Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 3

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

Closing statement

I have given this discussion quite lengthy thought but, on balance, whilst it is a close call I don't find a consensus to promote below. Although some of the opposition is stated to be weak, the merits of the points raised by the opposers are recognised by many of those supporting. The problematic past CSD tagging is clearly relevant to the area in which Slon02 proposes to take part as an admin and has to be given appropriate weight. In light of that, I think this request falls short of the sort of consensus that is required before users can be made administrators.
Slon02 will no doubt benefit from more experience and I hope he will apply again in a few months once he has addressed the concerns raised below. WJBscribe (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Slon02 3

Final (45/19/10). No consenus. Closed by WJBscribe at 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Slon02 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Slon02 for adminship. I have seen him develop as an editor for almost a year now, having first encountered him at FfU if I remember correctly.

Slon02 has made over 12,000 edits since he first started editing in December 2009. He has indicated a willingness to help out at RfPP, CSD, and AIV—and given that he's been trusted with the rollback and reviewer tools for quite a while, I don't see how this could be anything other than beneficial. In addition to the maintenance/administrative tasks he currently performs, Slon02 has experience working with encyclopedic content. He is a participant in Articles for creation, helping new users create articles while familiarizing himself with our inclusion criteria; and WikiProject Russia, having created a variety of articles about Russian topics. One of these is Renewable energy in Russia, which was recently featured on Did you know and is currently a GA nominee. In addition to this, Slon02 has been involved in multiple GOCE backlog elimination drives, copyediting hundreds of articles in his free time.

Frankly, I don't see any compelling reason to deny Slon02 the tools. He's a knowledgeable, experienced user who isn't interested in creating drama but simply helping out at some administrative venues. I hope the community will come to the same conclusion to which I arrived: it's time.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am very happy to accept my nomination. --Slon02 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I intend to participate in counter-vandalism, which has been one of my largest areas of focus on Wikipedia. Specifically, I intend to participate in AIV, RfPP and CSD, which I participate in now.

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

A: This is quite a difficult question. I view all contributions to Wikipedia as important, and its difficult for me to determine which one is the best. However, if I had to pick the best contributions, I'd say the ones that ended up improving the quality of the encyclopedia the most. By this, I mean the articles that I have created, but also other actions that I have done to improve the quality of existing articles, especially copyediting.

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: I can only think of one instance of an editing conflict that I had in the past, and it was so long ago that I'm not even sure if I should mention it, although I will. The dispute occurred at [1], where I disagreed over an "article claim" with another editor during a GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I dealt with it by stating my views and, after I had run out of new points, asked for a third opinion. If I had to deal with that situation now, I would have instead asked the drive coordinator for clarification of the drive rules.

Additional question from Sven Manguard Wha?

4. Just under 2/3rds of all of your edits are automated, predominately using Huggle. Since the community does not have a unified position on high automated edit percentages, I would like to hear your take on the matter. Why should such a high percentage of automated edits not be of concern in regards to this nomination?

A: I was expecting that this issue would be brought up, and I'm aware that there is quite a number of people who will be opposed to this RfA because of my high percentage of automated edits. However, my answer to this has two parts. The first is that, although there is a high percentage of automated edits, clearly not all of my work has been automated. Some examples of my non-automated work is seen in the articles that I have created, and also the ones I have copyedited, which I listed as among my best contributions to Wikipedia. However, I also have to say that I don't think that a high percentage of automated edits should be a cause for concern in this nomination, because of my answer to the first question. I intend to participate in areas (AIV, CSD, RfPP) that almost entirely use automated tools. I'd actually be tempted to say that having a high percentage of automated edits indicates a focus on those areas already, which is good, since I plan on focusing on those areas if I become an admin.

Additional question from N5iln

5. In the arena of AfD, some would say an admin who has edited the article in question should not participate in or close the AfD because of conflict of interest; others would say that ONLY an admin who has worked in the article should argue for or against deletion or close the AfD, because they are more familiar with the material. What say you?

A: I would say that it would be better for an admin to not close an AfD if they have edited the article in question. However, I believe that it is definitely not bad for an admin who has worked on the article in question to participate in the AfD. That admin has experience in dealing with the subject matter and would be able to provide his own reasoning as to why or why not the article should be deleted, as can the independent admin who has not worked on that article. However, just to avoid any possible COI, I would say that admins should not close an AfD if they worked on the article in question. An admin doesn't need to be very familiar with the material, although it is important that he understands the reasons for why the article should be deleted, but his job is to judge consensus, which doesn't really involve a thorough understanding of what the article is about.

Additional question from Pol430 talk to me

6. On the subject of CSD, explain how you would deal with articles that have been tagged as A7, G1 or G11. Explain how you would decide weather to delete or not. Give brief examples of each criteria and how an article would meet those criteria.

A:For A7 articles, I would clearly examine the article as see if there are any reliable sources there or if there is any sort of a claim as to why the subject in question is notable. If there is no way that the subject is notable enough to meet notability guidelines, I would delete it. If notability is kind of uncertain but doesn't seem to be there, I'd rather move it to proposed deletion. If an article is about my neighbor's dog or an ordinary elementary school student, I'd delete it without a doubt.

Edited to add- The use of the word "notability" was not right in this case, and when I was writing it I was thinking more of the word notability in terms of if the subject is notable, or if the subject is important, based on the base definition of the word notability.

If an article is tagged as G1, I'd first have to look to see if I can understand any of the words on the page- or if there even are words formed on it. In the beginning I would also look at the article history to make sure that the article was not replaced with nonsense in an act of vandalism. If an article is not in English and that is the reason for why I can't understand it, it's not G1. If it's just a random combination of letters that cannot be interpreted to mean anything at all, such as if I let a monkey dance on my keyboard, I would delete the article. However, if the article is meant to mean something but is too confusing, which is the second category of "patent nonsense", I would hesitate to delete the article. I would userify the article, moving it to the creator's user namespace. I would also leave a note on the user's talk page as to where that article now is and what happened to it, and what can be done to transform it. Those two categories are the only reasons for why an article could be deleted under G1, and if they don't fall under them, I'd continue to examine the article to see if it could be deleted under any other reasons.

Only blatant examples of advertising fall under G11, so an article that is mostly encyclopedic by periodicly may have advert-like text in it wouldn't fall under it and would instead be best dealt with by having the offending text rewritten or having an advert template put on it. If all an article does is proclaim how this company is the greatest company in the world, produces the best quality products at the cheapest price, and how you just HAVE to go to their company's website and buy their products now, I would delete it. The primary focus when dealing with articles tagged as G11 is to see if there is any content that could be salvaged from the article after promotional content is removed. If there is, then the promotional content should be removed, but if there isn't, then the article should be deleted.

Additional questions from 28bytes

7. Going by the "Wikipedia definition" of the terms, can you give an example of an article that would "indicate importance" but not demonstrate "notability"? (In other words, not eligible for deletion under CSD A7, but likely to be deleted at AfD.)

A:I'm not sure if you want a specific article, but in the meantime I'll explain how such a situation might occur. An article can indicate importance just by making any credible claim to something that the subject is known for that could justify it remaining as an article. Notability would apply if an article's subject has a credible claim to importance, but does not meet the much tougher guidelines at WP:N. The main focus of those guidelines is that an article's notability must be verified by reliant and independent sources. An article that has its notability questioned will not go through speedy deletion, but will instead go through PROD or AfD if it is to be deleted. In that process, what determines whether it will stay or go is if there are sources that can verify the notability of the article. An article under speedy deletion for A7 will not need sources to survive that speedy deletion; it only needs to make a credible claim that it is important.

8. Could the reverse ever be true: an article subject that is "notable" but is not "important or significant" as discussed in WP:CSD#A7?

A:I do not see how an article could be notable, yet is not important/significant. If there are reliable sources that can determine an article subject's notability, there is certainly something significant about that subject that has resulted in those sources existing.

What about a BLP1E?  Chzz  ►  04:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that even people who are notable for only one event are still significant, and are not eligible candidates for speedy deletion. The significance of the person, however, depends on the significance of his role in the event. Even so, I cannot think of any situation, even in a biography of a living person who is only notable for one event, when the person who be notable but not significant. Since it is required that the person's role in the event be significant to have a separate article on that person, I would say that any person who is notable for that reason is automatically significant, especially since significance is considered a lower standard than notability, which is pointed out in the A7 criteria. --Slon02 (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Lear's Fool

9. A number of concerns have been raised about your new page patrolling. Could you briefly discuss what you've learnt here, and what you will change to address these concerns?

A: Well, I certainly have to say that I received quite a lot of feedback in this RfA, and because of it I have adjusted to meet those concerns. The most significant problem that I have been informed of was my tagging of pages as A7 instead of G10, which I previously did not do as much as I should have. In response, I have been more careful in pointing out attack pages to ensure that they are blanked and can do no more harm, and I will continue to follow that. Although I did not tag pages for speedy deletion under A1 or A3 right after they were created, I will keep A7 and a few other criteria in mind with very new pages and will not rush to tag or delete them until I can be sure that there isn't something about to be added that can establish a claim to significance. I usually do a Google search for articles when I tag them as A7 (or things like G3 so I can be sure they're hoaxes), and I, if given the mop, will be sure not to delete questionable cases, but mainly obvious cases (although if I'm not I'll still use PROD for them instead of A7). Finally, I'll be more careful with my wording, and will use the words "significance" or "importance" when talking about A7 to avoid the confusion that resulted from my answer to Q6. --Slon02 (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. —GƒoleyFour— 05:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note that the A7 speedy deletion that is being discussed below read "Iqra 'Sara' Chaudhry is a Pakistani Model and Actress" and gave her place of birth. From my Googling she is indeed an actress, but I'm not finding reliable sourcing in English. My attempts to search in Urdu (which I don't speak) didn't have any success. Fences&Windows 18:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Based on some comments here about the standards of my speedy deletion tagging, I have started keeping a log of them at User:Slon02/CSDlog. --Slon02 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support user uses my script. T. Canens (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Support. Excellent anti-vandalism work. Don't see anything that would concern me if they had the mop. Also impressed by Q2, I would have expected the typical "my anti-vandalism work" answer. Swarm ^X 14:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC) moved to oppose

   Addendum: I've bounced from support to oppose, but I've decided to (finally) strike my oppose and restore my support vote. I'll expand on why: I've come to the realization that I (and everyone else, IMO) have become too focused on perfection in candidates. If we see mistakes, we fear that candidates are going to misuse the tools to the point of disruption. At the end of the day, everyone's entitled to make mistakes. And that's all that concerned me- mistakes. If this candidate was clueless, their mistakes would have already caused disruption. Slon has a clue- that's what's important. And if they make a mistake with the tools, they can be trusted to admit that they were in the wrong and correct and learn from their actions. That's what's important. And they care to not make mistakes; their newly created CSD log shows me that. Definitely a net positive, and a successful RfA would be a net positive to this project. Likewise, opposing based on a cluefull editor's mistakes will only contribute to our unnecessary admin shortage. The TL;DR version of this is basically that I took a deep breath and reminded myself that adminship is no big deal. Regards, Swarm ^X 03:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

3. I have no major concerns. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - great user. I really don't care about a high percentage of automated edits. Automated tools are there for a reason, and that is to get hugely necessary jobs done fast and efficiently. Slon02 has proved highly capable of using these tools. Seems to know his way around the place and appears to me a knowledgable and hard working Wikipedian. Orphan Wiki 11:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
5. I'm not concerned about nitpicking about hypertechnical CSD details—it is far more important to recognize when a page can be deleted than to memorize which CSD technically authorizes the deletion—or infelicitous phrasing that, while not totally accurate, does capture the basic idea of the CSD at issue. I hardly think forcing everyone to type "importance/significance not indicated" instead of "notability" in the edit summary will somehow improve CSD tagging. Sara chaudhry was deleted A7 once before, so I hardly see a problem with the relatively rapid tagging. Everything looks good here, and I trust Fetchcomms' judgment. T. Canens (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Weak Support: Good candidate but concerns over limited experience. In 6 months I will give full support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Support I agree with the A7 stuff that WSC points out in the first oppose. That said, you were actually right, and just had the wrong CSD reason, which is a minor concern. However, please take the content of that oppose seriously, as the delete button carries a heavier responsibility than the ability to tag. Deleting articles is not a sprint, and it if you win the mop, it will be your responsibility to slow down, and research before removing an article. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Support. Not swayed by the opposes. I think Slon02 will make a great admin, and I suspect would be of the much-needed 'worker' type, that we can rely on to effectively clear backlogs during crunch time. -- œ^™ 04:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Incorrect CSD tags seem to be outliers - I'm seeing hardly any, if any at all, declines among recent speedy deletion tagging. I could oppose and say come back in a few months, but in this case, I think the project would be losing a few months of competent backlog clearing. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Support Great candidate and great work too but could use some work in the CSD department. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
11. the opposes aren't convincing. As for content creations, i have watched him build Renewable energy in Russia to become a respectable article that is currently a GAN and looks to be a GA by the end of this discussion. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Support-- Recently (earlier today), I made a mistake involving CSD policy. The candidate left a note on my talk page just a few minutes later, pointing out my mistake. It seems to me, from looking through his history and from this brief personal experience with him, he understands CSD policy just fine. I see no reason to oppose. --E♴ (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Support no reason the think that this user will abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
14. Support. I take WereSpielChequers' concerns seriously, and hope the candidate does too, regardless of the result of this RfA. But going through the candidate's talk page contributions, I see an editor who readily admits when he's made a mistake and who's willing to explain why he took a particular action. I consider both of those qualities to be essential in an administrator. I'm not at all concerned by the candidate wanting to check a couple of things off his to-do list (e.g. the GA submission) before coming here. 28bytes (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

    While those are admirable qualities (although I'll say it again, I'm not sure under what circumstances a G7 tagging of a user talk page could be a mistake by someone who otherwise understands G7), a longstanding record of impatience for the bit to the extent of multiple premature RfAs is not. One NOTNOW suggests over-eagerness, two suggests questionable judgement, and I've seen nothing to alleviate those judgement concenrs. Ticking things off of a hypothetical admin checklist hardly helps. Indeed, he submitted a peer review and GAN shortly before the last RfA (links provided in my oppose rationale); neither was followed through. —WFC— 09:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

    Just to return to the G7 tag for a moment, I take the candidate at his word that that was simply a mistake, for three reasons (aside from the fact that he said so). First, as I mentioned before, he immediately reverted himself, which suggests a simple "oops" moment that we all have on occasion. Second, I haven't seen evidence that G7-tagging user talk pages is something the candidate normally does. Third, I've done it too, so I can empathize. Not that exact mistake, but one time while doing recent changes patrol, I saw the creator of a junk article remove the speedy deletion tag, which is against policy, so I reverted the removal and posted a warning on their talk page not to do that. And then immediately realized that it wasn't a CSD tag, but a PROD tag, that they'd removed, so my revert and warning were both against policy. Naturally, I undid both immediately (and since it was a junk article, sent it to AfD, where it was closed as snow-delete, as it should have.) So that was one of my "oops" moments. We all have them. I knew the policy just fine. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have immediately undone my mistake. I'm a little skeptical of anyone who claims they've never had an "oops" moment.

    Regarding impatience for the bit: regardless of his previous RfAs, I note that this time he waited for someone else (an experienced admin) to nominate him. So if he has impatience, kudos to him for being able to keep it in check to the degree that he waited to be nominated. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

15. Support. Fully qualified candidate, per many of the comments above. I understand the opposers' concerns and I trust that the candidate will take them into account going forward, but none of them are serious enough to deny adminship in my view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
16. Weak support - Issues are not sufficiently widespread enough to induce me to neutral. Additionally, following Slon02's clarification of Q6, I think he knows what CSD A7 means. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
17. The impatience part makes me a little uncomfortable, too, but having reviewed the nominee's past activities and behavior, I see no red flags precluding Slon02 from being able to handle the admin tools. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2011; 19:30 (UTC)
18. Support there seems to be no substantial reason to oppose and I believe this user can be trusted with the tools. Lovetinkle (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
19. Support. An impressive amount of anti-vandal work, sensible approach to content creation. I have collaborated with the candidate on Renewable energy in Russia, and I think that creating a GA in such a short time is quite an achievement, and the way Slon02 treated all the issues raised during the article's creation and subsequent review was exemplary. GreyHood ^Talk 20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
20. Support - Trustworthy, fixes mistakes promptly, and has a need for the tools [anti-vandalism]. This is an easy support. It's unfortunate that Slon had to stumble onto the third rail of RfA. It would be unfortunate if this RfA fails based on the trivial CSD examples. Shadowjams (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
21. Trustworthy editor, compelling use for tools. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
22. Support good trustworthy editor. The dispute was nothing, it happens at WikiProject Wikify all the time. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 05:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
23. Support. Has my trust. ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:38, 2 Adar II 5771 / 8 March 2011 (UTC)
24. Support - Gained much more experience and knowledge since past RfAs. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:38pm • 10:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
25. Support Net benefit i believe. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
26. Weak Support Can't see any catastrophic problems. I normally trust Fastily and WSC here, but I think he might work out Ronk01 talk 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
27. Support He seems informed, responsible, and (per Swarm) able to change and get better... sounds like he would be a good admin. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
28. Support A net positive contributor. E. Fokker (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
29. This is a hard call because I trust WSC's judgment, but so far, I'm just not seeing it. Looks like a net positive. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
30. I've read this RFA in detail and I don't disagree that the opposition has some points of merit. Nevertheless, they seem to have overlooked the likelihood of a cautious editor (which I feel you are) misusing or abusing the tools. As this possible outcome is frankly very low I'm going to call a net positive here. Good luck, and best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. Lord Roem (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
32. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
33. Support I'm sure the candidate will learn from their errors, now that they have been brought up. AD 17:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
34. Support No problems with him here. WayneSlam 21:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
35. Support There is some good anti vandal work done by the user, on the whole I see a net positive to granting the mop. I don't see that he will misuse the tools.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
36. Support, you seem to be capable and not the type of person who will misuse the tools. Automated edit counts and the lack of GA writing really aren't relevant when we're deciding whether you're capable of blocking and deleting and protecting in a proper manner. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
37. Support. At support #2, Swarm's addendum does an excellent job of expressing what I, too, have been thinking. I've looked carefully through the candidate's user talk, including the archives, and I see someone who is very courteous, calm, and thoughtful (including explaining plagiarism to a user, and replying to another user who asked if the candidate were a real person). I really feel as though there has been too much "gotcha" in this RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
38. Weak Support. I've reviewed most of the candidate's new page patrolling since the start of the year (nearly 200 pages), and with the greatest deference to WereSpielChequers below, I don't agree that it is so poor as to require delaying adminship. Certainly there are some things I would like to see improved. There seems to be very little patrolling of new pages, as opposed to simply tagging them for deletion (I can't find many examples of Slon02 improving pages he marks as patrolled), and the consistent tagging of pages within seconds of their creation is irritating. My extensive review also re-affirms WSC's concerns about picking out G10s: there are a number of occasions where pages that should have been blanked due to BLP issues and nominated under G10 were instead tagged as G3 or A7. However, with this exception, I have found the overwhelming majority of Slon02's tagging (especially the A7s) to be quite accurate. So long as the candidate takes the advice given here on board (particularly regarding G10), I do not feel that the CSD errors are sufficiently egregious or numerous to warrant delaying adminship.  -- Lear's Fool 02:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
39. Support – There are valid concerns in the "oppose" section, but I land here rather than there because I'm seeing sufficient capacity to take in feedback effectively, and the candidate seems to be the type who will proceed with caution. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
40. Support - Will this person abuse the tools? Of course not. Will this person misuse the tools? Possibly. Will this person learn from his mistakes? Undoubtably. Will the net change to the encyclopedia be positive? Yes. Should anything else be taken into consideration when evaluating an RfA? Good god, no. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
41. Support on balance. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
42. Support - While there are names I respect highly in the Opposes, I'm not convinced by their reasoning in this case. I feel Slon02 is ready, willing and able to take on the tasks of adminship, and will be a net plus to the project. Nobody is perfect, not even admins and admin candidates, and I believe this editor has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Best wishes, Jusdafax 19:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
43. I see the value of some, but not many and not all, of the arguments put forward by those who opposed. But on balance I think this candidate is experienced and trustworthy enough to be an administrator. Support. AGK [•] 14:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
44. Support, will do fine. Nsk92 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
45. Support:No reason why not--Sokac121 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose Slon02 has been active here for more than a year, has a clean block log and is a useful editor who has demonstrated they can add referenced notable material to the pedia. I don't see how the percentage of automated edits would be relevant to an RFA, but sometimes the total amount of editing is. In assessing your contributions I give more weight to your four thousand manual edits than your eight thousand automated ones - not least because those four thousand manual edits will have taken longer to do and therefore demonstrated more understanding of this sometimes rather complex site. My concern at the moment is with CSD tagging which isn't always quite there yet. this A7 was in the minute after the article was created. That would be fine for the "is our high school prom queen and totally fab" type of A7. But too soon in my view to tell whether an actor is significant or not, and this sort of speedy tagging risks biting newbies and losing potentially good content. I don't think it was an isolated example as in the same batch of fifty edits I found another A7 done just as quickly. Another of your last fifty deleted edits had the edit summary "(tagging for speedy deletion- notability)", which leads me to suspect you might consider that speedy deletion like AFD is related to notability rather than the much lower test of an assertion of importance or significance. I'm also concerned that you aren't spotting the attack pages. One of your fifty most recent deleted edits is an A7 tag of an article about a living person with an unsourced allegation about drugs and alcohol, another A7 tag was on an article that accuses someone of being a pornstar. I agree with you that both merited deletion but I would have preferred to see them both as G10s. I would be very happy to reassess you in a few months if you improve your CSD tagging. ϢereSpielChequers 13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   Could you by any chance tell me when that A7 tag that you linked occurred? --Slon02 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   It was on the 22nd of February. All the deleted edits I looked at were in the last 30 days. ϢereSpielChequers 16:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   I can see that you have concerns about me using the word "notability" in edit summaries. However, can you point out some instances of articles that I have tagged for speedy deletion under A7 that would not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion but do qualify as important or significant enough to not be speedy deleted under A7? The article that you have linked only stated that the person is an actress, and so I stand by the assessment of notability, although I'll agree that it was done too quickly. --Slon02 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for your reassurances in this RFA that you now understand the difference between notability and the CSD criteria, and I'm confident that you will learn from that incident. However I'm still concerned both about haste and about accuracy, and the problem about hasty tagging is that it bites newbies who may not do the subsequent edit that would explain why an article belongs here. I'm sticking with "weak oppose" as I would prefer to see some more tagging before I'd support, But as I said, I'd be happy to reassess you in a few months. ϢereSpielChequers 13:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose While I hate to oppose such an otherwise good-looking candidate, it doesn't seem as if the CSD tagging is at the level it needs to be. I really hoped that there would be no issues of this type, but unfortunately WereSpielChequers found multiple recent issues very easily. You said you intend to work with CSDs, so I just can't support. Sorry, Swarm ^X 15:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC) moved to support

   Oppose. I'm not an admin, so I cannot see your deleted 'tribs and, therefore, I have to go with what WereSpielChequers, an admin whose judgement I deeply trust, reports here; and, furthermore, with your reply to question 6 you appear to reinforce the suspicion that you think criterion A7 refers to notability (For A7 articles, I would clearly examine the article as see if there are any reliable sources there or if there is any sort of a claim as to why the subject in question is notable.). I'm really sorry, but I have to oppose at this time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   I should have answered that part of the question better, but since I answered it that way (although I should not have used the term notability), I might as well explain it. When I used the word "notability", I was not referring so much to the Wikipedia guidelines on notability, but was instead referring to the word notability itself, as in, worthy of note or notice, which means essentially the same thing as "significance" or "importance". I hope that this clears up what I meant. --Slon02 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'm indenting my !vote, for the moment, due to Fences&Windows's clarification above and your explanation here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Oppose - Sorry, but your answer to Q6 really missed the mark. (EDIT: Now also per Salvio.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Temporarily indenting - too hasty. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Addendum: I do like that he has started using more edit summaries since I reviewed him a month ago. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose In light of the fact that you have two previous RfAs (which with the benefit of hindsight you will probably conceed were probably poor judgement), I think it was unwise not to take User:VictorianMutant's advice in your first editor review, and wait six months. As for right now, concerns have been raised over CSD. I don't wish to pile on too much in that area, but one that I've seen that I'll add is this one (diff), which in my view can only be explained by not being completely familiar with the criteria. AfD participation is on the thin side, although in fairness is insightful on the whole. You have a strong copyediting record combined with a couple of well developed articles, but as far as I can tell you haven't taken anything through a collaborative environment (I've seen a peer review and a good article nomination, but you didn't interact in either). On balance, I think you would benefit by waiting a little, and working on getting one or two GAs through (March is a great month, as there's a backlog drive), CSD accuracy, and more of the same at AfD. My belief is that by narrowly failing this RfA now, Wikipedia will in my view have a better admin when you return for what I believe will be your successful run. —WFC— 20:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'll only comment on the diff that you linked. That was just a mistake, pure and simple, and one that I fixed within a minute after realizing that it was a user talk page, which shouldn't be deleted. Regardless, I believe that it would be more effective to use CSD instances that are more recent, such as those tags that I made this year. --Slon02 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. I could accept that response for WSC's ones, but G7 is pretty clear that user talk pages are a no-no. The only way you could tag that wrong is if you weren't fully familiar with the criterion. As for your latter point, I don't think 3-4 months is too a long time ago to judge you on. In this instance, I think it is appropriate to judge your progress since the second RfA, making allowances for the weeks immediately following it. —WFC— 21:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, but I don't think that's really fair. The candidate made a mistake, and immediately noticed it and reverted himself within a minute, with no intervening edits. If he genuinely thought it was OK to G7 that page, he wouldn't have immediately reverted himself. If you can point to cases where he G7'ed a user talk page and left it that way, I'll consider opposing too, but an immediately-self-reverted bad tagging is not a fair reason to oppose, in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   I think the big bright red error notice had something to do with it, although I accept that there is scope for a difference of opinion here. Regardless, I made explicitly clear that it was merely a demonstrative follow-on from WSC's examples, and whether you accept that or not, my more general point stands. This is too soon, because there is too little of a track record to gauge improvement, and too many recent examples that there is still more to learn. Originally posted at 22:22 UTC, updated —WFC— 22:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

3. The accuracy issues around CSD tagging worries me. Also, you said not too long ago that you didn't feel you were ready yet. What has changed in that time? MJ94 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   I didn't think I was ready a month or so ago because I knew that I would encounter fierce opposition from people who would claim that I have minimal content creation experience. Although that is still claimed, since then I created three additional articles and starting a GAN, which I feel weaken those claims and satisfy the goals that I set a month ago. Additionally, since you are worried about CSD tagging, which I agree is a very important concern, I invite you to look at my CSD log. I think that you'll find that every article in that log was deleted, which will hopefully ease your concerns about accuracy. --Slon02 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose Concerns with policy knowledge and judgement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose I hate to do this, but I have to agree with the above users. Sorry, not right now. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose Regrettably so, but I just don't see the need for the candidate to have the tools, given their stated purpose for running. I also have a concern with the candidate's own words, as provided above, less than a month ago more or less stating that he didn't feel like he was ready. As already raised, what's changed in a month?Strikerforce (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   I believe that I have already answered why I made those statements and what I was referring to. I wanted to create a few more articles and also start a GAN before my RfA, both of which I have done since then, which is why I am now having an RfA. --Slon02 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose Based largely on your answers to question 6, I feel you have have not displayed sufficient grasp of CSD policy. Your answers seemed to lack confidence and WSC has found reason to question some of your previous CSDs. This alone, is enough reason for me to oppose. Pol430 talk to me 10:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose, concerns about breadth and depth of experience. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose Concerned about fixation on admin status, very late move to content creation, as well as GA article itself. If you slug away and do a bunch more GAs, I may be happy. But for now, not impressed with your editorial ability. And this is an encyclopedia we are trying to write (not a video game of vandal wacking). I really think you have a bunch to learn. TCO (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   It's reasonable to include content work in your RfA standards, but wording such as "this is an encyclopedia we are trying to write (not a video game of vandal wacking)" doesn't seem isn't reasonable at all. Many users and admins alike have done excellent anti-vandalism work, and their dedication preserves the integrity of this encyclopedia as much as those who "write GAs". I really must strongly protest any comments that hint that anti-vandalism work is akin to a "video game" and somehow not part of the encyclopedia. In fact, the score keeping GA atmosphere on Wikipedia probably has more similarities to a video game than silent anti-vandalism workers ever will. Also, there's no evidence whatsoever of a fixation on adminship. Are you kidding? This user was nominated by another party, for crying out loud! What must one do?! Swarm ^X 01:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

   It would also be helpful if you explained to the candidate exactly what he needs to learn before becoming an administrator. He's written more articles than the average vandal-blocker and copyedited nearly two hundred—that's about 100,000 words if I added correctly. Is there a certain number of GAs you want? I like seeing content work, too, but he's also active in AfC (where a knowledge of the inclusion criteria is an absolute must), and this together leads me to think his experience with content is satisfactory. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

   What concerns me is the single, significant article and that being very recent. And then when I look at it, the construction is not very strong. I think another 6-12 months of writing significant articles (to B-class at least) would teach the editor enough about how to construct content, to where I was happy letting him have the tools. I don't want to debate where we set the bar (I likely set it higher than you, or than the prevailing wiki practice (then again compare this place's writing to any standard print outlet)), but I do think it's fair to give the candidate feedback as you mentioned. I hate to give a number, so only doing this for help, not to debate it. A couple GAs would probably do it for me (and some TIME after them, not one slid in before he comes in for the mop), but it could be bunch of Bs or a single FA. (not stubs or copyedits, sorry.) And I hope that it would not just be a box to check off, but maybe leading to a practice of contribution.TCO (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

   Comment. Another thing that bothers me is the single long article, that the candidate SAID was done to get admin status (in a way, I wouldn't mind that if it led to much MORE content, not a "one and done"). But the same person doing the admin nomination is ALSO the GA reviewer. That is just not a good pattern. Let's see this guy have more time and production. And some reviews by people not connected to his admin campaign. TCO (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Limited content contribution. Trigger-happy CSD tagging, as demonstrated by WereSpielChequers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
11. A rather reluctant oppose, because in many ways this is a good candidate, with many of the strengths that are needed for a good administrator. However, some of the answers to the questions (particularly 6 and 7) were unsatisfactory, not so much because they said anything that was wrong, more because they suggested a degree of vagueness and uncertainty. An administrator needs to have more clear and certain thoughts. Also, I have found various indications, both on this page and in the candidate's editing history, of lack of clear understanding of how Wikipedia works. For example, the link given in the answer to question 3 above does not lead to the discussion in question, not is it even a nearly correct link. Of course it would be ridiculous to oppose purely on the basis of a mistake like that, but when I see several cases of failure to quite understand how the system works, I start wondering if the candidate is ready to be an administrator. However, I would like to emphatically reject one of the other concerns raised here. We have the perennial "too many automated edits" nonsense. If I type {{Subst:PROD|No evidence of notability}} at the top of an article then that is a manual edit, which is good, and counts towards becoming an administrator. If, instead, I achieve the same result by clicking a link at the top of the page labelled "prod" (put there by Twinkle) and type No evidence of notability into the box that comes up, then that is really bad, and counts against my becoming an administrator. What utter nonsense. In fact, since administration work is all about using automated tools, a case could be made for the opposite view, but in all the times I have seen the "too many automated edits" cliche brought up in RfA discussions, I have not once seen an intelligent case in favour of it. The nearest I have seen is "manual edits are slower, so you have to think more about them", but that is not true. To make automated edits properly takes just as much thought as making manual edits properly, and what is more you have to think quicker. It is true that some automated tools make it very easy to make mistakes (Huggle in particular), but if a candidate has made lots of automated edits without frequent errors then there is no problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

    For the record, the link in Q3 worked properly when I posted it, but I performed a talk page archive during the RfA. This is why it is no longer working as it was before. --Slon02 (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

    OK, my mistake. I am striking through that part of my comment. I also see that you have now corrected the link. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

12. Oppose as you still don't seem to have a grasp on A7. I learned the hard way that A7 is NOT about whether a subject is notable. Struck comment after seeing A7. Still, candidate has some CSD tagging issues that make me feel uncomfortable with giving him the mop at this time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose I'm also concerned with the accuracy in tagging. Speed of tagging is not of the essence, I suggest you review WP:NPP and take a calmer look at what can be done. I'm also not entirely convinced that you will be able to remain objective in debates that would require your intervention as an admin. Kudpung (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
14. Oppose Hasty CSD tagging is the one deal breaker for me. Per WereSpielChequers. RxS (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
15. Misstep on Q6 + other opposition based on CSD concerns that I find compelling + eagerness to become an admin (third RFA in ten months). Townlake (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
16. Oppose Concerns over limited experience (thus policy knowledge) led me to poke regarding BLP; the answer did not quell my concerns. Coupled with the noted CSD concerns, and the impression that the candidate is a bit too keen to get the bit.  Chzz  ►  07:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
17. Weak oppose NOBIGDEAL and CSD concerns. BigDom talk 16:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry if I'm being slow, but what are NOBIGDEAL concerns? I usually see NOBIGDEAL cited by those supporting... WJBscribe (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

    I think the repeated RfA's in a short space of time show that Slon02 does not have the view that adminship is NOBIGDEAL, which is not a good mindset for a candidate to have IMO. BigDom talk 23:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

    If it's NOBIGDEAL, why are you opposing? o_O /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

    I think what he's trying to say is the candidate thinks Wikipedia is a big deal and he's opposing because he feels admin candidates should treat adminship as NOBIGDEAL. -- œ^™ 10:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry, I should have made it clearer to start with. I think candidates should realise that adminship is NOBIGDEAL, but this doesn't seem to be the case with Slon02, who seems to be overly eager to become an admin. BigDom talk 11:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

18. Oppose per CSD tagging concerns. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

    Oppose Agree with WereSpielChequers and WFC. Candidate has also too many automated edits for me. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

    WP:NOTENOUGH Swarm ^X 22:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

19. Oppose Per above. Baseball Watcher 16:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Pending Q4, of course. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, I read his answer to my question just about as soon as it was posted. It was exceptionally poor and that is giving me pause. I can personally think of a dozen good arguments that could be put forth as a response to my question, and am sure that there are others I have not thought of. He didn't hit a single one. If, as he said, he was expecting that the issue of automated edits be brought up, I would have expected that he already have a good answer formulated in his head as well. Looking at this user's talk page, it's clear that he has the ability to explain things coherently, as he does when dealing with people from AfC. However while touching on a basic point or two, his answer to my question lacked that clarity, coherence, and depth of knowledge that he has shown elsewhere. Looking over his work, he's comfortable in his element (AfC), and he does good work in his element. He dosen't seem comfortable outside of those areas though, and adminship is a hell of a learning curve. Leaning weak oppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral pending Q5. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Candidate has grown in experience and gorm, but answer to Q6 gives me pause. I may reconsider in a bit, but right now, neither side of the coin outweighs the other. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral Pending answers to additional questions Pol430 talk to me 10:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC Moving to oppose. Pol430 talk to me 10:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   Pending answers to questions and a deeper look into your non-automated contributions. I have questions about the judgement of someone who has twice self nommed very prematurely, but I won't oppose unless I can back up that concern, or unless there are alarming gaps in your experience. —WFC— 11:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Moving to oppose —WFC— 19:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral pending clarification on the severity of CSD tagging issues. Already contacted WereSpielChequers. If my concerns are alleviated I'll restore my support !vote. Swarm ^X 14:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC) moved to oppose

3. Neutral I was the other editor in the Boyar caste mentioned as "the conflict". This really was not a conflict and certainly not about edits. To keep dragging it out in the exact same wording every time an RfA is attempted, is quite disheartening for me. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral I can't make up my mind...Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)moving to oppose

4. Neutral. A month ago, the candidate said "at the moment I'm not content with my work, and I want to fill in some holes in my experience, specifically content creation and page protection, before I make another attempt at the mop." What has changed in a month? Fences&Windows 18:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   When I made that statement, I was already planning an adminship, but I had a strong suspicion that people would oppose for the usual "lack of content creation" argument. Since then, I created three new articles, and also made a GAN for another article that I created. --Slon02 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   I sorta sensed that. It's good that you put a little time in, in the salt mines, but looking at the page creation content of that GA, I think you need a bit more.TCO (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Neutral The CSD opposes while not bad enough to cause me to oppose, are enough to keep me in the neutral category, my apologies. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral Pro: Strong vandal-fighting portfolio and technical proficiency. Con: There are issues with CSD tagging and policy knowledge.--Hokeman (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Neutral Can't make up my mind here, in general there's a lot of good work here, but as I can't see deleted edits, WereSpielChequers comments do give me pause. Not impressed with the answers to questions, but not sufficiently unimpressed that I'd oppose. Overall, I'm neutral leaning oppose and will be watching to see if anything changes my mind. Worm^TT 10:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Neutral Simply too hard to decide. I partially agree with some opposes, lack of experience and such, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with the user, I don't think he would be a bad sysop at all. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Would have opposed except that I think Slon02 shows unusually strong potential. This RfA seems a little ill-prepared and premature (and I caution against re-applying too soon) but I expect he'll emerge all the better for the experience and suggestions. Look forward to more content work too. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Neutral: I've been prevaricating all week and still can't decide. But I do just want to say that I feel confident Slon02 will succeed in a future run, even if not this one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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