Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Valley2city

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

Valley2city

Note from nominee: I will be completely offline for the duration of the Jewish Sabbath. By all means continue asking questions and discussing my candidacy but please understand that I will neither be viewing nor responding to questions until at earliest 7PM Pacific Standard Time Saturday (3PM UTC Sunday). Thank you. Valley2city^‽ 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Final (63/1/2); closed by bibliomaniac15 on 06:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Valley2city (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself, Valley2city, to wield the mop and bucket. I have been a registered user and active contributor on Wikipedia since November 2005. Since early 2007 have pondered becoming an admin but have hesitated until this point to try for an RfA. Though I felt I had experience I was still trying out new tools and finding my niche in Wikipedia and felt I still had so much more to learn. Over the past few years I think I have gained significant experience and merited the community's trust. I want to become an admin expand my role in fighting against vandalism and do my part to help Wikipedia the best that I can. Thank you and I look forward to a week of dialogue with you all.Valley2city^‽ 05:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm glad I finally built up enough courage to try for an RfA after so long. I accept my self-nom. Valley2city^‽ 06:00, 27 February 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: Though I have contributed to the encyclopedic material of Wikipedia, I have been spending a good portion of my editing time taking part in Counter-Vandalism, patrolling new pages and newbie edits, CSDs, prodding, XfDs, reversions, AIVs, UAAs, and the like. I therefore would like to focus on dealing with fighting against vandalism from an administrative standpoint such as enforcement at AIV and UAA. I sometimes find myself frustrated with a repetative vandal who continues flagrantly ignore all the warnings and mucks up the works well beyond the final warning and my report to AIV; the turnaround time and backlog is often excessively long, especially late at night (I'm a graduate student, I'm used to being up late). I think an additional pair of eyes in this department would be very useful and I would like to be that extra pair of eyes and anywhere else I may be needed (such as CSD).

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

A: I had been a gnome in my early days, whether making small corrections to grammar and punctuation in mainspce or manually assigning templates to talk pages but then I emerged from my cave (do gnomes live in caves?) to become bolder with my edits. I have spread myself around trying out many fields, whether creating and editing articles, collaborating with WikiProjects, adding audio to the pronounciation of non-english article titles, researching sources, creating templates, designing userboxes, fighting vandalism, patrolling new pages and user edits through various scripts, tagging articles with AWB and my bot. I am proud of my contributions to the many of categories in which I participate. I can't tell you which of the fields my contributions are best but I like to think I made a significant difference to many sectors of Wikipedia.

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: Admittedly, I haven't really had too many conflicts. I try to be as amicable as possible even when engaging in heated discussion. The group I've probably ticked off the most are the vandals. I try not to bite newcomers, and always try to start with either a specialized welcome (if appropriate) or a level 1 warning that includes a welcome, but there are some people who are inconsolable. As evidenced from my user page and talk page history, I have been vandalized many times by disgruntled vandals whom I've foiled. I don't let vandals get to me. I don't take very seriously the death and damnation threats and graffiti I've received. On the other hand I've also helped some former vandals rehabilitate themselves. That's infinitely better, seeing the err of one's ways. I would rather see them a productive editor with something positive to contribute, but it doesn't always work that way.

Additional question from Mr Senseless

4 Is it ever acceptable to block (or threaten to block) a user who has asked for a second opinion on your actions from a third-party admin?

A. Thanks for the question. Nobody serious about Wikipedia wants the scarlet letter of a block in their block log. If I have any doubt to the validity of my pending actions, I myself would seek a second opinion from an uninvolved admin. However in the case where there is either a clear danger in the user continuing to edit, such as the bizarre antics of User:Markvision55 (see his contributions) or the account is blatantly Vandal Only, then I would impose a block and they can try their luck at WP:APPEAL. The appeal will give them the input of a third-party admin anyway, so they get their request fulfilled. I don't want them to feel disenfranchised but there is definitely a situation here where I need to act immediately.

Optional questions from Aitias

5. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. I won't take hangons lightly and would consider many of them valid contests. However, if the page (and creator) is obviously Vandalism Only and the user placed the tag in Bad Faith, if the article is an utter CopyVio, of if the page is irredeemably libelous I might consider deleting it. Basically, would I feel comfortable allowing such a page to survive for an XfD for a week. If they give a valid response on the talk page and the page is redeemable then I will take it into consideration. If this CSD-candidate article happens to be among their first contributions to Wikipedia I would likely direct them to WP:First, with a specialized welcome if there isn't already one.

6. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. I personally would like to see more people helping with counter-vandalism on Wikipedia. My criteria for Rollback would involve experience and accuracy. In my opinion, would the person abuse it or do they have the integrity to use it appropriately? How has their history been with fighting vandalism? Were they relatively accurate in removing vandalism only and not valid edits?

For removing it I would consider their recent usage of rollback and if they're going trigger-happy I would leave a friendly note on their talk page. There would be procedures for emergency derollbacking just like their is for emergency desysop in the case of them going rogue, but hopefully that would be rare with someone who an admin has deemed responsible enough for rollback capabilities.

7. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A.Interesting question because this was something I myself did for my very first edit to Wikipedia so many years ago. Pretty much only pictures I've uploaded in the past couple of years have been self-taken photographs. Ideally anything uploaded on Wikipedia should be free, but that is not always a possibility. Only fair-use images can be used in place of free and only in very limited circumstances. Anything else is a legal liability. Basically, does it fulfill all the criteria in WP:NFCC? If it fulfills them all, then and only then can it be used. Once it has been determined that it is acceptable for usage, this is not carte blanche to use it everywhere. there are different criteria of whether the image is in used in BLP or in an article about an event. It can't be used on someone's userbox. The scope is for non-free images is limited and needs to be determined a case-by-case basis.

8. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?

A. I'll answer the latter part first. If someone attacks my page I will treat it like any other sort of vandalism. The only difference of my userpage or talk page than anyone else's is that I wield a little more control over what remains on it. However, if something is obviously vandalism or a personal attack I'll respond no matter if it \s mine or anyone else's page and, if beyond the final warning, I'll consider imposing a block myself.

As for the first part, an IP poses a more complex situation. I would first do a WHOIS on the IP to determine whether it is an obviously shared ip. If it is a school I would consider a temporary soft-block with a duration dependent on the contribution history of the IP. If it is a government ip address, all the moreso do I need to tread lightly (with a note to the Wikimedia Foundation). However, a non-shared IP might merit a short term block commiserate upon block log priors and severity.

9. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. As I mentioned above in #4, nobody wants a block in their record. However there are certain situations that even an Indef Block is immediately merited even without warning. For obvious username issues, such as unredeemably inflamatory ones or ones that exist solely to spam (especially if they created an article with the same name as their username that was then G11ed) an indef block may be called for. I was dealing with a case a few weeks ago where someone created multiple sockpuppets and started posting the same string of peculiar vandalism to the same page and in that case one didn't need to be a CheckUser to see that they were sockpuppets. If I could ascertain that this was the case by observation then they too could be blocked.

Optional question from Cool3

10. Really a request for more detail on #2. Are there any specific articles that you feel you've made a big difference to? Anywhere else that you've contributed a significant amount of content to one specific topic?

A. Honestly, I still maintain a gnome-like tendency so I don't know how to satisfactorily answer your question. However small, these grains of sand add up. My biggest encyclopedic contributions have definitely been within Judaism-related articles and with WikiProject Judaism. I have written multiple articles on Jewish topics, a number of which have been featured on the DYK section of the main page. I expanded already existing ones, such as Selichot. I've worked on templates for Judaism articles, such as Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays. I have worked on adding Hebrew translations and English transliterations of Jewish topics as well as recording .ogg files on how to pronounce them. I am in the process of writing an article offline about the Yanov Torah, a compilation of pieces of Torah parchment which were hidden during the Holocaust and pieced together afterwards by survivors. This should be a significant article pretty soon. So I am proud of the corpus of Judaism-related articles where I think I made a big difference.

Optional question from Tikiwont

11. You tagged an earlier version of Death by wikipedia for CSD G3 and it was actually deleted and then recreated. What made you think initially it was vandalism and how do you view the current state[1] with respect to the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death by wikipedia?

A. It was an interesting first article, to say the least. I explained my reasoning for CSDing the article on the user's talk page. When originally considering it the time a red flag was raised in my mind. The article was entirely composed of potentially libelous unsourced and POV statements that could not stand as an unchallenged article. Neologism or not, I feel my judgment was valid at the time. However the user's contest was also valid and I understand his points. After recreated I agreed that AfD would be the best forum to deal with it. After being sourced, though perhaps not meriting its own article, did belong in an article about Criticisms of Wikipedia and I did not !vote for deletion. I am satisfied by the outcome of the AfD.

Optional question from Keepscases

12. Have you seen any userboxes on Wikipedia that personally offended you? If so, please describe one. If not, please explain what, if anything, in a userbox might cause you to become offended.

A: I don't remember seeing any userboxes that particularly "offended" me. Userspace policy is more relaxed than that of Namespace and therefore one might decide to legitimately put some information about themselves on their user page. I think userboxes are an effective means of communicating the roles one plays on Wikipedia without having to read through a lot of information. I don't have a problem in people including a little bit about themselves: it allows me to know their interests, strengths, and potential COIs. However, I would draw the line at something that might advocate, glorify, or display violence, hatred, or something illegal (though the latter is difficult to ascertain as the user's home country might have different laws than my own). Also if they were using it for blatant advertising. It wouldn't "offend" me per se, but if I saw a userbox which used a fair-use image, I would probably notify the creator that fair-use images are contrary to the Userbox policy and WP:NFCC.

Optional request from Skomorokh

13. Please give a brief account of the most serious content disputes you have been involved in.

A: Again, I haven't been in many significant content disputes. Only two really come to mind, one where I was directly involved a long time ago and another where I injected myself as an independent mediating party. The closest thing to what I would consider a conflict would probably be within the discussion (or lack thereof) for a template in Jewish holidays I've ever been in was in regards to an editor who decided to remove Israeli national holidays from the Template of Jewish Holidays and was adamant about retaining the utter separation. I came up with a compromise that we should have separate sections of a single template.

The latter is a recent war that occurred in the article and talk page of the Dead Sea Scrolls. On one side was a world-renowned expert and archaeologist on the Dead Sea Scrolls. On the other side was an alleged college student. The argument was over the topic of a controversial statement she (the student) added in the article. I tried to diffuse the situation and warning them about 3RR. I felt that the archaeologist, while clearly one of the biggest experts on the topic should not have tried to remove the paragraph relating to the controversy as I felt it to be a COI. On the other side, while I respect the anonymity some users choose to have, I grew suspicious when I discovered the allegations that the student was in fact a sockpuppet in a long line of others who inserted the same thing into the article way back when. I sent them to mediation while doing some research and in fact she DID turn out to be a sockpuppet. My goal is to diffuse the situation and I'm glad that situation was diffused.

Optional question from Lankiveil

14. You have indicated that you will not be online or able to participate in this RFA on the Jewish Sabbath. A quick search of your contribs indeed reveals that this regular break is a constant feature of your editing. I assume this is because of deeply held religious convictions, which I am fine with. My question is, do you forsee that there will be any further limitations on your contributions due to your religious and cultural beliefs? If so, what would they be? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

A.Besides the weekly Sabbath and occasional holiday I don't think my religion will necessitate limitations on my contributions. Out of principle I abstain from writing things where I have a COI. I could consider myself an expert on certain Jewish topics and therefore am a good candidate to make major contributions to these article and even contribute in a completely unbiased and non POV way. I would also like to point out that I GA Reviewed the article Islam, an article which shortly thereafter became a Featured Article. So you can be assured that I will be fair in all topics and will try to recuse myself from cases where there can be the possibility I may have a COI.

General comments

• Links for Valley2city: Valley2city (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Valley2city before commenting.

Discussion

• For anyone who cares: His most frequent edit time is between 10 and 11 PM on Saturday nights, but the day with the most edits from him is Wednesday (they're spread out); he made 502 (wow) edits on May 2, 2007; out of his ~6000 edits, he hasn't made a single one between the hours of 3 and 4 AM, he's only made 5 edits between 5 and 7 AM, and only 12 between 2 and 3 AM; he likes working at AIV. I can't find anything else weird about him... flaminglawyer 07:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, all of that information can be found here (the best edit tracker out there, IMO). Although specifically hunting for "weird" things about a candidate just to post in this discussion section is kind of bad form, IMO. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank god... I was starting to think that I was the only one that used it... flaminglawyer 22:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • But he could be in a different time zone... -download | sign! 04:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a quick look at the userboxi on his userpage reveals that he does, in fact, reside in the Pacific time zone (California and other smaller states). Stalker? No, just interested... flaminglawyer 06:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. First-glance of the self-nom convinces me that this editor is enthusiastic about the encyclopedia. I'll check the edits in a little bit (won't over-analyze though), but so far so good. Registering my opinion for now - doubt it'd change, but whatever, want to make sure. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   A quick glance of a couple edits, plus my sudden recognition of this editor's signature from somewhere, leaves me with confidence. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Strong support, looks great to me (aw, i wanted to be first). Wizardman 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   =P Master&Expert (Talk) 06:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Support User has been around since Nov 2005 and is a rollbacker and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Seems qualified, and would be nice to see a self nom succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support needs the tools, won't abuse them. Good enough for me fr33kman -s- 07:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Particularly impressed by the attitude here on your user page and the accuracy and attention to detail here - although you may wish to read WP:CSD#A9 as some music is deletable under CSD - although I am impressed by the inclusionist bias. Lots of good speedy work (for non admins who can't see I'm guestimating 300+ CSD tags). Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  08:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Great edits and counter-vandal work. FlyingToaster 08:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support From everything I've seen so far (answers here, userpage and a brief check over contributions) doesn't give me any cause for concern. --GedUK  09:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support I see no problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Out of all your great contributions, the one I'm most impressed by is your 27 requests for page protection, almost all of which were granted. This demonstrates that this user has the required WP:CLUE and experience with the matters in which he tends to deal with. Good luck! Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Excellent contributions and per answers to Q's 1-4 Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
12. I have confidence that this user will make a good administrator.--Patton^t/c 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Seriously Strong Support This seems to be an excellent user and while I've never come across the user before, his history, contributions, composure, and answers to the questions above have me very confident about his abilities to be a sysop. Regarding the concerns about CSD below, I think I have made my points clear in the Neutral section. This user not only helps other users, but fixes his mistakes, and keeps himself useful with regards to articles (why else be on WP? eh-hem). His lower activity levels as of late do not concern me; I too am a graduate student and am well aware of the time commitments that come with it and fully understand his reasoning. Cutting back on WP time does not lead to a user forgetting how to do things; it is very much like riding a bike, and I can't see this user's access to the tools causing stupid mistakes or major controversy. I'll also point out that while I am pretty apathetic to religion in general (and unimpressed by annoyingly preachy people outside of their respective houses of worship), the candidate's comments here are no less inspiring to this otherwise not-impressed-by-religious-claims, -stories, or -theologies user. The tools should be yours; best of luck. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support A few awful CSDs, a few dubious AfD votes, but they seem like simple mistakes or inexperience rather than systemic problems. Candidate will make a good admin imo. Phil153 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. Looks like good contributions and a long history here. I'm satisfied. Cool3 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Good answers to the first three, to additional, and to templated questions; good attitude (appears to be a positive editor), honest, decent, knowledgeable, and hard-working. No problems here. Acalamari 18:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support seems to know what he/she is doing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Wait, he didn't have a mop yet? Met him while renovating his userpage per request; Vallley deffinetly knows what he is doing and would be a good admin. ResMar 20:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - See no problems. Simon^KSK 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Looks good. LittleMountain5 21:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Net positive.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support User is a definite net positive, has a clue and is extremely unlikely to delete the name page. I see no problems here. Trusilver 21:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - I actually wasn't that impressed with the answers, especially coming from a self-nom (who would have more time to think of answers to standard questions). However, I have had several interactions with the candidate and also reviewed his contributions, and could not find a single edit to suggest that he might not make a good administrator. The user does both article work (not having GAs and FAs does not mean that he hasn't written content) and maintenance work. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Strong Support: Reason - I simply did the math, and it totals up to one of the best candidates I've seen walk down these halls in a while. Good luck Valley, and the weather forecaster seems to be predicting snow in the near future. ;) — Ched (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Experience in volumes, demonstrated patience, and questions seem to indicate that adminship won't be problematic. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Good contribs, useful to the project. Spencer^T♦C 00:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support, Clean edits, good answers...whats not to like?Smallman12q (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Strong Support, This user has what it takes to be an administrator, This user puts there's soul into the edits and it is very obvious. Good Luck --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Support from the Death by Wikipedia incident. If not for the third section on that talk page, I would be opposing. I can respect someone who can admit they're wrong, that's the type of attitude necessary for an administrator. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Valley welcomed me to wikipedia and I know he is great enought to be an admin.!? ThePeepShow 03:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Will use tools well. -download | sign! 04:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Support - I trust this user with the tools --Flewis^(talk) 08:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Good answers to questions and no good opposes. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. Understands policy and appears to have no problems. Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. Understands policy, answers questions reasonably well, no reason to believe he would abuse the tools. Ironholds (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
38. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Support - favorably impressed. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Support, good answer to Q14, no indication user will abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC).
41. Very strong support I can't believe that you have a single oppose! Fahadsadah (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support: Glad you finally took the plunge with a self-nom. I really like your attitude and your intelligence is evident. I'm sure you'll go carefully and ask questions when you need to. Maedin\^talk 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support -- Excellent, qualified user and candidate for the tools. Wikipedia will most definitely benefit from this user as an admin.--₮RUCӨ 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Looks good to me. — Aitias // discussion 19:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - iMatthew // talk // 21:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support -- Fastily (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. Why he had to self-nom is a bit surprising. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Clearly qualified. Will do well. shirulashem (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards (candidate has no blocks, no memorable negative interactions with me, etc.). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support per the answers to the questions. They show that this user has an understanding of the policies that admins have to worry about here and they definitely show that this is the right person for the mop. Cheers, Razorflame 05:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. I have considered the opposers' rationales and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Very good contributions from a very good editor. -- Marek.69 ^talk 07:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support no concerns, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - I like the look of him (figuratively speaking, of course). Deb (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support - Positive attitude, good answers and according to my experience having a regular break is a stabilizing element. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - looks good to me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. See no significant issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Support due to meeting all my standards. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. This is the part of the day I like best, when I get to read RFAs like this one. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support -- good user. Versus22 _talk 10:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Pile-on support - No problems here.--Res2216firestar 03:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - characterizing blocks as a "scarlett letter" seems to show a lack of insight to what blocks actually mean and don't mean. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   He didn't say he thought that, in fact he implied he didn't, he said he'd be careful giving blocks because people are generally upset by them.--Patton^t/c 13:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Reread it. It is quite clear that he thinks that blocks are a scarlet letter and would avoid them because of such. Blocks are not a scarlet letter. They are not a permanent thing. They are preventative, not punitive. To claim that they brand someone is completely opposite of this, and the mindset he has is opposite to what our blocking policy states. If he refuses to block a prominent member who is acting out because he thinks it may be a scarlet letter, then we have a serious problem. An admin cannot be afraid to block anyone when they are acting out and disrupting. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, Ottava, I was wondering when you were going to weigh in. To clarify, Echoing Patton's understanding, I'm thinking of the psychology of the user. I'm indeed going to block people who deserve blocks, whether they are established or not. However, if someone has a legitimate claim deserving of a second opinion I will consider it. I don't consider this a sign of weakness. I think it shows more strength that I'm not competely trigger-happy with the blocks. I think restraint is sometimes called for, but don't chalk this up to me refusing to block people if they deserve it. Valley2city^‽ 04:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps blocks aren't supposed to be scarlet letters, but, right or wrong, that's the way they're frequently interpreted. Admins do need to be conservative when handing them out to users who have shown any degree of good faith. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see my blocks as a scarlet letter. I don't see the blocks that I have given users on other projects as a scarlet letter. I think it is best that an admin doesn't. The original comment rubbed me the wrong way. I tried to read the rest, but was constantly plagued by the comment. I don't like the idea of blocking people in general, but that is because of the potential of keeping them from continuing to help the encyclopedia (i.e. interfering with their work) and not as a character critique. I'm sure Valley2city will pass without a problem, so there shouldn't be any worries. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   That's fine. I would be remiss, however, if I didn't point out the inherent irony in the color and form of the Oppose symbol (File:Symbol oppose vote.svg) that appears if you have the vote symbols script active. Is "dash" a letter? Valley2city^‽ 20:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose. No. Just no. Tin Whistle Man (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   Indented votes by vandalism-only account sockpuppets. Somno (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose. User should clock up more experience points. It is my personal view that adminship is granted far too easily these days. Radio Tramp (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

   Indented votes by vandalism-only account sockpuppets. Somno (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Your edit count to the MediaWiki namespace is a bit low. But seriously, I'm thinking neutral. Been around for a while, but I haven't seen you around. How did you get 500 edits in one day (2 May 2007 - check it)? Quite a character already. As soon as I do some further analytical analyzing I'll be able to give better reasoning, but I'll probably stay neutral. flaminglawyer 07:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   Simple, it's 500 times ‎ "(Added to WikiProject Columbia University using AWB)".--Atlan (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   Ah yes, that wonderful day before I got my bot when I handfed AWB... The bot was also sort of handfed but at least was more semi-automated. Valley2city^‽ 17:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   For me it's quite simple, albeit unfortunate: unemployment. I've knocked out ~500 edits a day for the last three days, and I'm averaging about 200 edits a day this month, but as soon as I land a job again, that'll drop back to 90-100 daily edits. But my point was that 500 is certainly doable, even without using tools. Useight (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   I've done 1,500 edits on the same day, maybe more (when I first discovered Huggle). Cheers, Razorflame 05:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

    Confirmed Neutral unless something interesting happens in the meantime. flaminglawyer 07:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral I hate to be the one who digs out such mistakes, but someone has to. Candidate wants to work in speedy deletion but makes bizarre mistaggings likeUserpage tagged as G2, A7 with clear indication of notability, Another A7 with claims of notability (appeared in notable magazines...), A7 for a named professional that has a chair at an university
   But as those are the only mistakes I could find in the last few months, I'm not opposing. But I have to remain neutral (unless further evidence proves me wrong) because the candidate has very few edits in the last year, virtually none that allow me to judge his abilities as an administrator. I simply cannot decide from what I see if this user will be a benefit if granted the tools. Regards SoWhy 11:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
   • I respect your research skills; you are always able to find mistakes in a user's CSD history. But I have to say that a couple of these are not nearly as severe as you imply with your post:
     • The G2 user page request seemed to have been an honest mistake, having been reversed within one minute. It seems the candidate realized his mistake and removed the warning he had placed on the other user's talk page. At the time, the page was blank. All is still right with the world. In fact, being the editor that welcomed the owner of the CSD'ed page (even if it was part of a Twinkle warning), the owner went on to ask the candidate how to make a new signature and improve his user page, implying interest in the project and trust in the candidate.
     • I agree with the A7 of Molly Emmons. It was presumedly created by the person it describes, she has little (if anything) in the realm of notability, and only one link (currently) to a "notable source" that actually proves that her photos have been used on said site (and it's a blog, no less) - and that link didn't exist when the CSD tag was placed. These things alone don't call for CSD, but summed, they violate conflict of interest, neutral point of view (i.e. "...pushed the boundaries of both styles..."), and now, WP's guidelines on external links (specifically #4, 11, and 13). At the time of the CSD tag, the only accessible "source" was a url to her own blog, which is not reliable. I think this was a good call and I would still support it today, even with the article as it is; if this were a random band or musician under the same circumstances, I could see this being deleted by an admin without question.
   • I know that many worry about biting newbies when CSD tagging, but I think this is blown out of proportion. The number of users welcomed by other users either after making constructive edits or not, surely greatly outweighs those that may be turned off by a very minor bite infraction. The G2 is a great example of a user who, even though minorly (and mistakenly) bitten, is still editing and even asked advice from the "biter". I also have a thing for citing sources, as should any other product of the American public school system. Adding content to an encyclopedia requires you to prove where you found the information whether or not you're familiar with WP policies or not. Just listing links to general websites that don't prove your point does not prove notability. In addition, deleting a page is not the end of the world. Any speedy-deleted page can be reinstated by any admin. A user that argues hard (and validly!) enough for a page can keep that page in existence. A couple deletion mistakes in the long run is not a big deal and can be fixed if somebody cares enough to request that fix. If nobody notices something's been deleted, then by definition, it really wasn't that notable to begin with. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
   • I've come here under a proxy (you'll probably want to block it because it's an open proxy), but I'm actually a Wikipedia user that has a decent amount of edits (i.e. >2000 but <5000). I now refuse to tag articles for CSD because of opposes like this. I know that even a few mistakes could take any RfA nomination down. Now, it probably sounds like I'm thinking too much about adminship, but this is the way it is: neutrals and opposes like this are discouraging CSDS. 200.94.106.76 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, those few bad CSD tags have caused the downfall of his RfA. Future candidates beware! Phil153 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   Haha, out of full disclosure, the IP was not me, even though CSDs did seem to be one of the major reasons for my unsuccessful RfA. For the record, my IP address is 74.67.0.96! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   But you(?) were under a proxy, and admitted it... Ooh, got ya now... flaminglawyer 06:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Per Atlan and SoWhy. Moved to Support Candidate looks good, but apart from a recent spree, Valley2city has almost no edits to Wikipedia: namespace in the past year and a half, and little activity in significant content creation that I could see. Only 7 posts to WP:Adminstrator.* in the last month, then nothing until 2007. This also concerns me, from his user page, under "Administrative aspirations": One of the things I have done the most here is reverting vandalism. I am frustrated, however, that nothing constructive can come of my revision as I cannot perform tochecha, a Hebrew term for "light and constructive admonition" on the wayward or accidental editor who performed these changes. To me, reversions, warnings, and escalations to noticeboards are 99% as constructive as doing the blocking or protecting oneself, so the comment is confusing. Perhaps it was tongue in cheek? An explanation would be nice. Phil153 (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   Those are valid concerns. For the past few semesters I have had a very heavy courseload but from now on I have less credits and have quite a bit more free time to contribute to Wikipedia. As for the userpage, I admittedly have not really changed that since I wrote it New Years Day 2007 and my "Administrative aspirations" can be gleaned rather from my statements on my RfA. I had relatively little experience at that point and was waxing poetic. I will definitely continue to use the tools I have previously been using, but I think I can make good use of the mop as well for that other ~1% where warnings, reversions, etc, having proven not a deterrance in a specific case , need to be backed up by administrative action. Valley2city^‽ 17:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   I believe that all three A7 tags provided were legitimate. Two of them were rather borderline cases, but I think this is a problem that could arouse with any frequent new page patroller who isn't familiar with the subject matter and where a simple Google search wouldn't automatically establish notability. There is certainly no indication here (IMO) that the candidate has no clue what A7 is for. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

   A7 (and the image cats) are the ones I don't touch. Yes, in theory it's simple: they assert notability or they don't. In fact, Wikipedia isn't served by deleting an article on a notable topic, whether the writer asserted it or not. I'd want to spend a lot of time focusing on AfD before I put myself in the position of trying to decide in an instant what normally takes 5 days for a lot of very smart people. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

   Wikipedia isn't served by deleting an article on a notable topic unless the article is so factless to not even contain a mention of why the topic is possibly encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

   But that's not under question. Notability is the base of this debate. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

   If the author of an article cannot or does not assert notability in the article's text, it's a concession on the point and whether the topic is or isn't notable is not relevant to whether it is kept. If the topic is notable, someone will come by and start it again - this time with sufficient assertions of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 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.