User:Cyclonenim/dloh

review

Summation-- Overall I would be likely to support. However, you might want to wait till you have more articles created and more AFD experience. If you don't mind answering a few questions, I feel the one's at the bottom help me understand a candidate's readiness.

In looking at your admin coaching page, I like a lot of what I see. I would however go easy on the G11 CSD's.

There's a distinction between telling of a subject's good points and serving solely to advertise. Sophia Drossopoulou did not clearly assert significance]], but a google search would have revealed 73 GoogleBook hits. It would be unusual for a non notable person to have so many. I recommend Googling subject names with a hope of improving the article out of meeting WP:CSD. Be prepared to explain any declined speedy deletions, as some will see them as evidence of unreadiness.

Also, I disagree with unblocking another admin's block. I would probably bring it to WP:AN/I.

You have a huge number of Huggle edits. Unfortunately, some users see this as evidence of unreadiness. In my opinion, Huggle is a tool. If one makes thousands of accurate Huggle reverts, that shows one knows what one is doing. A User talk page riddled with complaints over over zealousness and and please/demands to "slow down" are an ominous sign. I don't see those. Be prepared to deal with any errors and emphasize your accuracy. Some editors think number reverts should equal number "article building." I disagree. No way could I come close to that when the time it takes for me to create one stub ~= time to do ~20 reverts w/ warnings.

You might want to wait till you have had more WP:AFD experience. You may also want to create/expand more articles. While I have no problem with admins who have specialized in admin related areas, a huge number of editors what to see more sizable article creation and expansion.

questions

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (And one of my own.) They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A- I'd feel that if this user is particularly well respected within the community, or the level of abuse is particularly controversial, then I'd have to report this to ANI before completing any action on sockpuppet abuse. It's important to get wider community and administrative consensus before taking rash actions which could have serious reprocusions. In theory, it'd be best if I could instantly deal with the user in the way you would with anyone else, but in practice I just couldn't do that with a well-established user.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A- I truly feel that if one user has been trying to make significant progress in discussion, and welcoming an admin into the discussion and trying to actively resolve the issue, then they shouldn't be blocked immediately for edit-warring. More effort should be placed into the discussion to try and move it further, initially by trying to get the other party talking too. However, just because I'm more slow perhaps than another admin in deciding to block for edit-warring and unproductive disruption, doesn't mean I should overturn another admin's decision. I'd probably contact that admin and give the background to my discussions with the editors and try and provide the idea that we were making slight progress without blocking being used. If the other admin agrees to perform an unblock of the two editors, I'd continue discussing with them regardless of ArbCom's decision not to take the case. If the other admin disagrees on unblocking, I wouldn't feel that I could unblock in this case as they have technically broken our policies.

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A- I, personally, like this system and how it works. I don't think it's broken, and I don't think it's inefficient. I wouldn't change anything, except perhaps the uselessness of discussion that sometimes occurs at WT:RfA.

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A- I would immediately, indefinitely block a banned user who has sockpuppeted under a blatantly obvious username, without a need for checkuser. See Wikipedia:BAN#Reincarnations. Although, seeing as banned users often come through ArbCom, I'm not sure if this counts as an answer. Open proxies can also be blocked on sight.

8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A- In the first circumstance, I'd initially think of closing as 'no consensus' since without RCU confirmation, you cannot be certain that they are socks/meatpuppets, however, quality of discussion from both 'keeps' and 'deletes' must be taken into account. If delete arguers make better arguments than the keep arguers, then it should be deleted. The same applies the other way round. As for the second circumstance, I'd choose to 'no consensus' over delete since there is doubt. It's always better to keep (no consensus keep, however) than to delete when not sure. In both circumstances, I'd give a thorough summary at the top of the AfD.

9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A- For AfD, it's difficult to judge on such a wide view and needs to be reviewed case-by-case. There are cases where three opinions of the value (keep, delete, redirect, merge etc) will be enough, such as a deletion of an artist who doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. However, there are cases where much wider consensus is needed, and require a heavy majority over the other side in order to delete. In controversial cases, I'd probably say that roughly 70% in agreement can be taken as consensus to act. The same idea applies for RfD and CfD IMHO.

10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A- Absolutely, I don't intend to be one of those admins who is involved in really tough areas, I intend to become one who primarily edits the encyclopaedia but who is able to perform actions when they need to. Of course I'll come under situations where I'm stressed, but I've always found myself pretty calm under pressure both in real life and on the wiki. If I felt that stress was getting to me, I'd take a break.

11. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A As kind of mentioned above, I want to be an administrator so I can continue editing and perform actions relating to my everyday activities here. When I review new pages (when I'm bored, mostly), I'd like to be able to perform CSD deletions without having to tag pages. It speeds up the process. However, I also enjoy helping to improve the encyclopaedia through AfD discussions, and again, it'd be nice to have the ability to close these discussions and then take action based on consensus. Also, when I find disruptive users through my editing, it's nice to be able to take more certain action as an administrator, rather than having to report the issue to AIV.

12. In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?

A- I always give a preliminary check before tagging, sure, I sometimes miss things, but I try my hardest to find references for the article before deletion. If an article on a living person, for example, has verifiable information on the net and reliable sources can be found, this is a very good assertion of notability and means that a CSD cannot be performed under A7. This article would then have to be PRODed or sent to AfD, if the nominator insisted so, and even there it'd probably be rejected due to meeting WP:BIO, since reliable sources independant of the subject have been found.