Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/TheSandDoctor

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

TheSandDoctor XTools stats

XTools stats

Generated using XTools on 2018-06-09 22:25

General statistics

User ID	30052052
User groups	autoconfirmed, autoreviewer, extendedconfirmed, extendedmover, patroller, reviewer, rollbacker, user
Is administrator?	0
First edit	2017-01-08 07:31
Latest edit	2018-06-09 22:21
Live edits	19,527 (83.3%)
Deleted edits	3,918 (16.7%)
Total edits	23,445
Edits in the past 24 hours	21
Edits in the past 7 days	95
Edits in the past 30 days	549
Edits in the past 365 days	10,654
Average edits per day	45.3 (517 days)
Average edit size*	399.8 bytes

Pages

Pages edited (total)	13,363
Average edits per page	1.754
Pages created	3,292 (441 since deleted)
Pages moved	852
Pages deleted	0

Files

Files uploaded	14
Files uploaded (Commons)	0

Edits (live)

(Semi-)automated edits	10,461 (53.6%)
Edits with summaries	19,493 (99.8%)
Minor edits	4,316 (22.1%)
Small edits (<20 bytes)*	1,687 (33.7%)
Large edits (>1000 bytes)*	656 (13.1%)

Actions

Thank	706
Approve	162
Patrol	710
Accounts created	3

(Re)blocks

Longest block	–
Current block	–

Global edit counts (approximate)

* Data limited to the past 5,000 edits

Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q 11

I think Q 11 should be struck. It's an attempt to "fish" for the candidate to state an activistic pro/con position about a line-item in policy. We had one like this in the last RfA, too. We may need to revise the intro materials about RfA to a least strongly discourage such antics. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do indeed mean Q11, SMcCandlish, . 'As an Articles for Creation reviewer, what's your opinion of the G13 speedy criterion?' by Espresso Addict which I am sure was in good faith, I concur with you. RfA is not the place for fishing for opinions on set Wikipedia practices that have been established by consensus, and especially ones that are currently under serious discussion. Asking candidates to express their position regarding established policies or guidelines is not apt; admins are generally expected to abide by policies and guidelines whatever their own view, unless of course a very credible reason for a rare IAR is established on a per case basis. The candidate is reminded that they are under no compulsion whatsoever to answer user questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; there's just the one Q11. And I'm not implying anything about the faith in which the question was asked, just its form and effect. Candidates generally do try to answer all the questions, but this one is essentially a trap, even if not intended that way. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EA should probably reword it, but in general I think questions like this can serve a purpose. Candidates (often) have a few areas of expertise that we can expect them to end up being active in, so a question or two about their understanding of policy in that area would be warranted. I might rephrase it to something like As someone active in AfC, could you please explain when it is or isn't appropriate to tag or delete a page under WP:CSD#G13? One could also add Is the current CSD policy sufficient, or do you think there need to be changes to G13? which is still not great given the current and constant G13 debates, but is somewhat inline with the "if you could change one thing" questions and could provide further insight as to how the candidate thinks about policy. Plus, on the specific nature of G13, it gives an insight into the whole deletionist/creationist thing that for some reason some people care about. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit harsh to assume that EA is laying a "trap" with Q11. I can think of plenty of good reasons to ask questions like that. You might want to check whether the candidate keeps up-to-date with policy discussions in areas they're involved in. Or be reassured that, if they do have strong opinions, they have to abide by the consensus whether they agree with it or not. Or just, as Amory says, get a general insight into their thinking on policy. – Joe (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask of a candidate who both is active in AfC and states s/he wishes to deal with backlogs at speedy. An awareness of the ongoing debates/complexity behind the apparent simplicity of some of the current speedy criteria is important. Nevertheless, I will remove it. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I generally dislike questions about pet causes. I think they're allowed, but they are generally bad form. I think Espresso Addict acted in good faith, but I also think they made the right call by removing it. TonyBallioni (talk)

Withdrawing a question

I'd like to withdraw my question (Q6). How do I do that? Vexations (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the candidate has already responded, you can't withdraw the question. (Though, I suppose, you could add an explanation or note below spinning spark's response.)--regentspark (comment) 00:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 20 and 21

That's clearly 4 questions, and I'm not sure all of them are reasonable in any situation. Can somebody strike some of them? "21.2" seems like it's trying to prove some point involving the removal of Checkusers on zhwiki, but there's not enough context to know for sure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see this thread but I struck the questions and left a comment for the user who asked them. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced perms dates on candidate

I am busy ATM so I can't DIY, but does anyone have the dates for the "hats"? I see hat collecting mentioned a lot, but short of a generic "acquired 5 hats in 1 year" no other briefness has been specified. FTR I expect about everyone to have rollback patroller and reviewer fairly quickly, so only autopatrol and extended mover might concern me. Thanks ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acquiring of userrights with approx. account age: Registered Jan 8, 2017 - extended confirmed 23 February 2017 (~1.5m) - New Page Reviewer 16 April 2017 (~3m, 1w) - Rollback & Pending Changes Reviewer both on 6 May 2017 (~4m) - Extended mover 11 May 2017 (~4m) - Autopatrolled 4 October 2017 (~8m). Links to the relevant requests: New Page Patrol, unsuccessful Rollback request, successful Rollback request, Pending Changes Reviewer request, Page Mover request & Autopatrol request. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. My take on it is I am surprised RB and PCR came after NPP, but that isn't a bad thing. Everyone should have RB and PCR (the few major editors I can think of who don't have it resigned the bit due to misuse or just lack of use) and NPP is a necessary perm for new page patrollers to be of any use. I looked up his logged actions, and s/he seems to have a good amount of actions with each right. Regardless of speed acquired, if you use it, it ain't hat collecting. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Regardless of speed acquired, if you use it, it ain't hat collecting." --> this x100. Hat collecting doesn't mean being active in multiple areas of the project that require advanced permissions. Most of the interesting areas do! Hat collecting is obtaining rights for the purposes of showing them off, rather than using them. Some of the opposers should re-read the page they are linking to. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, hat collecting isn't even a problem even if it exactly meets the definition. What are people worried about here? "Ha ha! My diabolical plan to acquire advanced user rights for some sense of personal gain and then use them only infrequently to positively benefit the encyclopedia has worked! Next ... I conquer the world!" ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! Lourdes 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rob as well. I remember some of those comments at Rob's RfA and while I felt it might've been too soon (I don't remember what my vote was, or if I voted at all), the hat-collecting points are simply false, as L3X1 says is how it is basically. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of questions

This RfA is not more than halfway through its seven-day period, and the candidate has already received more than 30 questions. This is an unusually high number of questions. I went through a number of 2017 RfAs for comparison, and some of the highest number of questions at the end of each RfA were 28 (Megalibrarygirl), 27 (Dane), 23 (Clpo13 2), 21 (GoldenRing). This RfA therefore has one of the highest number of questions at any RfA in recent memory.

There is, of course, no rule against asking the candidate questions as long as no more than two questions are exceeded per individual. However, I would ask, out of consideration for the candidate and for the RfA process in general, that if you are thinking about asking the candidate a question, consider carefully whether your question will be important to you and other participants in forming an opinion about the candidate. Please do not feel obligated to ask a question before voting, and keep in mind also that while the questions are technically optional, RfA candidates oftentimes feel pressure to answer all of the questions posed to them because they risk being opposed on the basis of not answering a question that was asked. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q31

Q 31 seems odd to me for a number of reasons: -If a user challenges your findings and tries to engage in a debate with you about an issue, would you answer him Well being a collabortive environment you are basically required to engage provided no major policies are being breached (Hey Bill, did you know Jews control the media and Satan put the animals on the Ark) < obviously does not require a response. -when would you stop answering him this being a hypothetical vague question, expect a hypothetical vague answer -to what extent would you try to convince him—if at all hard to put a value on the "extent", its a discussion, you try to convince the other side. -would you admit you were wrong if he is able to prove it, even after a protracted discussion? considering SandDr is open to recall (Q4) I think the answer is obvious. These are some issues that stick out to me, in the sense that there is a very narrow "right" answer and it is the mind of the questioner. I could only answer it as "Yes with caveat, when the conversation ends, depends on the situation and depends on his attitude, yes." Anyone else have thoughts? courtesy ping hinker78 ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a typo in your ping, so I'll repeat it: Thinker78. In any case, TheSandDoctor has now answered the question. 134.223.230.152 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1, I liked the answer by TheSandDoctor much more tbh. If you were the candidate your one line answer would not have provided for my support. Thinker78 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]