopedia more effectively than any new policy could, but I understand that Jimbo needs to take pains to defend against any perceived credibility problems from a marketing standpoint. I won't accept payment for editing articles.

Follow up question: You have recently been editing at The Grief Recovery Institute, an article known to be entered by a paid editor--see WP:Articles for deletion/The Grief Recovery Institute what is your opinion about what should be done with the article further? DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A: I found that article from the link on the paid editing policy, and honestly I've seen much better puff pieces that were written for free, such as any number of rock band and video game articles. As noted on the article's talk page, I have questions about the reliability of a source that purports to be a Wall Street Journal article, but is hosted on a web site owned by the subject of the article. This is similar to the concern I raised about Ebsco Publishing, which I believe would fall under "paid editing" if the term was broadly construed (User:KarenaD indicated he or she wished to correct information on "our company", suggesting she edited on the clock). In both cases (but moreso for Ebsco) I think there's likely some good information out there, but it's not particularly easy to find. Aside from speedy deleting content created by banned users and their socks, I think these articles should be evaluated on their contributions rather than their contributors.--otherlleft 00:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point, which is that the article was and still is exceptionally spammy and very poorly sourced--as most such editing tends to be. What should be done with the article further, in my opinion, is stubbifying, and leaving in only the WSJ ref, for the others are not independent RSs. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Seems to be experienced and should do fine with the tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. Editor sounds like someone who understands the Wikipedia ethos well, appears to be humble and considerate, has plenty of experience over a number of areas (I'm not too worried about work level frequency - even if an admin should only do a relatively small number of things a month, that's still a lot more than none and a positive contribution), and worthy of a mop. I've also had a look through the user's Talk, and it all seems pretty constructive (and even the 'poor boy' comment was pretty mild considering the abuse it was in reply to ;-) Boing! said Zebedee 09:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
3. An admin only occasionally active is still better than no admin at all. Seems to be sensible enough and have a good head on their shoulders. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC).
4. Support A thoughtful editor who should be given the admin tools to help make this a better place. Polargeo (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Weak Support: Some good work for this project, but edit count makes me a bit uncomfortable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
6. As nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Happy with what I see here, can be trusted, editing activity is just fine Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Support I've seen this editor around making clueful contributions. I have no problem with the level of editing per month, and the total activity is more than enough for a prospective admin. ϢereSpielChequers 15:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Support I find the oppose rationale's unconvincing and I think that the editor would make positive contributions to the project as an admin Ajbpearce (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Tenured user that shows a strong understanding of policy. I'm not willing to oppose based on lack of frequency of edits because I cannot see how this candidate will be anything but a net positive. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Support I feel that this candidate would be trustworthy. I don't think this editor would delete the main page or block Jimbo.. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - trustworthy editor. Has made over a 100 edits per month since September, so unconvinced by arguments regarding lack of activity. PhilKnight (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Support I don't see any problems. I'm not opposed to the promotion of someone purely based on ideological differences ... nor do I think that there's anything wrong with taking breaks or making only a few hundred edits per month when active. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Editor shows clue when it comes to BLPs. AniMate 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that candidate shared my opinions in any AfD or RfA discussion in which we both participated and as candidate has never been blocked. Nevertheless, DGG makes a valid point below that does give me some pause. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Mild support. Rosatti's AfD rubbed me the wrong way, but Otherlleft still has formidable policy knowledge. Şłџğģő 19:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. I have read the opposes, and they do not concern me in the slightest. A good candidate. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Support Trust the judgement of JulianCotton and after checking the track see no concerns or any scope for misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Support per the answers to my questions as well as the nomination itself.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. Not a "tick every box" nomination, for sure. But the weaknesses pointed out in the oppose or neutral sections, individually or taken together, do not convince me that the candidate will not be a net benefit to the project if given the tools. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Support. Frankly I could care less if you edit 100 times per month, some people have lives. (!) What matters is this: can you be trusted? I think so. JBsupreme (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
22. Weak Support - Some of the opposes give me pause but not enough to oppose, and I think that this editor's content contributions are enough to show familiarity with the article building process, and their AfD experience lets me trust that their participation in that area as an administrator will be helpful. I also mostly agree with the answers to the questions above. -- Atama頭 23:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Support. A clueful candidate. I've reviewed the opposes, and I remain unconcerned. Is Otherlleft experienced and acts sensibly? Yes. Do I trust him? Yes. JamieS93 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
24. Support. Per BLP stance GTD 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - I am not persuaded by one single afd nomination or users with editcountitis. You look fine to me! smithers - talk 01:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
26. Daniel (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
27. Support per answers to questions. User seems to know his way around the administrative side of Wikipedia and while his editing is sporadic we have lots of semi-active admins who also do good work... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
28. Otherlleft has proven that he's a dedicated, hardworking editor in his time here. Sure, he may not make thousands of edits a month, but is that really a problem? As long as he shows that he has the proper knowledge of policies and he has clue, that's good enough for me. I do not think that the opinions raised in the oppose section are enough to warrent anything but a support. (X! · talk)  · @197  ·  03:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
29. Support I have run out of things to put after this, so I won't try. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Yeah, you're qualified enough. ThemFromSpace 12:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
31. Seems fine to me on balance. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
32. Support Very helpful and I have not seen him engage in hardcore edit wars. --TitanOne (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
33. Support - To negate the opposes below. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
34. Support Looks good to me. Shadowjams (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
35. Support Mulled it over, and while there's some issues raised, it's nothing too worrisome. Hopefully they will make a fine admin. NJA (t/c) 13:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
36. Support. Like NJA, not worried by opposes. Definitely a net positive to the project, and seemingly familiar with the relevant tasks and policies. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
37. Support Not worried about activity levels, nothing down in the oppose section is enough to convince me you will be a bad admin. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
38. Support. From what I've seen, a thoughtful and calm editor who'll be able to help Wikipedia as an admin. Some of the opposers raise genuine issues, but none seem sufficient evidence that otherlleft will not be a good admin. Ucucha 19:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
39. Support as net positive to the project. --Taelus (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
40. Support This user actually suggested that there are obnoxious admins??? (pause for dramatic gasp) I actually find this kind of honesty refreshing, I know a lot of really unpleasant admins too. I think this user will make a find admin and I have seen nothing to make me think differently. Trusilver 02:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
41. Support After reviewing Other1left's contributions and prior interactions with other editors over the last few days, and taking into consideration the points raised below, I feel he has the potential and understanding to be a good administrator. A net positive. Calmer Waters 10:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
42. Support Seems unlikely to abuse tools --rogerd (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
43. I thought I had supported... looks like I forgot. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
44. Support. Has shown long-term attachment to the project, and his edits suggest he's someone we can trust. GreenGourd (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. You've done some good work for this project, but ~150 edits per month makes me a bit uncomfortable !voting support. I'll re-evaluate in a few days but this is my !vote for now. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Just a side note, the user does appear to flucuate (100~300 edits recently per month) and isnt consistantly at 150 edits per month. There are months where they are above this, and to be fair, below. As from what i see Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   I haven't evaluated this user yet but that is a terrible oppose. To expect an admin to average over 4 edits a day. This leaves no room whatsoever for editors who do not wish to devote their lives to wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Im inclined to agree I think 100 edits a month is just fine, its about knowledge of policy and use of tools (at least to me) I just think its important to note that they have been more active than this, and even less active. I wont support/oppose until I have a better indication on the knowledge of policy Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps I need to repeat myself here. This is only a tentative !vote, made per my RfA Rationale, and quite liable to change. Like I said, I'll re-evaluate in a few days, but this is my !vote for now. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose as per Fastily. Minimac94 (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose Any assessment is going to be fairly random. I dip into the edit and talk history and get a feel for a candidate, looking for a reason not to support (as my default is to support). There hasn't been a lot of talk, which means that there is even greater focus on what there is. Therefore the feeling I get from Otherlleft's off-hand response to a challenge - [3], isn't comfortable. But hey, we all get sharp at times. However, then there's the request for other editors to get suite101 off the blacklist so Otherlleft can insert some of his own research - Talk:New_Paltz_(village),_New_York#Halloween_sources. Again, not by itself a huge thing, but the judgement is questionable, and there's not an awful lot of evidence of good judgment to balance against. Then there's odd discussions on Tolkien not being the author of his own works - Talk:Gandalf#Biography_.28Middle-earth.29; Talk:Christopher_Tolkien#Sources_needed. I think that when there are not many edits, as in Otherlleft's case, there is even greater pressure on finding good and solid evidence of judgement that can be trusted. My dips have not left me feeling confident that Otherlleft's judgement is sound enough. I'd like to see another 6 months or so of consensus building with evidence of good judgments before giving support. SilkTork *^YES!

   The one thing you point to that is worrying was already pointed out by Otherlleft as a mistake made more than three months ago now. The other stuff about Tolkien, well at my first glance warrants support for this intelligent editor and not oppose. This editor has plenty of edits (over 4500) to be judged in a normal way. It would be poor to see a list of pile-on opposes based on "per SilkTork" Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   If I'm reading the right diff (there's more than one of them), it was 15 months ago (October 2008). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, my mistake. Yes that indeed makes it a very odd thing to oppose on. Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   @ Polargeo. I think I do explain that there is not much evidence of Otherlleft's consensus building discussions (itself a cause for concern which is frequently mentioned in AfD discussions), so I can only base my decision on what is available, and because there is little evidence of Otherlleft being challenged on a point and handling that challenge with maturity and good judgement I have to make my assessment on what I do see, which is Otherlleft handling such a situation poorly. That Otherlleft mentioned this himself doesn't mean the incident may now not be considered intelligently - it is part of the whole picture. What happens is that Otherlleft gets credit for being aware that his response could have been better. What I would have liked is more evidence of Otherlleft in similar situations dealing with them in the manner we would expect of any decent person, let alone an admin. I have no problem with the occasional snappy comment if there is evidence that this is not how a person normally behaves. My glance at Otherlleft's history left me with a feeling that I would like to see more evidence of good judgement. I note in your support comment that you have gained the impression that Otherlleft is a "thoughtful editor"; I would appreciate it if you could provide diffs for evidence of good judgement, as I would rather support someone than oppose. I should also add, as it was part of my oppose thinking which I didn't reveal earlier as it involves material off-Wiki, but as my oppose has been questioned I feel appropriate to bring up to be fully open and honest, that when looking at Otherlleft's articles on suite101 I read his biography, which links to his website in which he explains that he is a freelance business writer specialising in biographies and Wikipedia research. Along with all the other little things I found, and given that Otherlleft hasn't displayed quite enough commitment to the project to give me overwhelming confidence, I felt there was room for a conflict of interest. These are all small things, but they all add up, while the good stuff is not adding up enough to counter them. SilkTork *^YES! 19:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose : This AfD nomination the candidate cited makes me worry. It was a nom for reasons that could have been solved, judging from the discussion and the closing rationale, with editing, not deletion. --Cyclopia^talk 13:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   It was not automatically a nom for reasons that could have been solved unless you think you can provide the quick evidence for their solution. I count several more deletes than keeps in that AfD and an eventual close as delete. It was also deleted the first time it came to AfD. The last two keeps were so weak as to be nearly completely discountable. Therefore this oppose appears to be more of a minor disagreement on an individual AfD than based on whether this editor can make judgements and be trusted. Polargeo (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   The AfD shows that several reliable sources were present for the allegation on the subject. The nom seems to have been done explicitly only for the purpose of protecting the subject: while noble, I don't think it is enough of a reason for deletion, a better course of action per WP:PRESERVE could have been trying to edit the article to ensure sourcing and best presentation, then requesting indef semiprotection per BLP concerns. Even the closure concedes that the subject is notable. I understand BLP concerns but I would have preferred an alternative to a basically ignore all rules AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 14:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   However, as nominator Otherlleft does not believe notability has been established when the dubious sources have been discounted. Therefore as nominator it is not Otherlleft who is ignoring all rules it is the closer who appears to be doing that. Polargeo (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   You pick an AfD that was closed as delete as your example that this editor's noms are extreme? Am I missing something here? Shadowjams (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

   The closer of the AfD ignoring all rules by deleting it? Had you read the article and seen its history? Edit warring over the inclusion of criminal activity was continuous and coming from various editors. Notability established for criminal activity that is coming from subscription-required newspaper archives that most people could not verify - not really the best use of WP:AGF. It was a nice little article (a bit puffy) but once someone other than the creator went to expand it it became a battlefield. It became essentially an attack BLP that otherwise had no need being in Wikipedia. WP:PRESERVE would apply if o maybe the article was protected against ALL editing. Realistically that is the only way it could survive. Indefinite semi-protection would not stop the registered users from editing it (from my recollection there was no IP vandalism), but i think a couple of admins were in on the editing too (i don't have a copy of it to be certain) so even full protection would be futile. Lets also not forget that the article creator, who is a friend of the subject, asked for the article to be deleted, both to OTRS and by casting a delete vote at the AfD, on behalf of the subject of the article. That didn't go so well and the word "lawyer" came up. While i am not quite in favour of the approach taken in getting the article deleted surely everyone is better off with it deleted and salted. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose It is not policy that "for BLPs it's more prudent to remove an entry if notability has not been clearly established. " The candidate has confused recent action on clearing up old unworked-on unsourced BLPs with a change in BLPs in general, and standard he wants-- clearly established -- is drastically more restrictive than any that has been serious proposed by anyone else. That he would consult with an other admin is no better, for the result would then depend on whom he consults with. Everyone involved on both sides is the recent débacle was an admin, and we don't need another admin like that. The Rosatti was an instance where upon not getting the content he wanted in, he moved to delete the article; a better approach would have been to keep what there was left while looking for better sources--this is now harder to do than it otherwise would have been. Deleting content and then the article is a tactic which is almost always destructive to the encyclopedia. Given that his main interest is in closing AfD discussions this is utterly unacceptable. He is free to advocate changing policy, but he has to understand and accept the present one. I have supported people with other view on what policy should be like than my own, but not if they are so clearly willing to act on what they merely hope will be policy. to be fair, however, perhaps his views are based on inexperience, and will be overcome by more --and more varied-- activities in the months to come,and a future nomination might be reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Additionally, because of the nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renato M. E. Sabbatini (2nd nomination), an article where I did not !vote. The part of the nomination I object to is " He may indeed be notable in Portuguese, but based on my review and Upsala's work I can find no evidence of sufficient notability for inclusion in the English Wikipedia." . This is a complete negation of the basic principle that Wikipedia covers the world equally, and that material in any language is acceptable. That does not mean we judge by whatever the standards of the ptWP may be, but we judge people from Brazil by the same standards we do for everywhere else. As far as I am concerned this is a more far-reaching violation of Wikipedia norms than disputes over the boundaries of BLP policy.BLP policy may change, but I very much doubt that this will. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Comment. DGG, I can understand your concern in that case. My intention, badly stated, was to convey that notability in one Wikipedia does not automatically convey it in another. You are absolutely right to question it, and I thank you.otherlleft 17:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Did you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renato M. E. Sabbatini (2nd nomination)? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   yes, fixed it, and striking out the paragraph above due to the explanation DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose Q 10 is wrong answer. Admins need to be more agressive in dealing with people who need to be topic banned, not pass the buck to arbcom. Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC) To neutral

   It's actually Arbcom, Jimbo, the Wikimedia Foundation, or the community that declares a ban (so in that way, yes the answer to Q 10 wasn't entirely accurate). Administrators can't unilaterally impose bans on editors except for what is outlined at general sanctions. An admin being "aggressive" about topic bans should be given a stern talking-to and probably lose the bit if they insist on continuing, as this is a violation of banning policy. -- Atama頭 23:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose Fundamentally, if a C-class article is your best contribution to Wikipedia, you don't meet my content-building expectations. The problematic answers and overall activity level don't provide me compelling reasons to overlook this concern. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose per DGG. Ray^Talk 04:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I am puzzled that someone whose standards of conduct are so high that they consider nine out of ten admins to be "rude and unpleasant", would place nine admins among "the ten rudest Wikipedians [they] have ever encountered",[4] would not keep this to themselves, rather than proclaiming it on one of Wikipedia's most watched pages. Unsatisfied with A7 and A4. decltype (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   (S)He actually says something a bit different (its of the 10 most rude peoples he knows), but I agree that it is not the most well considered of statements. Icewedge (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   My mistake, that is indeed quite different. Adjusted accordingly. decltype (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose per comment referenced by decltype above...which was from the day before the nomination?! Keepscases (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   (note: I'm referring to the whole comment, not just the section quoted above) Keepscases (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   The candidate was simply expressing his opinion (in a respectful manner—without singling anyone out). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   Well, if he's not sure whether or not he'd be a good admin and whether or not he even wants to be one...I'm certainly not sure either. Keepscases (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   To be honest, I felt much the same around the time of my RfA. Not about admins being rude, but about not being sure I'd be a good admin. I think I've done well enough but there's nothing wrong with self-doubt if it brings a little humility. -- Atama頭 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Contents of both WP:CNR and WP:Namespace should be enough to make a 2 to 1 close based on consensus suspect. Lambanog (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose per decitype comments above, makes one wonder...Modernist (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Rather few edits in the past year. Jonathunder (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
13. 'oppose Concerns per policy understanding, issues brought up by DGG, and concerns raised by Delirious in neutral #1. Also concerns regarding question 7. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Fastily (not enough consistency in editing) and DGG (too deletionist). While being a sysop is "no big deal", I want to see more consistent work before handing over a mop to him. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose mostly per decltype and Bearian. Airplaneman ^talk 21:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Q20. As you will likely work with deletion, practice tells that you'll receive daily emails asking why a page was deleted, what should be done to avoid that, and even how could you assist that. Those emails should not originate from your clients. I do believe you have honestly disclosed your COI and I respect that, but. It is still not compatible with the admin privileges. Materialscientist (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
17. I'm really sorry. Per Fastily, SilkTork, decltype, Keepscases and Materialscientist, the problem for me isn't competence, it's that I can't feel confident about what motivates you, what you're doing here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per AfD of John Rosatti. Nominating it because a BLP/N consensus seems to be swinging that way while yourself not fully supporting deletion seems to be a bit like having each hand in each cookie jar. Crackofdawn had asked for my opinion on it before the AfD. I only found out about the AfD this morning (WP is such a big place). While i do agree that deletion is the best result for Mr Rosatti's article i do have concerns regarding your views on WP:RS. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

   The AfD doesn't worry me; in fact, I think it shows an important ability in a potential admin: The ability to implement community consensus even when one disagrees. Just a thought. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

   While i do not disagree with you on the technical level i do not really see that as being an admirable/adminable thing here. Expanding the heated discussion to yet another forum, AfD, when the creator of the article is a new user and she is already overwhelmed "fighting the battle on two fronts", an RS discussion and BLP/N discussion, was not very admin-admirable. I don't deal too much with speedy deletion but if i understand the criteria correctly, suggesting Crackofdawn make a CSD G7 request as the creator and "substantial content" contributor of the non-contentious material might have been a better approach, especially since otherlleft felt the article failed WP:N without the contentious content. otherlleft only suggested taking this to OTRS 3 hours and 13 minutes before the AfD was closed.[5] According to Dædalus969 she had already gone to OTRS about this and was sent to AfD. [6] That more people cared about the subsequent "potential legal threat" at AfD than about the potential for slanderous content in a BLP that otherwise lacks sufficient notability to warrant an article on WP does not speak highly of the entire situation. (See WP:DOLT.)

   Regarding my concerns about otherlleft's views on WP:RS, i read the articles on January 1st (before the AfD but during the RS and BLP/N discussions). I would generally consider Village Voice reliable but the article in question [7] to me reads as a poorly constructed, sensationalist attack on it's subject that radiates personal bias from the author so as to negate it's meeting WP:RS based on it's publisher. Reading as much as i do i have many times come across discussions of 'Yes, we all know it is wrong but NYT / billboard.com / etc said it so we have to include it in the article be cause it comes from a reliable source'. Common sense being overruled by policy equals 'I was just following orders' and i cannot support that. If not for this i would be supporting. If not for Crackofdawn asking me at the crack of dawn on January 1st what was going on with her article i would have probably never noticed this. That is why i am making my début here in the neutral section of any RfA. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral. That AfD doesn't worry me. I skimmed through and thought the candidate conducted himself fairly well. I'd like to support because the answers to the questions are good but I worry about experience and practical knowledge of policy. That said, I do not think you would make a "bad" admin by any means, so here I sit. If this RfA doesn't succeed, I hope you'll try again in a few months. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral This candidate seems fine, but I would prefer more consistent editing, or at least a few more months. Right now [8] shows a concentrated few months of activity, very little for about a year, and a smaller clump. I have no other issues, just would like a bit more time to see.  fetchcomms☛ 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral per HJ Mitchell's concerns as well as per Q7. While I'm under the impression that the admin won't really help out much as far as vandalism is concerned, the number of warnings given is arbitrary, depending on the severity and frequency of the vandalism. –MuZemike 03:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral for now but probably will shift to oppose before the end of this process. Oppose per my first question---not enough relevant experience---but I like the fact the candidate took the initiative to help me with a possible concern of mine on my talk page before I even asked my follow up so a shift to neutral. Unfortunately answer to my second question seems wishy-washy. Rationale for actions need to be clear and logical. If an item is controversial, on general principle alone default to keep would seem to be indicated. Reason for close to delete needs to be explained but I don't see offhand how a satisfactory reconciliation can be arrived at. I leave the door open, however, for the candidate to come up with a surprising synthesis. Lambanog (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Neutral but leaning towards support. Otherlleft, in my opinion, will be an excellent administrator should this RfA succeed. His answers to the questions – and especially his excellent answers to Q12, Q14, and Q15 – lead me to believe that such is the case. But Otherlleft has been on Wikipedia on sporadically over the course of the past year, which is something of a negative. And while Halloween around the world, Survival of the Shawangunks, Sound Ideas, and Headless Horseman Hayrides are solid content contributions, the states of a couple of other articles he's created at the time of this vote – namely To come (publishing) (current rev) and Eunuchus (current rev) – are sufficiently dubious to give me pause. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

   Those were both created in 2006. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Neutral from oppose per thoughtful understanding of my issue. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral Unsure about Wiki policy understanding & quite a few grey areas per my criterion. (User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Neutral. While the candidate does seem to know and understand policy in most areas, I would like to see better content contribution, more edits, and a much more consistent editing pattern. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2010 (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.