Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman

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

GiantSnowman[edit]

Final (76/36/10); ended 18:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC) - The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC) ; Ended 18:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) – GiantSnowman has with us for nearly five years. In that time he has racked up tens of thousands of edits, and has created scores of articles. My familiarity with him comes from WikiProject Football, where he has been a respected member for a number of years. In fact, I thought he was an admin until I saw him making a request for admin assistance for some routine housekeeping. While content creation is his primary focus, he is a regular participant at AfD, an area where I have always found his comments to be based upon sound judgement. Experienced and level-headed, I believe the project would benefit if he was given the mop. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, thank you very much! Giant Snowman 23:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: As Oldelpaso has stated, I have been quite involved with the deletion process - particularly PROD and AfD - where I have always tried to be as fair and level-headed as possible, as well as open to ideas. I would intend to take this forward, should I become an Admin. Giant Snowman 23:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I think every contribution that editors make to Wikipedia, no matter how small, have value, but I am particularly proud of my article creation rate - over 2,200 and counting! - as well as numerous templates, categories, redirects, disambiguations. etc. I also enjoy being part of the Welcoming Committee - nothing encourages potentially brilliant editors to stay better than a friendly 'hello'! Giant Snowman 23:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 think that "conflict" is a strong word, and would honestly say I haven't had any - although I have had what I would term "polite disagreements", something I think most editors have had during their time on Wikipedia. I have dealt with these issued by going through proper channels - actually talking with the editor involved, before taking it further if I had to - and the situation has always ended in a friendly, satisfactory manner. I have also been watching the WP:ANI page for some time, to try and learn more about issues that could potentially arise, how to avoid them, and importantly how to solve them. Giant Snowman 23:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Heymid

4. With regards to question #2, is there any specific article, template, etc you've substantially contributed to (or created) that you feel particularly pleased with?

A: I am proud of all my edits on Wikipedia, as I believe that they have all been for the benefit of the project. However, one article I am particularly please with is Homosexuality in association football, which I created - it was my first DYK and maintains neutrality on a potentially controversial subject. The same can be said for Racism in association football - again, another potentially-controversial article I have created which keeps any possible issues to an absolute minimum. Giant Snowman 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from The Utahraptor

5. Did any discussion on WP:ANI cause you stress? If so, how did you handle the situation?

A:My experience of WP:ANI to date has been more as an observer than as a participant, trying to learn the ropes and improve my knowledge of Wikipedia and the actions of admins. However, I have contributed to a number of discussions on ANI over time, and I am confident that my input has always been as fair and neutral as possible. No particular discussion has particularly caused me stress, but should I ever encounter a situation where I did start letting my emotions getting the better of me, I would ackowledge the fact, ask for assistance, and then take a short break - whether it's in real life or on Wikipedia, nothing helps resolve conflicts like a good night's sleep! Giant Snowman 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from NuclearWarfare

6. A two-part question: What do you believe is the function of the specialized notability guidelines, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:PROF? And what is your personal opinion about WP:ATHLETE?

A:The WP:SNGs are in use to give as much guidance as possible to editors regarding articles which do not meet the WP:GNG, and which may have a notability which is potentially difficult to determine. They can, and should, be used in both the creation and deletion processes. Because I create a lot of articles on association footballers, I am very familar with WP:ATHLETE, especially the WP:NFOOTBALL element of it. I find it extremely useful, very fair, and easy to use and apply to my edits. Giant Snowman 18:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that it is reasonable to keep a Wikipedia article forever that meets a SNG but not the GNG? NW (Talk) 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I believe that GNG and SNG are meant to complement each other, not cancel one another out. If an article's notability can be verified even without it technically meeting GNG, then that article remains notable, as verification is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC is "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." I personally know a named professor who has only ever appeared in University publications, so far as reliable sources goes. It isn't that there might be more...there just isn't. Do you believe that person deserves a Wikipedia article? NW (Talk) 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC states that "if an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable", and based on that, your acquaintance who is a named professor would meet WP:ACADEMIC, and would therefore be considered notable. Giant Snowman 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what sources would you use to create such an article? NW (Talk) 20:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that if the academic in question was appointed to such a notable position then there would have been reliable sources confirming it - a press release, a University biography etc. Giant Snowman 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from FASTILY

7. Assume you are an administrator. Would you ever take it upon yourself to straight up block a registered, established user without prior notice?

A:No - such an editor may be doing wrong but may not realise they are doing wrong. I would inform the editor in question of why their edits/conduct aren't appropriate, engage them in discussion about the situation, before taking any further action. Giant Snowman 13:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. During your duties as a sysop, you come across an article about an upcoming film. You note that someone has uploaded a screenshot from that upcoming film under some non-free screenshot license, and that it is obvious that this image has never been published anywhere. In a detailed manner, explain your course of action (Note that I'm not looking for a specific answer, but rather, I'm interested in hearing how you would deal with such a situation).

A:In this situation the uploader would have no reasonable expectation of obtaining permission for an image which is undoubtedly copyrighted. It is therefore eligible for speedy deletion under CSD#F9. Giant Snowman 13:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Likeminas

9 If made an administrator would you be open to recall? Why?

A: Yes; I believe that being made an administrator is a position of trust given by the wider community, and I feel that it is only right that I am therefore open to recall. However, despite the concerns of those who oppose me being appointed an admin (which I see as constructive criticism, as I am already learning from them), I am supremely confident in my abilities as an admin, and hope that while the option to recall would be there, it would never have to be used. Giant Snowman 18:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Groomtech

10. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A:A topic ban can only be introduced by the Arbitration committee or by community consensus (WP:AN, WP:ANI). Should I feel such a ban was necessary, these are the routes I would go down. Giant Snowman 23:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

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

Discussion[edit]

GiantSnowman, I've changed my !vote from oppose to strong oppose based on your answers to my questions (#7,8). As several opposers have already noted below, there are in fact instances where blocking an established, registered user is applicable (e.g. if the account is obviously compromised - particularly rouge sysop accounts, extensive sockpuppetry). What is so concerning, is that this is basic information all sysops (and prospective sysops) should know. As for question 8, I asked you to outline the steps you would take in dealing with such a situation (e.g. I would take it to ANI, request help, ect.), as to get a better understanding of how you think, but instead, you decided to give me a direct answer to the question based on your interpretation of media file policy, which happens to be completely incorrect. The correct direct answer to this question, in terms of policy, would be to nominate the file at FfD per a textbook violation of Wikipedia non-free content criterion #4. In case you didn't notice, question eight specifically states the file was uploaded under a non-free license and is therefore ineligible for deletion under CSD criterion F9, which explicitly applies to copyright violations (A copyright violation, broadly speaking, exists only when a user claims someone else's work as their own OR when a user attempts to upload copyrighted content under a free license. I'm sure you'll be a good sysop one day, but now is clearly not the time. Sincerely, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to editors opposing me - are you opposing me based on my (admittedly not great) answers to hypothetical situations, or based on my long-term contributions here on Wikipedia? Because a number of you are saying that I don't know or care about WP:RS or WP:V, which is clearly and absolutely not the case, especially if you look at my contributions, where I am constantly reverted unreferenced information and asking for sources from editors. GiantSnowman 16:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposing (I'm in the neutral column), but I'll chime in anyway. I only reviewed a few dozen of the articles you created, but the first one I pulled up, The 2½ Pillars of Wisdom, has no references. I picked that one from the list simply because the title was interesting and it had a ½ in it, which made it stand out. It's possible that the other 2000+ articles you've created are well-referenced, but that, combined with the answer to (the admittedly tricky) question 6, suggests you disagree with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and notability, which is why I wasn't comfortable supporting yet. 28bytes (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 2½ Pillars of Wisdom is hardly a great example - it is one of the very first articles I created (nearly 4½ years ago!) as a new user, long before I had got to grips with what Wikpedia is about and what it requires, something I'm happy to say I know confidently know. GiantSnowman 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know what? That's a fair point. Things were different back then, and in any case I wouldn't want something I did four years ago held against me now. Tell you what, I will take another look through your contributions, and only focus on your work from the past few months. 28bytes (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looking through your article creations from the past thirty days, most have either explicit references, or an external link that could reasonably serve as a reference (for example, Jean Acosta Soares). There are exceptions, though, such as North Village Community Club and VC Vlissingen, both created December 22, 2010, which are not referenced at all. Looking through your AfD submissions and !votes, I have a better understanding of your response to question 6: it's more clear to me now that your view is that subjects merit a standalone article if they pass either WP:GNG or a specific guideline such as WP:NFOOTBALL. In other words, a subject that passes WP:ATHLETE can have an article even if it fails the general notability guidelines. WP:ATHLETE itself says it's not supposed to work that way ("In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline"), but I recognize that the either/or interpretation is made in good faith and shared by many editors. However, I still think all newly-created articles ought to be referenced, even if they're just short stubs. 28bytes (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Support As nominator. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – long-term contributor, certainly knows what he's doing and what adminship is, though exclamation points in edit summaries, like in this edit, are unnecessary. Hey Mid (contribs) 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You make good use of edit summaries, as can be seen here. The article that you stated is some of your best work, Racism in association football, is an interesting read and communicates a potentially controversial article in a neutral tone. You remain civil at WP:ANI, even though at times it is very difficult to do so. High participation in AfD discussions shows that you know about Wikipedia's policies, which is good. A quick look at your contributions shows that you do a lot of maintenance, which is also good. On top of everything, you've created over 2,000 articles, which shows that you are interested in building and expanding this encyclopedia. You definitely deserve the tools. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 18:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two thousand!?! →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. Warning: Potentially browser crashing. NW (Talk) 18:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support longterm user, cleanblocklog, no particular red flags (or cards in this case). Deleted contributions show a user who is more than capable of sorting out what does and does not need deletion. Two minor points, I hope you've learned from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryo Miyaichi that non-English sources are perfectly acceptable - however awkward to use; and I saw one hoax that you tagged as a hoax but incorrectly described as G1. However it took a bit of a trawl to find those and neither was worth opposing over. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ support - I do not normally give this but this candidate has everything: article creation, minor article fixes, and good contributions at XfDs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can no longer strongly support with the creation of unreferenced articles. All articles must meet WP:V and WP:RS requirements. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent article writer; giving +sysop is definitely a net plus. —mc10 (t/c) 19:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yup Why not? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 19:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's got experience so he'll be find with the tools. WAYNESLAM 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very prolific content creator, with a great deal of understanding of how Wikipedia works, and a very civil and collegial approach to other editors - exactly the kind of admin that Wikipedia needs more of. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just a comment on Q6 - it seems to me that the exact relationship between GNG and the specific guidelines is far from obvious, and it is debatable whether a subject meeting a specific guideline also has to pass GNG - the concepts of "automatically notable" and "must prove notability" crop up quite often, and can seem to be contradictory. I don't think an RfA should be decided on an editor having an opinion on an issue that is far from universally agreed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am always happy to support qualified candidates who, despite being atheists, do not choose confrontational and offensive userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find your behavior in this reprehensible Keepscases. Using one person's RfA to launch an exceedingly thinly veiled insult at another RfA reflects poorly on you in a number of ways, and also shows that you have an utter disregard for the importance or, if I may indulge in a play on words, the sanctity of the RfA process. You said what you wanted to say, several times, at Ctjf83's RfA, and you really should leave it at Ctjf83's RfA. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This likely isn't the venue for this comment, but, my jaw just dropped reading Keepscases Support comment above. (note to candidate: Keepscases' comment is totally unrelated to my evaluation of you for admin status - this is a comment on Keepscases behavior, nothing else) I'm in the midst of evaluating this candidate's RfA which is one of two currently underway. Keepscases has weighed in on both, and I have respectively deferred from commenting on his comments on the other one or here - until now. I agree 100 percent with Sven. I am appalled at Keepscases' cross RfA behavior. Now, on to an evaluation of this candidate based on their demonstrated editorial record. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed a random sample of this candidate's more recent contributions and I'm quite happy. I see there's one opposer who's managed to tie the candidate in knots by asking tortuous questions about specific notability guidelines in deletion discussions, but what I don't see is any actual evidence from the candidate's contributions that there's a genuine problem there. Quite the contrary: I think this user shows good judgment and common sense, and there is evidence that he can look back at what he's said in the past, recognise when he's wrong, and change his mind. I like that combination.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say that NW's question was "tortuous". It was: "What do you believe is the function of the specialized notability guidelines, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:PROF? And what is your personal opinion about WP:ATHLETE?" How is that an unfair question for a candidate who writes ATH-related pages and wants to focus on deletion? I'm definitely a critic of pile-on and trick questions, but I think in this case the question was straightforward and fair. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the question was unfair. I said it was "tortuous". What I meant by that was that a response requires a careful, analytical breakdown of the interaction of various different rules. Each of these rules was designed by a committee and represents a compromise wording between various different factions of editors. Far from forming a coherent, intelligible framework, they often conflict with more important rules. So, for example, an actress who meets WP:PORNBIO doesn't necessarily (or even usually) meet the GNG.
The "function" of the specialized notability guidelines is a very useful one: they provide a nice safe playground for a certain kind of editor to wrangle about guidelines. On these pages, those editors can argue with each other, safely out of sight of the quiet majority who would rather write content than tell other people what content they're allowed to write. I think that in the real world of closing AfDs, specialized notability guidelines can usually be ignored. If something or someone meets the GNG then they probably deserve an article, and if something or someone doesn't meet the GNG then they probably don't deserve an article. In a few marginal cases there may be something in one of these guidelines that's of value, but I view them as usually subordinate to the GNG.
But the fact that I think like that doesn't mean I think GiantSnowman has to think like that in order to deserve my support. What I think is that it doesn't matter whether GiantSnowman can parse Wikipedia's labyrinthine morass of rules, or whether he parses them the same way I do. Because, in his contributions, I can see evidence that he's an intelligent, reasonable and approachable person who's open to the idea that he's fallible and he can be as wrong as the rest of us. Accordingly, I'm confident he will not set his personal preferences over the community consensus. And that's all it takes for my support.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you're a net positive and have a good enough grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. E. Fokker (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good admin should be, first and foremost, concerned with producing high-quality encyclopedic content. Back when I was an active admin (some years ago now - damn, I feel old), I regret the fact that I tended to get too tangled in Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy and meta-politics, and periodically lost sight of what the project is really about. Looking at GiantSnowman's contributions, it's clear that he has a long track-record of producing solid, well-referenced articles on football and footballers. His views on AfD and notability may be somewhat more inclusionist than the norm, but I'm inclined to see that as a good thing: I don't think there's anything wrong with erring on the side of keeping articles whose notability is borderline, as long as people are willing to put the work in to dig up references and improve the article to an acceptable standard. GiantSnowman has illustrated that he's certainly willing to do that. Walton^One 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a side point: it's rather disconcerting coming back after a more-than-two-year hiatus and realizing that I don't even recognize any of the names of people commenting at an RfA. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. :-/ Anyway, best of luck to the candidate. Walton^One 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see your name again! Pedro : Chat 07:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The opposition is based largely on unrealistic hypotheticals. GiantSnowman has been around long enough, contributed enough, and built enough trust to warrant the mop. Good luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
per S Marshall. The candidate's views on specialised notability guidelines are reasonable -- reasonable minds on these issues may differ. I am confident he/she will not abuse administrative tools to push the view. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long Term Contributor Since 2006 and has contributed a lot, and built enough trust and feel the Project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Net Positive and per Walton One. Pedro : Chat 07:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support per S Marshall. I think Q6 is debatable, but WP:PROF in particular does let us have articles without independent reliable sources so long as A) they meet WP:PROF and B) there are reliable sources to base things on (their school's bio will do). Hobit (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my oppose comment below. WP:PROF explicitly states that independent reliable sources are still a requirement. Mr.Z-man 17:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are interpreting "For the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted." Sounds to me like we can use official institutional and professional sources to build the article and in my experience that's what we generally do at AfD. But I'm curious where you are coming from. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interpreting anything. I quoted the guideline in my comment about "reliable, independent sources." Yes, non-independent or primary sources are acceptable to use to reference non-controversial content, but they do not establish notability. Reliable sources to meet notability standards are a higher level than those required for basic verifiability. How are we supposed to write a comprehensive, NPOV article when the only sources are for routine, uncontroversial details published by either the subject or their employer? Mr.Z-man 03:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too quoted from the same place. I read the sentence that I quoted as providing another option to independent sources. I think if you were to go over AfD discussions my interpretation is what is generally followed--meaningful independent sources for most academics are nearly impossible to come by. That said, my only real relevant point to this RfA is that such an interpretation is A) reasonable and B) commonly held. To object to a candidate for holding a view consistent with actual practice is, in my opinion, an unreasonable one. I realize that you may not think A and B are correct of course, but are we really willing to hold up an RfA over a question like this? Hobit (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be commonly held, but the idea that we should accept articles written solely from autobiographies and press releases is not reasonable. Imagine if we allowed that for articles about companies or products. Independent sources are critical to maintain NPOV. Mr.Z-man 04:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that using the bio of a faculty member from MIT creates a NPOV problem? In any case, your opinion about how things should be really shouldn't be impacting your !vote on an RfA. Disagree all you want. Work to get it changed as you feel you need to. But don't torpedo someone for holding a reading of a guideline that is what most people think that guideline says... Hobit (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only source available, yes. A faculty bio is like a CV or resume. Just like you wouldn't put anything negative about yourself on a resume, people aren't going to put anything negative about themselves in a biosketch, even if there are negative things that should be in a reasonably comprehensive biography. Nothing needs to be changed, the wording and spirit of the guideline already support everything I've said. Just because most people blindly apply a specific interpretation of the guideline with no thought given as to why notability criteria exist in the first place does not mean that I should support them for admin. We need people who understand the reason of policies and guidelines, not people who do what everyone else is doing just because everyone else is doing it. We need shepherds, not sheep. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds suspiciously like opposing someone because they are using the guidelines as written and generally applied rather than as you would like them to be. We don't want admins to be leaders (that is making decisions not supported by most users, or "sheep" I suppose you could call them), we want people who can be trusted to evaluate and implement consensus . Hobit (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline as written says that independent sources are still a requirement. The idea that something written by the subject can be considered independent from the subject is ludicrous. I would rather have admins that make unpopular but sensical decisions than follow along with a nonsensical idea (like completely ignoring the reason we even have notability guidelines, as well as the definition of the word independent) because it happens to be the popular one. Mr.Z-man 03:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize the part about independent sources is qualified by "For the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted."? I realize we are reading this differently, but again most AfD discussions go as I read it, not as you do. Perhaps the wording of the guideline needs to be changed to make it more clear, but recall our guidelines reflect consensus in the field. In either case, given that most people seem to be on the other side of this from you, it's a fairly odd thing to oppose an RfA for... Hobit (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pedro :-) Agathoclea (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on content creation and clue. Many of the opposes based upon Q6 seem to fail to AGF about why the SNGs exist. We must remember that the vast majority of reliable sources are not available online or for free. All of those guidelines are based upon the concept that if we had free online access to every RS ever written/filmed/produced, a person who has achieved a certain position in life would be able to be found in them with enough material to support the article. That same amount of AGF is also why V says "verifiable" and not "verified." This candidate understands the function and common outcomes of those guidelines which are all based upon consensus. I cannot see any answer to that question as a reason to oppose. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - when I consider all this Wikipedian has done for Wikipedia, and all the experience he brings, and then look at how picky the reasons for opposing are, I feel wholeheartedly that GiantSnowman will make a valued and highly capable admin. Orphan Wiki 13:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support went over his contributions and they all seem pretty solid. I also like his answer to my question. I think giving him the tools would make Wikipedia a better place. Likeminas (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support.. opposes unconvincing. I especially like Q7.. It is admins who think they know all are the ones who will kill wikipedia, not the admins who dont know WP:ATHLETE word for word. Good enough for me. Tom my! 21:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Don't see any reason to oppose, great edits and would clearly benefit from sysop tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think you'll break the encyclopedia if given the tools. I'm not wild about some of the questions, but there are no red flags. AniMate 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good contributor and valued member of the community. I can trust him with the tools. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support First off, I think his answer to q 6 is entirely reasonable: the hypothetical seems to propose that there are no third-party sources for a BLP that nevertheless meets WP:ACADEMIC. In that case, a press release or bio from the university are reasonable sources that do offer proofs that the subject occupies the position that meets WP:ACADEMIC. If there are no WP:RS, then a trustworthy primary source can be reasonably, well, trusted to verify that person X occupies position Y, which is the hypothetical question before us. Moreover, the candidate has an interpretation of WP:ATHLETE that does not suit the fancy of some but it is not wrong, as far as I can see, based on the wording of the actual guidelines. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and add the arguments of many of the opposers to our straw man article; the candidate isn't perfect, but he has common sense, which is really what we need. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A valuable contributor to the project. Some of the answers to questions here could have been better, but I trust GiantSnowman to take on board the feedback from his answers and to be careful initially and seek advice if unsure. Camw (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Support. Long time contributor with demonstrable positive record. I have no problem with this editor not having an eidetic memory with regards to policies, and am comfortable with the fact that future mistakes will be made (and subsequently fixed with lessons learned). I prefer experience over perfection. Would prefer the user had more extensive experience with Azerbaijani professional football ;) --Quartermaster (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woah woah woah. The amount of opposition being generated due to #6 (a well-reasoned answer derived from reading policy rather than personal opinion) and #7 (RfA is supposed to weed out people who would do bad things, rather than forcing people to give right answers) is depressing. From my experience working with GiantSnowman I've no concerns at all regarding #6; he's very active at WT:FOOTY, which sees a huge amount of discussion regarding SNG/GNG, and I trust that he'd pay close attention to the concerns raised if he passes. IMO the point of asking people notability questions in RfAs (other than as a petty litmus test) is to weed out people who are either clueless or actively working to undermine the current consensus on notability. GiantSnowman is neither. #7 is no biggie when there are plenty of admins available to block established users at the drop of a hat. Anyway, the issue here is clue and trustworthiness, and I reckon GiantSnowman has both. I'd really like to see some of the opposers taking a look into the editor's contributions and considering whether the response to #6 really means problems for the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly; I always go with the actions of a user rather than what they say in response to the myriad of questions. Yes, 7 and 8's answers are odd, but I'm willing to look past that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adminship is no big deal and you seem like you won't abuse it. Basket of Puppies 21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While a portion of the candidate's answer to Q6 is not completely correct, the overall thrust was on the mark. Taking into account the totality of the candidate's RfA - which includes edit history, interaction with others, and general knowledge - GiantSnowman seems to be a dedicated, balanced, reasonably competent editor who can handle the sysop gig. Majoreditor (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though the answer to Q7 isn't ideal, I definitely see where he is coming from. I see his reasoning. I see the implications that he saw in the question. Follow up has been reasonable. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent long time content contributor. Maybe have fallen short on some questions but nobody is perfect on their first run. RFA are always loaded with a few tricky questions to extract the tiniest of screw ups or walk in a tightrope without falling, impossible for some. Very low risk of rocking the boat with the tools. --Visik (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis of contributions, which show no instance of dubious or borderline interpretation of policy and guidelines; the actual work is a better test than the answers here. I agree with the candidate on Q6, though he should have stated more clearly that he was assuming that the was evidence for the key accomplishment. I do not think he ignores WP:V--for the PROF example he is making the assumption that WP:Verifiability for the position could be met, and similarly for the athletic accomplishments. Obviously an article asserting notability without any evidence at all for the key points would not possibly be kept, and would be unlikely to get as far as AfD in the first place. Every time that the point has come up for WP:PROF the article has been overwhelmingly kept, though for ATH it seems that not everyone actually accepts the ATH guidelines as stated, and I am not sure I do myself. To oppose on the basis that the candidate does not support what a minority of people think ought to be policy is pointy and inappropriate. An admin does not do wrong to follow the accepted practice. What is needed is a willingness to follow the consensus of how policy and guidelines are to be applied . The only problem i see is that the answers to Q7 does not show an appreciation of the possible unusual circumstances which do arise. ` DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the answer to Q7 is idiosyncratic, but I think the candidate is aware now that there may always be very unusual situations in which certain actions have to be taken, and I can't see any other problems. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support (switched from neutral) Theres alot of things being blown out of proportion i think with q7, like pedro mentions below; q7 has difficulties due to its wording which i agree with. But i do see an largely expereinced rational user who wants to keep improving. Ill support for adminship Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have had many encounters with GiantSnowman, and i have found him to be nothing but highly professional and knowledgeable. As for his "wrong" answers to some of the given questions, i have often thought that people write those questions in order to try and catch out the candidate. Yes his answers may not have been the best, but he will certainly learn from the feedback given to him. I completely agree with a comment made by Pedro in the neutral section, when he talks about thinking that we used block as a last resort, i too thought that until today. All of Snowman's contributions to date should not be brushed aside simply because of two or three answers to a question! Eddie6705 (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination.Kanatonian (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the concerns with Q6 and Q7, but I feel that these hypothetical questions do not adequately show the user's actual experience. He's a smart user and one who's been with us for a long time, and I'm happy to support. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Q6 is unfair IMO because it asks for a canned response on a questionable topic. Topic notability guidelines are designed to be interpretations of GNG, which asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A clear passing of a topic guideline, even if GNG status is in dispute, is sufficient to keep an article, because what is "significant" and "reliable" is determined solely by AfD consensus. That is, topic guidelines are designed to make the implications of GNG more objective. Now if a topic guideline clearly contradicts GNG, then it should be changed, simple as that. Regarding Q7, RfA is designed to assess how good a user will be in the adminship role. No admin would actually try to conjure up cases under which they would block someone without warning. If GiantSnowman saw clear evidence of a compromised account, I'm pretty sure he'd block it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great contributor, a lot of commitment to WP, thank you for putting yourself forward. Now, I do understand that at this point of GS's RfA, supporters should mention Q6 and Q7. Regarding Q6, I believe GS has learned something and would adjust accordingly. I would have walked into this trap myself because a lot of AfD discussions silently or explicitly assume that it is sufficient to either pass GNG or the particular SNG, just search for AfDs containing a reference to WP:PROF. Regarding Q7, I believe it is entirely possible to spend 5 years here without ever coming across an obviously compromised account, or an admin on amok. For editors not usually following RfA, this possibility might be difficult to imagine. Again, now that he has been trouted more than sufficiently for his answer, I believe the penny has dropped for cases like these as well. I'm not saying the opposers' arguments have no merit but for me the positives outweigh the concerns by far. --Pgallert (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never a big fan of those trick questions anyway. T. Canens (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support will be perfectly trustworthy with the mop. The fuss about the Qs I see as a sign of the times rather than any indication that GS would make a poor admin - indeed I look at one answer in particular that I gave in my own RFA and know I'd be absolutely crucified for it now. nancy 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A strong editor, and a good contributor, that I think would make a fine admin. I can understand the confusion of an editor regarding Q6, espically one who has spent time on AfD discussions. The SNG should be a universally accepted clarification of the GNG. If the SNG says that anyone who plays full back for Collingwood is notable, then so be it. There still remains the matter of acually creating the content. As for Q7, the question seems a lot more common than actual instances. I've never come across an account run amok, and hope I never will. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Won't abuse the tools Secret ^account 23:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless. Remember all admins learn on the job as it were even if they don't admit it.©Geni 03:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dude has been around since 2006 and racked 40,000 edits. If he wants a bigger tool box, why the hell not? Hypothetical questions generating hypothetical answers which result in hysterical objections to same as a pretext to block membership in the "cool kids club" strikes me as pretty ridiculous. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Concerns about your response to question 6 noted, but this shows maturity and willingness to learn. Them From Space 05:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not convinced by the Opposes, particularly those based around answers to the questions. GiantSnowman's answer to Q6 was not wrong; if it was poorly expressed, his subsequent replies show he knows what he's talking about. His answer to Q7 was misguided, but it doesn't seem fair to oppose someone being promoted to administrator for their reluctance to use the block button. We should be worried about admins who are too quick to block, but one who is too slow to block is much less of a problem. I don't see either of those 'issues' as reason to deny GS the tools. Robofish (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support You look like a capable person who would use the tools well. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with your responses to Fastily's two questions, since I don't see F9 as covering this image, and since there are occasional situations in which blocking is blatantly obviously necessary. However, the image surely needs to be deleted for other reasons, so I won't see that as a reason to oppose, and as Robofish says, it's far less of a problem when an admin won't block than when an admin will block. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The opposes make some valid comments, but I think your history indicates you can be trusted with the tools. Hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions should be given less weight than actual actions performed during actual situations. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support deserves the status --Sokac121 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the user is trustworthy. I feel that some of the opposers are requiring a certain type of legal perfection in the candidate's answers. Relax, GiantSnowman's not going to do anything stupid. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - RfA has become a blood sport, I support on the grounds that I consider you an experienced editor who is in good standing with the community, who cares if you didnt answer some of the questions "correctly", I assume good faith and I assume you are some what nervous (under the circumstances you would be). C'mon people how about you stop being so cruel and opposing for "technical" reasons, I mean half of you on here would never have the guts to go through RfA. Assume some good faith (or is RfA in a league of its own rules on Wikipedia). ZooPro 01:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contrary to many of the opposes, I think he has a good idea of how to use the Notability guidelines and I would trust him closing at XfD. Meets all my other criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At most three poor answers to theoretical questions should'nt override tens of thousands of high-quality contributions. And for those opposing over low percentages of project and user talk space edits, the only reason the percentages are low is because of the high number of mainspace contribs. Candidates have passed with fewer total contributions that the 2196 GS has made to user talk pages. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support His response to some of the questions may not be among the best, but I feel GS is valuable to the project and don’t see any problem in giving him the mop. Salih (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think he deserves a mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems okay Baseball Watcher ^{Lets Chat} 23:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good candidate, quality contributor. No concerns over potential abuse of tools. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adminship is no big deal. Many of the opposes based on your phrasing in the questions seem a bit over the top. You seem to be a good editor whom I would trust with the tools. –Moondyne 04:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't agree with all GiantSnowman's answers above but I'm satisfied with the thought processes that yielded them, and believe that GiantSnowman is open to continued learning and will in the mean time use the tools in a responsible and productive way . - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - have been mulling this one over, and while the opposers try hard, I can't be convinced by their arguments. This is a long-term Wikipedian with enough experience to be trusted with the extra buttons. The !vote is close; I would ask my fellow fence-sitters to weigh in. Once again, there are numerous names among the Opposers whom I greatly respect, but I believe this editor is qualified to hold a mop. I thank GS for his offer of service, and wish him the best. I also would like to respectfully suggest to the closing 'crat that a 'Crat Chat be held if the percentage is near or past 70, as I have noticed that it continues to edge upwards. Jusdafax 07:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Long time user, and a great contributor with a clean track record. Regarding question 6, I believe he/she made some good faith assumptions with regards to verifiability and reliable sources being available for reference material to meet the standards for SNGs and more importantly would be willing to follow the consensus of how policy and guidelines are to be applied. As to question 7, rather like that GiantSnowman mind is not devious enough to consider a comprised account and their first thoughts are to AGF. Overall an editor that will do far more good with the extra tools than the possability of doing evil. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, much along the lines of Walton One, Chris Cunningham and DGG. GS is being opposed overly strongly, in terms of the numbers, for a few answers that have failed to impress.
A6 is not unreasonable. The notability guidelines are contentious. The wiki-speak is confusing, and their status could be debated endless. There are a great many conflicting viewpoints among reasonable wikipedians. In any case, it is not the role of an administrator to judge the meaning of wikipedia-notability, it is the role of the community as represented by participants at AfD.

A7. He fails to imagine the endless possibilities of event of small probability. This is no failing. It is not as if a single admin maintains watch to prevent the failure of the project. Far better a new admin err by not doing anything hurriedly than for him to shoot from the hip. An hour after a bot-approval bureaucrat's usual knock off time, 5 minutes after his last normal edit, his account begins rapid destructive activities that can only mean a bot out of control. GS didn't consider this, or any number of other, possibilities in answering, but if he was the only admin on deck, do you really think A8 defines his actions in such a hypothetical?

A8. I think a more correct answer is that he would leave it for someone else. This area is not his expertise. It is gratifying to not see him say that he would immediately and unilaterally speedy delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise clueful candidate and long-serving volunteer seems to have gotten snagged by some tricky questions, and it appears they answered them as one might in a closed book test (rather than looking the answers up). I find "oppose per Q7" (alone) particularly uncompelling: just because GiantSnowman couldn't think of any situations on the spot where one might block without warning doesn't mean they wouldn't recognize one in the field and pull the trigger as needed. Administrators are not expected to know everything on day 1: learning on the job is compatible with adminship. Should this request be closed as unsuccessful, I would urge the candidate to try again after a few months after addressing the concerns raised. –xeno^talk 14:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted from oppose. Per WereSpielChequers and Xeno. Regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: I think we were a bit hard on you because of your views on deletion. I hope you make the necessary "adjustments" and try again! Thanks for making yourself available to endure this process. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Experienced and sensible user. I agree with User:King of Hearts above regarding Q6. Epbr123 (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, from neutral. The more I think about this candidate, the more I'm inclined to give him a shot with the mop. As noted above (and below), you're going to want to tread lightly in deletion and blocking, at least until you've got some experience. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - has the right attitude. I'm never bothered when somebody makes a mistake (we all do), what matters is if a person has the right attitude, intelligence, flexibility, etc. We learn by mistakes. SilkTork *^YES! 16:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I did have some concerns about the creation of unreferenced articles, but in the end I'm supporting because the candidate appears able to take in feedback and learn. And per S Marshall. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

I'm going to have to oppose, as GiantSnowman states that he wishes to work with AFD closures. I cannot support someone who gives more importance to the myriad of the notability guidelines than these core principles. NW (Talk) 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that I earlier stated that "verification is a cornerstone of Wikipedia"...Giant Snowman 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Creation of unreferenced articles was...disappointing to see. Gimme danger makes good points as well; I would appreciate it if you could reply to them at your convenience. NW (Talk) 16:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What unreferenced articles? You mean the one mentioned above, that I created 4½ years ago, before I knew about the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia? Giant Snowman 16:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, North Village Community Club and VC Vlissingen, from last month. NW (Talk) 20:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VC Vlissingen was translated from the Dutch original (must have forgotten to add the appropriate tag, apologies), whereas I made the North Village Community Club page in the middle of an internet-cut, and must have accidentally saved an earlier version. I've added sources now to both pages. Giant Snowman 20:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am concerned about the answers in question 6. For someone working in AFD I find this to be problematic. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not at all confident in your knowledge of V and RS, which is concerning given your desire to work with article deletion processes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose, and God knows I rarely oppose. I've seen you around in AFD yes, but Q6 also worries me. Dusti^*poke* 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Changing to strong oppose, reasoning will be stated below Dusti^*poke* 21:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm moving here from neutral. But I share the concerns of the opposers above, and I am not sold by your response to my previous neutral comment. The point is not that ATH is just a guideline (although it is). The point is that it's not a free pass around GNG, even if some editors around the project have not grasped that concept yet. An administrator who is going to work on deletions needs to understand that. Please understand that I'd be open to supporting a future RfA if you can convince me that you have come to understand this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add something, after seeing some subsequent comments. I'm not opposing on the basis of the candidate having inclusionist opinions. I'm opposing on the basis of lack of understanding of policy. I could happily support someone who disagrees with me on matters of opinion, so long as I were confident that they would use the tools in accordance with policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the understanding of the guideline the candidate is supporting has been upheld in the majority of relevant athlete AfD discussions, though there does not seem to be any real consensus, and i myself have no settled opinion on this particular interaction of guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked me, I think it's reasonable for the candidate to be expected to demonstrate an understanding that, on the one hand, it's reasonable to conclude that an AfD should be closed as "keep" when the sourcing satisfies ATH, but on the other hand, that is only because the purpose of ATH is to provide guidance as to what pages are expected to satisfy GNG, when it is sometimes harder to track down the sourcing as described, more vaguely, in GNG. (If there's anything in ATH that would allow a page that truly fails GNG, then ATH needs to be fixed, but that's not a discussion for this RfA.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Q6. Doesn't appear to have a firm enough grasp on notability to be trusted with making deletion decisions. SnottyWong ^chat 23:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. ~~I'm assuming you have no interest in answering my questions so I'm just going to go ahead and cast my !vote.~~ I share the concerns of the above: concerns with your experience and policy knowledge in the administrative areas you wish to work. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GS went offline for the night at pretty much the exact time you asked your questions. Giving a candidate a window between 9 on Friday night and 5 on Saturday morning to answer a question before assuming they are uninterested seems somewhat harsh. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will make my comments under the discussion section of this page. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why does your response merit being placed in the Discussion section instead of here along with everyone else's? Plutonium27 (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Q6 as well as subsequent replies show a significant lack of knowledge regarding notability standards. The subject-specific guidelines contain some sort of disclaimer, such as the one in WP:ACADEMIC, It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject - press releases and university biographies are not independent sources. The subject-specific guidelines mean the subject is most likely notable, but only meeting the GNG or being one of the few topics that are "inherently notable" can establish notability. To address some of the support comments, this isn't some hypothetical, contrived scenario based on an interpretation of a vague guideline, this is a question about something explicitly stated in the guideline that the candidate got wrong even after several followup replies. Mr.Z-man 05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly per MrZman. I was going to go neutral here, but the concerns about the deletion, especially if he wants to work there as an admin, is a bit too much. Also, I had a recent look at his talk page, and I haven't seen any replies so far. The most recent contribution I've seen from him in this area is the unsigned marking of another contributor's comment. That's fine, but I'd rather if he replied on his own talk page, rather than keep the other users waiting. For example: Pbl1998 asked an appropriate question here, but all GS did was mark it as unsigned [2] without actually replying to the contributor, which left Pbl lacking his/her patience with another comment here. All admins should explain their reverts except in obvious cases (e.g. vandalism). I'm afraid with that evidence he isn't civil enough to be an administrator. Minima c (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do respond to posts on my talk page - but on their talk page of the editor(s) in question. Please see, for example, User talk:Pbl1998. Regards, Giant Snowman 13:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for failing to achieve the completely-impossible task of satisfying everybody with an answer to question 6, on an issue where the community is divided and the dividing line fluctuates. Admins are supposed to be miracle-workers as well as saints, but this candidate didn't even try to perform a miracle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take some time to try to get my tongue out of my cheek, and to review GiantSnowman's contribs properly before casting my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This petty drama from admins needs to stop. Please take your job at least somewhat seriously or don't do it at all. I'm requesting that this deliberately fake vote be moved to the talk page or deleted outright. Sick of it. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you think I was doing, but I made that pair of posts precisely because I do take this seriously. I don't like seeing a candidate being opposed because of a question to which there is no "correct" answer, because there isn't a community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no doubt that GiantSnowman is a very good contributor, as several people have pointed out. However, being a good contributor of material and being a good potential administrator are not synonymous, and I see several reasons to think that here we have a Wikipedian who will make a better contribution to the encyclopaedia by writing than by administration. I see no evidence of any significant involvement in any administration related areas except for AfDs, to which GiantSnowman is a significant contributor. Contributions to AfDs are mostly sound, but they mostly consist of a simple statement, often along such lines as "oppose, as he does not meet WP:ATH". There is nothing wrong with such simple contributions, but they do not show any evidence of ability to discuss and weigh different arguments, balance one aspect against another, or consider the details of policies or guidelines, which are absolutely vital needs for an administrator, particularly one who indicates that deletion is likely to be their main area of operation. I also see insufficient interaction with other users for someone hoping to become an admin. It is essential for admins to show an ability to engage in discussion and debate. GiantSnowman makes relatively few user talk page contributions, and those that do occur are often minimal. Here GiantSnowman said "you incorrectly added an 'BLP Unrefenced' tag to this article; the correct tag you should be using in such circumstances is {{BLP sources}}", but gave no indication whatsoever why that is so. The recipient of this message then followed this up, and GiantSnowman did then take part in discussion, but largely to dismiss the other editor's view. The article in question contained a couple of external links which the other editor did not consider suitable as references, while GiantSnowman did. My own view is that GiantSnowman was right to consider them references, but they are of such poor quality that the other editor's opposing view is by no means an unreasonable one. An admin should be able to understand another editor's point of view and explain their reason for disagreeing, not simply dismiss the other view. I also think there should have been at least some indication of the reason with the original post. Having said all that, it is only fair to acknowledge that on this occasion GiantSnowman did actually contact the editor and start the discussion, rather than simply change the tag on the article without comment. Looking at the candidate's answers to questions above I see a few things which I am not entirely happy about. I do to some extent share concerns about question 6, but I will not dwell on that, as I think the concerns have been exaggerated by other editors, and in any case it is an issue on which there is a range of opinions. I am actually much less happy with the answer to question 7. No administrator should be willing to give a categorical "never" to such a question. I am not sure what Fastily meant by "established" in the question, but no matter how well-established an editor, if they do something totally unacceptable they need to be blocked, and in some cases (such as persistently making really serious libellous statements) there may not be time for a warning. One should not usually block any user (registered or not, established or not) without warning, but there are times when exceptions are necessary, and anyone who does not realise that is showing a lack of understanding of basic principals which every admin should have. I could pick on more details, but I think I have written enough to show the nature of my reservations. As I have already said, we have here a very good contributor of content, but no evidence of the kind of skills, understanding, or experience needed to become an equally good administrator. I sincerely believe that GiantSnowman will make a better contribution to Wikipedia by continuing to write content than by diverting their time away from that job and into administration. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I don't like the response to Q7, what about a clearly compromised account? Or start suddenly posting child porn pictures? CTJF83 chat 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question didn't state that the edits in question were obviously offensive (in which case it would of course be a different answer) - that is why I answered "no" as opposed to "never." Giant Snowman 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said no, to would you "ever take it upon yourself to straight up block a registered, established user without prior notice". The question is purposely open ended (I think). A question of "Would you block a user making offensive edits without prior warning" doesn't make sense, cause of course you would, for offenses like posting child porn. CTJF83 chat 17:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My way of thinking would be that an editor wouldn't have become "established" should they have been the kind of person to post offensive material. In my experience, those kinds of editors are normally spotted and stopped pretty quickly by admins, and therefore do not become "established." Giant Snowman 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but I could (for example purposes only) right now upload a child porn picture. I'm a well established user, according to your answer "I would inform the editor in question of why their edits/conduct aren't appropriate, engage them in discussion about the situation, before taking any further action". If I was to upload child porn there is no discussion, that is a serious legal concern, and I would need to be blocked immediately. The question "would you ever", and you said no. Sorry, I honestly hate opposing, CTJF83 chat 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But because you are an "established user" - the wording of the question - you wouldn't ever upload a child porn picture, and I wouldn't expect you to do so. Giant Snowman 17:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just for examples purposes on why you would block a user without warning/discussion. CTJF83 chat 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, GiantSnowman, you are, in my opinion, digging yourself ever deeper into the hole you have got into. Your comments here have made me far more strongly opposed to making you an admin than I was when I wrote my comment above. When you are asked "Would you ever take it upon yourself..." and you answer "no", you are saying that you would never do so. Either you can't see that, in which case you lack basic understanding and don't have the competence to be an admin, or else you can see it and are trying to wriggle out of what you said, in which case you lack the integrity to be trusted as an admin. In addition to that, your comments "those kinds of editors are normally spotted and stopped pretty quickly", and "because you are an "established user" - the wording of the question - you wouldn't ever upload a child porn picture, and I wouldn't expect you to do so" show that you have completely missed the point. Yes, usually that is so, but you were not asked what you would do usually: you were asked if you would ever take particular action, which means that you have to consider the exceptional circumstances. It is simply not true that a long established account never suddenly start doing totally unacceptable things and has to be blocked, and the fact that you are clearly unaware of the fact is yet another reason why you are not ready to be an admin. Even perfectly good established editors have had their accounts compromised, and an admin has to be open to that possibility. A question of this sort tests whether you are aware of the exceptions, not whether you can cope with the usual situation, otherwise the word "ever" would be meaningless. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even established users can go nuts sometimes. Their account might be hijacked, they might be getting fed up with Wikipedia and finally snap one day, they might be editing while drunk, they might just do something totally stupid in a moment of insanely poor judgment, or they might even be a sockpuppet of a banned user that managed to evade detection for a while. I've seen all of those happen in the past. Mr.Z-man 18:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I haven't, because I'm not involved with the same elemnts of Wikipedia as you, and I'm still constantly learning. I'm more than happy to admit that I'm not 100% familiar with the blocking policy (which I've been rightly called out on), but I've never claimed to be either - and that is why I didn't mention blocking in my answer to my "aims" question, and that is why I wouldn't feel confident blocking editors (apart from in certain circumstances, as JamesBWatson and Ctjf83 have thankfully taught me) until I did feel my knowledge and abilities merited it. Giant Snowman 18:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good comment, and it has increased my estimate of your level of understanding. However, it the time to become an admin is when your "knowledge and abilities" are ready which, as you implicitly acknowledge, is not yet. It is not enough to take the line that "I will not act in that particular admin area", because sooner or later you will find yourself in a situation where the question is relevant, whether you intended to or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, when I was at RfA I stated that there is nothing so urgent that could not be dealt with by a second pair of eyes. I believe that is still true, although the general attitute has gone the other way. "Let us elect the fastest shooter in town as sherrif" - There will never be a need for GS to block somebody as there are others about. And growing as an admin you will (and really should) communicate with more experienced once before acting hastily. Agathoclea (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per CTJF83 and Mr Z-Man's comment on the same area. Established or not, if you need to block, you block. Shoot first, ask questions later imo. Barking Fish 19:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you wern't thinking of running for admin in the next year or so BarkingFish, because I'll tell you now you've just screwed any chance with that little comment. Pedro : Chat 22:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, unlike others here, I'm not a ~~sadist~~ masochist. I wouldn't put myself through an RFA here. Tried it once, wouldn't do it again. Barking Fish 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you meant to say masochist. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. I did :) Thank you! Barking Fish 03:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is why RfA is a blood sport, editors who would never attempt another RfA because of "themselves" opposing based on their own incorrect assumptions. Proof that no one assumes good faith and some users clearly think being an Admin is a special privilage. I would ask what would you think if someone opposed your RfA for the reasons you have stated. ZooPro 02:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, ZooPro. RfA IS a blood sport. I don't intend to RfA though precisely because it is a blood sport. As for my opposing based on an incorrect assumption, I don't consider it incorrect when I see admins blocking established users first, and then asking them to explain what they were doing - hence "shoot first, ask questions later." - If someone opposed an RfA for me based on the fact that I didn't give a decent answer to questions, or what I said wasn't thought through, I'd understand it totally. If I can't give the right answer before I'm an admin, what the hell would I be like after the fact? Pretty shit, I'd imagine. And if being an admin wasn't a special privilege, we wouldn't subject people to crap like this before making them one, we'd just hand it to them. Barking Fish 03:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Changing from weak above. Watching this RFA extensively has shown me larger concerns about User:GiantSnowman. With concerns over Q6 above, I'm now also concerned about 7 and 8. As User:BarkingFish just said, if you need to block you can do so, and you NEED to do so - to protect the integrity of the project and possibly the integrity of the Account Holder. Compromised accounts do happen, and your answer to 7 shows me that you don't understand policy regarding Blocking, and your answer to question number 8 shows me you aren't that familiar with WP:NFCC and WP:C. I'm sorry, but I believe not now is in order here. You're a great editor, but I'd focus a little longer on the areas the community above has expressed concerns on, and I'd come back in a year or so and try again. Best of luck to you though, as I said - you are a great editor. Dusti^*poke* 21:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Honestly, my jaw was dropping as I read the answers to #6 and by the end of #8, I was just dumbfounded. You have done excellent work developing article content. However, while this is admirable, it doesn't qualify an individual for adminship. I know one editor on Wikipedia with over 250k edits to his/her name. Less than 1.5 percent reflect communicating with others via user talk pages, less than .4 percent involve edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and less than .05 communicating with others in the Wikipedia talk space. I consider this person a valued member of the Wikipedia community. I don't mind cleaning up the articles created or flagging for lack of notability. That said, sometimes it's frustrating because this individual will not communicate with others, and displays minimal understanding and experience interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A candidate for adminship needs to be able to understand, interpret, and effectively communicate with others, a complex range of policies and guidelines. If an admin doesn't know the answers at the time, they must be able to research in order to find the answer in a timely manner. The answers to questions 6-8 illustrate that you are not yet able to effectively manage the basic knowledge of which all admins should have a firm grasp. I find in various RFAs, individuals fall on one side or the other when it comes to article creation. Admins need to have a sure knowledge and effective level of expertise in writing and editing content. But this is not the end of knowledge. In my opinion, it would be beneficial if you were to spend some time reading, reviewing, and coming to an understanding of the policies and guidelines regarding the basic nature of the notability guidelines, along with reliable and independent sources. Honestly, I don't know much about science or sports. I tend to stay away from those subjects. That said, I've reviewed the notability guidelines for sports and athletes and have a solid understanding of the criteria for notability. I have also formed definite opinions. The criteria needs to be made consistent and expanded to include more sports. Heck, I'm a chick, but for crying out loud, where's the boxing criteria? But I digress. In the end, press releases and university/corporate bios? Not reliable. Not independent. Established, regular editors or admins? Block when appropriate. Legal threats, sockpuppets, edit wars/3RR, compromised accounts, gross incivility, harassment, unapproved bots, and outing and/or disclosure of confidential/personal information. And if you don't know the copyright policy, review it until you do and don't do anything until you do. Cind.amuse 00:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. I'm sorry to be in this column, because I believe you are a valued contributor to Wikipedia, but, unfortunately, I fear you do not have the experience an admin candidate needs, in my opinion, to be handed the mop. Answers to questions 6 and, especially, 7 are a deal breaker for me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on answers to questions, particularly the later ones. The problems with your answer to 7 in particular have been detailed extensively above. In addition, the phrasing of your answer to 9 in the face of the not-inconsiderable issues raised by opposers to me speaks to an over-confidence, even arrogance, unbecoming of a collaborative contributor - admin or not. That being said, I would encourage the candidate to work to gain more experience in all areas of the project, as he seems to be at heart a good-faith contributor. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The answers to q6 through Q9 were poor. Further, I won't repeat Nikkimaria, though I agree with every word she wrote. Courcelles 05:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You might be a good content contributor, but you muffed too many questions, some of them really badly. I'd strongly suggest that before you run again, if you choose to do so, you go to the Wikipedia:New admin school section, specifically Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. While it seems counter-intuitive if you go purely by the name, it's essentially the same basic concept of going to the police academy before getting the badge. Sorry, and I hope this helps. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that, collectively, we're too incompetent to devise a system whereby those who are trustworthy (as GiantSnowman certainly is) can have the tools for janitorial purposes, without being permitted to make sometimes complicated judgement calls, such as AfD closures. Things being the way they are, I have no option but to oppose on AfD grounds. —W F C— 07:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(shifted to support; Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC))Sorry for this. You could consider withdrawing your RfA at this point. Again, my apologies for this oppose. Kind regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I fail, I fail. I'm finding most of the the comments useful, and I think it would be beneficial for me for the RfA to run its course. Giant Snowman 18:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even lower yourself with this GS - Wifione's entire oppose argument is "I'm sorry". Brilliant - I'm sure you learnt a lot about yourself from that. Pedro : Chat 22:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the crats; per James Watson. Kind regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per answer to Q7. Nakon 23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per answers to Q6 and Q7. Even beyond the issue of deletion participation, the idea of a contributor who creates a lot of articles but doesn't think much of verifiability makes this gnome's teeth itch. The answer to 7 indicates to me that the candidate either didn't think very hard about the answer or that he hasn't thought very hard about blocking policy. His reply that he doesn't intend to be involved in ~~deletion~~ blocking doesn't comfort very much; he's getting that button whether he's interested or not and should have the basics of the policy down. --Danger (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please bother to actually check my contribs; if you do, you will see constant removal of unreferenced info and requests to other editors for verifiable sources. Saying I "[don't] think much of verifiability" is absolutely untrue. NONE of my article creations are unreferenced. Also, I didn't say I "[don't] intend to be involved in deletion" - in fact I believe I have made it explicitly clear that I do intend to be involved in deletion...Giant Snowman 00:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I meant to say "blocking" but my brain was focused on "deletion", I guess. I'm not suggesting that you create strictly unreferenced articles; I know that you don't. What I am saying is that a contributor who creates a lot of stubs based on the exceptions to the GNG contained in special notability guidelines creates a lot of needless future work for gnomes. For example, today you created Lee Kilday, Michael Devlin (footballer), and Djoumin Sangare. The first two have apparently played in a single professional league game; tomorrow either one may break his leg and live out his life quietly. At the moment there is really nothing that can be written about either of them that is verifiable beyond their existence. If nothing ever comes of them, then their stubs will languish in wikilimbo indefinitely, but will still need to be tended by gnomes. The third, on the other hand, is an article that has no chance of languishing; verifiable text can be written about that player beyond his existence. But anyway, that was just an aside and doesn't affect my vote. --Danger (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary, the two articles are referenced and information verified, and having played in a professional game is enough to merit an article, I feel. AfD them, if you wish, I'll defend them there as well. Giant Snowman 16:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you point to specifically mentions the the topic must have significant coverage; there must be something to write. Why is having played in a professional game enough to merit an article, beyond that WP:ATH says that a person who satisfies that criteria probably satisfies the GNG? There's literally nothing to write here, besides "this person exists, they played x position for y team on z date". I think that admins must be able to reason about policies and guidelines, not merely recite them. If you would like to discuss notability and verifiability further, I would be happy to do so, but I don't think that it will be productive here. --Danger (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes the coverage "significant"? I made a call that I thought those two players were notable enough to merit an article, and nobody has questioned that call so far. As I earlier suggested, if you think that I've created articles on non-notable subjects, then please feel free to take it to AfD. Giant Snowman 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Q7. There are times when an editors actions is far beyond good faith. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 01:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Q7 and AfD experience. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:04pm • 02:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Q6. Verifiability and reliable sourcing are not at all new ideas here, and anyone who still can't grasp those concepts needs to find some other website to contribute to, never mind adminship. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose this time, mainly per question answers (particularly question 6). In concept I think of the GNG/SNGs much like the UK's Health & Safety legislation: the GNG is like the enabling act of Parliament; the SNGs are like the mass of subordinate regulations that set out how the general rules are to be applied in specific circumstances. Thus the SNG's can expand upon, but certainly shouldn't contradict, the overall GNG requirement for verifiability. That said, thank you for your great content work, and if you take a little time to familiarise yourself with the core site policies I'd probably support if you decide to run again. EyeSerene^talk 13:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret. Question 6 is not helpful, but question 7 decides it for me. I recognise that if you were faced, as I in the past have been, with a grossly offensive and pornographic edit submitted submitted by an established user then you would instantly block the user in question. But you were unable to conceive of the possibility. And in my view, cynical though it may be, this ability is necessary. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Q6 is iffy; I mean I can understand where you are coming from with your response, but there must be a bare minimum of verifiability there or something to work with in which to build an article. That being said, Q7 definitely raises a red flag in my book; one example of that already comes to my mind – sock puppets of a banned user. –MuZemike 01:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, "sock puppets of a banned user" are specifically excluded from the question, which asks about "registered, established users." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of the sort. There have been many cases where a registered, and very well established account has turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pastor Theo. T. Canens (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Q6 and Q7. Trebor (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to pile on but I'm concerned about the lack of nuance in the candidate's response to question 6.--rgpk (comment) 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose - Absolutely ridiculous nomination --TheAmazingExplodingDiaphragm (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)~~ — TheAmazingExplodingDiaphragm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Care to explain why? Eddie6705 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be indented. The user does not appear to be here to contribute constructively. 28bytes (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vote of blocked puppet/puppetmaster indented. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per JamesBWatson and Cindamuse. You are a good contributor to Wikipedia. However a quick look at automated edits show zero vandal fighting - and hence the low numbers of edits to talk pages. A good proportion of admin work is often down to sorting out vandals, 3RR, disputes, etc. I think you need to broaden your field of work within Wikipedia, and then that will help you make better answers to the questions next time. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, concerns about familiarity with regards to WP:V and WP:RS, and specifically, WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After reviewing some of your discussions and a recent issue you took to ANI, I don't feel that you're assuming good faith and that you're more confrontational and heavy handed than I'd like to see in a prospective administrator. You've undoubtedly made some great contributions to wikipedia, and for that you have my deepest gratitude. Nick Wilson (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per concerns raised above, and this uncited BLP, created January 9. Please work on building some good articles, refine your policy knowledge, and try RFA again in six months or a year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are two sources on that page, so saying it's "uncited" is incredibly false and misleading. Giant Snowman 13:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RfA oppose over formatting of an article or did you not see the sources? In-line cites are not required and given the stuby nature of the article, really aren't needed (though would clearly be an improvement...) Hobit (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, even if true, you'd oppose for that?! This place has become a cauldron. –Moondyne 15:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did any of you bother to see if those "sources" (marginal) support the cited text? Apparently not. Save your vitriol for someone touchier than I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And did you bother to see if those sources support the text? Because they do, 100%. Giant Snowman 16:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review your adjectives. And please explain your two "sources" relative to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)-- perhaps I'm missing something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Familiarise yourself with WP:NFOOTBALL, which states that "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league [...] will generally be regarded as notable". The two sources on the page confirm this - in fact, he made over 300 professional career appearances, and so both his notability and my sourcing should not be in question. Giant Snowman 16:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I would strike, but there's nothing to strike, since I asked you to review. It appears to me, per the other examples given below by 28bytes, that your work isn't entirely diligent, and per your answers to questions, you aren't entirely prepared for the tools yet, so I again suggest spending some time developing some higher level content and returning to RFA at some point in the future, when you are likely to pass, as you seem to be a good faith editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NW --Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Obviously a valued contributor and a reliable individual. However, three of the questions were answered poorly (Q6, Q7, Q8). The candidate themselves admits these were not great answers. Ordinarily I wouldn't oppose for just one or two of these problematic answers - answering questions like this is harder than some people seem to give credit for - although Q6 would come close given the areas the candidate has said they want to work in. But three together is concerning. The candidate suggests looking at their contribution record instead. However, despite the volume of the contributions and the quality of some of them, there are problems there too; I am not totally convinced by the candidate's explanation that some problematic articles should be disregarded because they created them a long time ago when standards were different. If that's the case, wouldn't the candidate want to go back and improve them, at some point over the intervening years, rather than rushing on to create yet more articles? The recently created unreferenced BLP mentioned by SG above also seems to overlap with the concerns about the poor answer to Q6 - I can't say what actually went through the candidate's mind here, but it seems like this living person met ATH and therefore it was an "easy article create" without thinking to get the references in there right at the start (and, obviously, check that widespread coverage in secondary sources actually existed. If those checks had taken place, why not put the refs in when creating the article or at least over subsequent weeks?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article was referenced. However, it did not have inline citations. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted, but I still find it very weak - one source connected with the subject of the article and one foreign language site (which I haven't evaluated as an RS). The problem here is that the candidate expects that there will be coverage because the individual passes ATH (see answer to Q6) and therefore seems to think there isn't really a need to do any more. And, as per 28bytes, there are problems with referencing for other articles from this candidate as well - and too many to pass over as just occasional mistakes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge, I think your objections and mine are the same, but you phrased yours much more elegantly. (Noted in case anyone should scrutinize the reasoning in my oppose.)--Danger (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I really wanted to support this candidate. The answers to the questions aren't great, but they're not unreasonable either. I think the instinct not to block an established editor without warning is a good one. But I simply can't support a candidate who creates unreferenced articles. I pointed out one, he responded that that wasn't a great example because it was 4 years old. Fair enough. So I looked at his creations from the past month and found two more unreferenced creations. He didn't directly respond to that but when someone else reminded him, he said it was accidental and went back and added references. I was willing to AGF at that point; we all make mistakes. However, at that point, a careful editor would have done a spot check to see if there were any more unreferenced article creations from the past month. I just did a spot-check myself, to see whether I should remain neutral or change my !vote, and found two more unreferenced articles in the same time period: Southampton Rangers and Deportivo Mongomo. I am willing to grant that these may be accidental too; but if that's the case, the candidate is simply not diligent enough, in my opinion, for the tools at this point. 28bytes (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, those articles aren't so good. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they weren't, and I can't justify creating them without sources - a momentary lapse, nothing more, especially when you look at the 2,300+ I've created that are referenced. I've added sources and removed unreferenced information (that others included) to those two articles. Giant Snowman 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you sourcing them now. In my view, having the autopatrolled/autoreview flag carries a responsibility not to create articles that, if a new editor created them, a new page patroller would flag for serious problems, if not tag for deletion. But as I said elsewhere, I believe you are a very dedicated and hard-working editor and with a little more diligence and demonstration of policy knowledge you will probably have a very successful second RfA should you choose to run again. 28bytes (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely be running for a second RfA; I have learnt a lot from this initial process and am convinced more than ever about my abilities with the mob, despite all the criticisms levelled aginst me. Your comments 28byte have been particularly constructive, thank you. Giant Snowman 17:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
answers to questions. per above, especially NW. -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

~~Neutral~~ for now, because I want to point something out about WP:ATH and the answers to question 6. If someone wants to be heavily involved in closing deletion discussions, it seems to me that one should understand that ATH and the like are intended to provide guidance as to what pages will or will not pass GNG, but not to provide a reason to keep pages that, even after careful research, would fail GNG. The wording of the candidate's answers so far seem to me to be a little unclear about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Moving to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fudge the answer too. Editors of all walks disagree on this - one AfD that I closed survived a DRV where the community clearly wanted to keep a player who passed NSPORTS but failed the GNG. I don't think there is a clear answer to the question and I hope this RfA doesn't become a proxy war over it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you about not starting a policy proxy war, and that weighed on my mind before posting this. But I feel pretty strongly about the reasons why ATH was created. And I think that it's inevitable that someone would raise this question even if I didn't, so my hope was to start this in the Neutral section rather than in the Opposes, and give the candidate an opportunity to do with it what they will. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that WP:ATHLETE is a guideline, not a policy, and I am well aware that it states that, "the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." I have created articles (e.g. Lauri Dalla Valle) and !voted 'keep' in AFDs for pages which meet GNG but not ATHLETE; also, I would not be happy in keeping any article which did not meet GNG to some degree, just because it appeared to also meet ATHLETE. Basically, I am aware that GNG comes before ATHLETE with regards to notability, though I still believe the two can be used in tandem. I hope that that has made my views a little bit clearer for everybody. Giant Snowman 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While also not wishing to start a proxy war, I feel you have stretched the outcome of that DRV somewhat. Suffice to say, the consensus was overwhelmingly that there were no grounds/insufficient grounds to overturn your decision based on the AfD discussion. That is different to saying that the community overwhelmingly favoured an SNG over the GNG at the deletion review. You are right in that consensus is far from clear on the matter though. And it's a shame that the wider RfC has still yet to materialise. —W F C— 08:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q6. No other compelling reason to support, but I will not oppose on this alone. /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
s/support/oppose. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you get for using vi. :-) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per User:Fetchcomms~~, pending further review.~~ Answer to Q6 makes me uneasy, but not sufficently so to oppose outright. ~~Also pending answers to User:Fastily's questions.~~ Good answers to Fastily's questions, but demonstrated gorm is just not quite enough to overcome my apprehensions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Switching to a weak support Some elements to 6 i disagree with, Some I agree with. One problem i find with Nsports and all is that people tend to use this alot to trump GNG in AFD discussions, its a behaviour that is all to apparent. At anyrate I wont oppose over it. Will likely come back after I dig a bit deeper in the candidates older edits. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. GiantSnowman is a great contributor. However the answer to question 6 isn't quite right. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Good, hard-working editor... 2000+ articles created is simply an amazing amount of output, even if many are short and some are unreferenced. I think after more time spent getting up to speed with the core policies, GiantSnowman will be a great candidate. 28bytes (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like your content work, but I can't support due to your response to Q7. Sorry. ~Nerdy Science Dude 04:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A prolific user who has paid his dues and seems to have a moderately sound understanding of how things work; however, the answers to the questions, and in particular the latter half, give me pause for concern.--Hokeman (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The answer to number seven is quite wrong as are a few others, but otherwise you are a good editor. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to Q7 is "wrong" because the question was piss-poor. From the look of oppose and neutral we seem to have a lot of block happy people around here; my understanding was that blocking accounts was a last resort - clearly I'm wrong. I shall take the oppose and neutral stances as community consent to now be far less cautious with the block button in the future. Pedro : Chat 20:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been thrown around in some form or another for quite awhile now. I do agree that the wording is a bit odd but I think that the user would be able to get a general gist of things though from the question. I'm not going to argue this though but that's my opinion of the question Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "piss poor", although I think the wording contributed to confusion. Of course we can block someone without notice, but we don't want to be block happy, we want to AGF, and it is plausible that candidate saw "registered, established user" and assumed that meant it is not a sockpuppet, it is not a vandal, it is someone who may have violated a rule, but given their status, probably did so inadvertently, so the best approach is to open dialogue, not simply block them. I think that interpretation was flawed, given the emphasis on "ever", but I see no evidence in the answer that candidate misunderstands blocking policy, but simply misunderstood the hypothetical. (Unfortunately, candidate did not respond with an "oops, I see my inference was in error" but stood firm on shaky ground, and that hasn't helped.)--SPhilbrick T 16:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned with the "shoot, questions later". Question only referred to est. users. Every one deserves prior notice even for admin accounts which have been compromised. This is the acid test to check for the response from the user. No response, then block as per WP:DUCK. As for long time editors who accidentally or deliberately upload problematic images. The NPP patrollers would immediately tag and put a CSD notice. A block without using the lesser tools would be heavy handed unless the editor was a repeat offender, sockpuppet ~~compromised user account~~, blatant vandalism as per WP:DUC. A good admin is one who can minimize harm using a variety of lesser tools first, not always anxious to put the metal to the pedal to use the shiny block button --Visik (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points; and a discussion of the merits of the question and the assumptions contained therein would, if made by the candidate in his answer, have been wholly satisfactory. But a definitive "no" misses the mark.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really can't support, but I'm not sure I have seen enough to oppose, so I will hang here now. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~. There's a lot to like about this candidate, and I would expect RFA 2 to pass with ease. But I am concerned enough about the answers to questions 6 and 7 to fall out of the Support column. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Support. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights