Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RadioFan

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

RadioFan

Final (1/10/2) Withdrawn by user at 15:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC). Regards SoWhy 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

RadioFan (talk · contribs) – Self nomination RadioFan (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I am very active in new page patrolling, have done a bit of work controlling vandalism of existing articles and actively edit in a number of areas. I was allowed use of rollback long ago and was granted auto review status several months ago. I have also been granted access to AutoWikiBrowser which I use to assist in a variety of bulk editing tasks as well as huggle which I've used for vandal cleanup. I believe I have used these privileged well. Like any editor, I've had my disagreements with other editors, particularly about what is notable and what isn't, but I've tried to learn from each discussion. If granted adminship, I plan to be far more conservative in my actions based on what I've learned from the prods and XFDs that have been declined by admins in the past.

As you might tell from my username, my passion is radio. I've been actively involved Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations and of course in editing radio station pages. Many of you may have seen my many radio station stub articles. I've helped, along with other volunteers, craft the WPRS guidelines to create what is now a very strong standard for the information included on articles covering radio station in the United States and beyond. The focus has been not just on creating articles but making other editors aware of reliable sources that are available to assist in making those articles better. I've created a script which is in use by other WPRS volunteer editors for creating quality stub article for radio stations that incorporates references from government database resources (such as the FCC and FAA) and reliable sources such as Arbitron and Radio and Records magazine (until it stopped production) to create solid, well referenced articles which conform to the article naming standards which have been molded over the years by WPRS volunteers, all through consensus. I'm proud to say these articles have been expanded on by many editors in many cases since.

Human space travel is another interest of mine and I edit articles relating to NASA, particularly space shuttle missions. I created a template there to standardize information included in all shuttle mission as well as earlier programs and encourage linking within that information as well as automate referencing of that information from NASA sources.

I've also created a couple of essays that have been well received by other editors, particulary those volunteering to patrol new pages. WP:MINDREADER is useful in explaining to editors, especially new ones, why their article was tagged so quickly. It provides guidance to help communicate to other editors, particularly new page patrollers, that an article is unfinished and shouldn't be tagged for deletion yet. I also created WP:MISSION to help better describe a pet peave of mine, vague mission statements included in articles that do nothing to describe the organization. I have also contributed to the Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability essay.

You'll find that my edits are split pretty evenly between article and user talk spaces. This is largely due to new page patrolling. When the situation merits it, and its become clear that what appeared to be cruft added by a vandal is merely a new editor who is rushing into article creation, I'll spend some time helping them out. Pulling the CSD or PROD tags off the article, Wikifying it, moving external links interspersed in the article into {{cite}} tags.

I joined Wikipedia under the username rtphokie (talk · contribs) (you may also find the username RadioFan2 (talk · contribs) that was used briefly while admins verified that my current username could be usurped without conflict). Please note that the block of rtphokie occurred after I changed my username. I dont know if this is procedural or if it was usurped after I stopped using it but the blocking was not due to my actions.

I'd like to withdraw this request as it's pretty clear I've got some work to do, particularly are speed in tagging and with avoiding controversial XFD and PRODs. I'm going to continue my patrolling efforts and continue to learn more.--RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I'd like to extend my efforts in new page patrolling to handling speedy deletion requests from the admin side of things. I've been doing it for several months now and while I've had a few instances where editors have disagreed with request for speedy deletion, I think I've learned a lot about what is and is speedily deletable. I've held off on this RFA specifically until I saw a steady stream of red links in my watch page and very very few removals of CSD tags by admins or notes on my talk page from admins explaining why they disagreed with speedy deletion of a particular article. I'd also like to get involved in handling blocking of vandals and inappropriate usernames. A lot of this has come up in new page patrolling and I've learned a lot there as well.

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

A: Efforts on cleaning up and standardizing radio station articles, particularly the new stubs. These articles have a tendency to attract new editors who are eager to promote their favorite radio station. Having a well crafted stub with sufficient references has slowed this down significantly. New editors are more likely to provide constructive, quality contributions to an article with an infobox and all the basic information already there. They might even say "hey, {{cite}}, whats that? That looks great, I should use that".

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: Football articles have caused some conflicts in the past. My interpretation of WP:NSPORT didn't line up with some other editors. My view that some football clubs in Ireland were not professional and did not meet inclusion guidelines was challenged by other editors who pointed to an amateur championship as evidence of notability. While the articles needed improvment to make this clear, I learned a valuable lesson about areas which I can definitely not consider myself an expert in. I try now to tread very lightly in those areas.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

4. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. Thats a very hard question to answer without seeing the article in question and the fact that this appears to be a very borderline case. Seeing the article would help answer the question "does this article have any chance of being notable in the future". Without the article its also difficult to determine what the claim of notability is here. Just based on the deletion discussion, I would say the result should be no concensus with a recommendation that the article be rewritten from a nuetral point of view. Nearly all keeps !votes point to a single reference as demonstration of notability while nearly all the delete !votes label the article as puffery. The major concern here seems to be the quality of the article and based on the delete !votes, it sounds like it was pretty promotional. This isn't a clear case for deletion because this person has been the subject of coverage in reasonably reliable sources but it appears that the article definitely needed some work.

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

A. I think it's the right one, for now at least. The days of the wild, wild west are over. BLP articles must be approached with additional care. Not just to protect the project from litigation but also because we must recognize that Wikipedia is used as a reference by so many now. I listen to radio around the world and you'd be shocked how often I hear bad information from a wikipedia article read as fact on air. Proper referencing is the best way to protect these articles particularly from sensationalism. The supermarket tabloids get forgotten but these articles will be here a long time.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

#Strong Support. RadioFan is a courteous, respectful regular at XFD and I have only seen good things from him. He will make a very good admin. ceranthor 13:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving to oppose, sorry. I don't know how I missed those faulty taggings. ceranthor 15:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Moral support Editor needs more experience but has the potential to be a good admin. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I had a rather unpleasant experience with this user waaaay back in April, where he was tagging an article for speedy deletion prematurely (as I saw it). Looking through his recent taggings, I can still find premature taggings, a trait I most definately do not want in an admin. Administrators should be able to provide editors enough time to substantiate their new articles, particularly new editors, to prevent the risk of biting the editor; I do not see that ability in this user. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose Way too many blue links here [1] to leave me confident of your ability with the delete button. Translcuding a non created RFA wasn't to hot either. Pedro :  Chat  13:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   At least some of them seem to be articles that have been re-created since being deleted; others (the newer ones at least), are blue because they haven't been deleted yet. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   Look at the 15th of this month for example, and check a few article histories and the state the articles were in when tagged (i.e. generally not close to speedy). Far to quick for my liking. Pedro :  Chat  13:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per \/. I, too, have experienced RadioFan to be very hasty with taggings and I have to fear that he will be hasty with deletions if granted adminship. A few examples (from the last 2 weeks): A7 on lead actress of a broadway musical (on the very second of creation!), A7 with claims of significance (one minute after creation), another A7 the same time as created (and using rollback to revert good-faith addition of importance claims), another rollback for good-faith edits, a series of credit unions he both tagged A7 and PROD [2][3][4] [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] (all declined and could have been easily sourced apparently), A7 with claims of importance, another A7 within a minute of creation, A7 with claims of importance. Also, the candidate's edit summary usage is below 90% for major edits - I believe an admin should use them every time since transparency of actions is vital to the position. Regards SoWhy 14:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Per answers to question 4 and the many, many improperly tagged articles. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   Can you expand on what you found troublesome in that answer?--RadioFan (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose per the user's misunderstanding of deletion procedures. An example is the set of PRODs on astronomy orgs. A sequence of PROD tags by category, nothing better. Tagged in this set were British Astronomical Association and Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, both of which had 400+ hits in Gnews and 1000+ in Gbooks at the time of tagging. Whatever one thinks of our notability guidelines, that is not a non-controversial deletion. Given the links posted above by SoWhy, this has obviously not changed since I came across the user.-SpacemanSpiff 14:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Sorry, I thought you were ready, but this evidence above has demonstrated you are clearly not ready for the bit. You do some good work, I hope you improve your skills and accuracy with tagging. I hate to oppose, but there's too many issues at the moment. ceranthor 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Per the deletion issue and also the user is now spamming[12][13][14][15][16] people who have opposed. Please do not ask me on my talk page how long you should wait before trying another Rfa; asking that question betrays a basic misunderstanding of people's concerns. You're not beer, that is not ready one week and ready the next. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   I understand the concerns, I'm trying to understand how I can improve and what kind of timeframe individual admins might see as an appropriate to demonstrate improvement.--RadioFan (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   You pasted the exact same question on each talk page. The question did not address the concern(s) that each opposer listed; there was no indication you'd even bothered to read the opposes. The question was "how long should I wait" before re-applying. That's not asking for meaningful advice on why you were opposed. Its asking a nonsense question. No amount of time will make you an acceptable candidate unless you address the concerns raised. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   I wasn't seeking to address the concerns, I can gather that from the discussion here and can address individual concerns directly. I was looking for advice that's not available here, namely whats an appropriate amount of time to demonstrate addressing these concerns before attempting another RFA.--RadioFan (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   You were asking how long to wait before you tried again, before this one had even closed? Pasting the exact same question on multiple pages? No. This is unacceptable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose, due to the tagging issues brought up. I recommend closing this per WP:SNOW. The thing that should not be 15:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose due to tagging issues, and the spamming as shown by KillerChihuahua above. This would be unacceptable behaviour even *after* a closed unsuccessful RfA - unless to a select few 'friends' on Wikipedia - but *during* an RfA? Indefensible. Sorry, RadioFan, I cannot support you at this time, and concur with TTTSNB's recommendation for an early closure. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   Can someone please explain to me how asking for information and advice from admins about the RFA procedure is indefensible? Was my question seen as canvassing? If so that certainly wasn't my intention. I was simply looking for opinion on how to proceed after this RFA is closed. If there is some moratorium on any contact with !voting editors during the RFA process, I was unaware of it.--RadioFan (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose per User:Backslash Forwardslash. Although it was a long time ago, you PRODed an article I made (Are U 4 Real?) one minute after creation despite my edit summary ("started page, will expand it soon") and my post on the talk page. Your reason for PRODing was "Fails WP:BOOK", but the book clearly didn't fail WP:BOOK because it had been adapted to a live-action film and you would have found reliable sources if you had searched for it on Google News. As I started adding more reliable secondary sources to the article, you nominated it for AfD, just 20 minutes after creation. I felt very discouraged by that. Theleftorium 15:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Until questions are answered. BejinhanTalk 13:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral To avoid pile-on but to also commend RadioFan for his contributions and commitment. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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