Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheCatalyst31

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

TheCatalyst31

Final (68/12/13); ended 23:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC) - ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

TheCatalyst31 (talk · contribs) – TheCatalyst31 has been helping at Wikipedia for several years now and is one of the most prolific people to start articles for the smaller communities of the world. Catalyst contributes in a wide variety of areas and I think there's something here for everyone to like. Plenty of DYK, Good, and Featured articles shows that Catalyst can write. Lots of gnome editing and new page patrolling, yet does a good job of using talk pages to discuss issues. Catalyst has been involved in deletion discussions and has a nice mix of nominating articles for deletion and commenting to keep others that should be kept. I decided to nominate Catalyst for the mop because there are plenty of ways that s/he would use it. Royalbroil 16:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I do a lot of work on new page patrol, which I expect to continue; I don't think there's a way to count patrolled pages, but I've definitely patrolled quite a few and have a lot of experience with tagging pages for speedy deletion. I also intend to do some vandal-fighting, mostly with pages on my watchlist; I watch a lot of settlement articles, as these tend to be targets for vandalism but are often unwatched or poorly watched. As a related issue, I also intend to work with Special:UnwatchedPages, especially unwatched settlement articles; I've seen vandalism on these articles sit there for months before I stumbled across it (this edit comes to mind; that article had no demographics section from then until I reverted it in September). I expect to branch out to other areas (such as AfD closures) once I become comfortable with the tools.

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

A: My best contributions are probably the three good articles and one featured list I've written. Two of the good articles, Pulaski (CTA Orange Line) and Cumberland (CTA), stand out in particular; they are the only GA-class or higher articles about the Chicago 'L', and Pulaski was one of the only GA-class train station articles when I wrote it (and there still aren't many). I've also written numerous articles about unincorporated communities and similar settlements in the US (I'm currently one of the top 100 Wikipedians by article count, mostly because of these articles); in particular, I'm quite proud of finishing articles on every community with a post office in Illinois and West Virginia. This has admittedly led to me writing a lot of stubs, but stubs are much better than nothing, and I've expanded several of these beyond stubs (Clayton, West Virginia, for example).

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 haven't been involved in many serious conflicts in the past; most of the disagreements I've had with other editors were resolved civilly, and I haven't been part of anything that went as far as ANI or RFC. Occasionally I've had to deal with a disruptive editor (this discussion, though it's a year old, comes to mind); in these cases, I try to be civil and keep the discussion under control, and would only bring something to, say, ANI if the other editor was either making threats or being continually disruptive in the article space. I also should note that as an admin, I would generally bring a serious conflict which I was involved in to ANI/RFC to get an outside opinion rather than intervene myself.

4. Thank you for putting yourself forward. I have a hypothetical question, assuming you are an administrator. An IP edits one of the locality articles that you have created. The IP inserts text to the effect that the locality is the birthplace of a named professional athlete. There is no source cited to support the text. There is an article on the athlete, but there is nothing in the article about her birthplace. A fellow administrator comes along and immediately reverts the edit, posting a message on the article talk page to the effect that unsourced information about a living person is impermissible. An edit war follows. After the IP has inserted the text five times, and the admin has reverted the IP five times, the IP gives up. The IP never posts on the article's talk page. This all happens over an eight hour period while you are asleep. You wake up, log on, and see this all on your watchlist. What, if anything, do you do? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A: The first thing I would do would be to look for a source for the athlete's birthplace. If I could find a reliable source saying that the athlete was born in the locality, I would first mention the source on the talk page; if there's no objection, I would then re-add the content to the article. I wouldn't re-add the content immediately after an extended edit war to avoid starting it up again, as the situation would probably still be a bit volatile. If I found a source saying the athlete was born somewhere else, I would mention this on the talk page in case the issue arose again. If I couldn't find any reliable sources saying anything about the birthplace, I would probably leave the situation alone; unsourced content shouldn't be in articles, especially if it's content about living persons. I wouldn't see a need to take action against either party, since the admin acted appropriately by attempting to discuss the issue and removing unsourced content, and the IP is no longer making the problematic edits. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

After some re-consideration of the question and the responses my answer has generated, I admit that my initial answer was a bit off, especially in regard to how to deal with the editors. Regardless of the factual accuracy of the claim, the admin definitely violated WP:BITE, and he/she should've made greater efforts to contact the IP and explain WP:RS and WP:BLP. Both parties also violated WP:3RR, though I would be a bit more forgiving to both sides on this point; the IP probably didn't know the policy (especially since the reverting admin never pointed it out), and the admin may have had cause to revert under WP:BLP (though this depends on the situation). For these reasons, I wouldn't block either user for this incident unless the admin had been warned before about this kind of behavior. I wouldn't take action against the IP, especially since he/she seems to be gone, but I would warn the admin about biting the newcomers and violating 3RR to hopefully reduce the chance of him/her doing this to other newcomers. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

When you're in a hole stop digging is always good advice. You're saying that that you wouldn't have the courage to warn the admin unless someone more courageous than yourself had done it first? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I meant that I would definitely warn the admin, I just wouldn't block him/her unless they had violated 3RR/BITE in the past. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that anyone who has violated 3RR/BITE in the past ought to be blocked on sight if they ever do it again? Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

5 What is your view on ignoring all of the rules? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]}

A: Ignoring the rules means that the rules should never stop an editor from improving Wikipedia, provided they have a good reason from ignoring them. The rules are rules for a reason, and generally promote good practice for editing and interacting with other editors; IAR should not be invoked to break a rule in a straightforward case of the rule (e.g. speedily deleting an article which asserts minimal notability under speedy deletion criterion A7, even if it probably wouldn't survive PROD or AFD for lack of notability) or to break rules because you feel like it. IAR also doesn't necessarily apply to all rules, of course; for example, I can't think of a case where it's a good idea to violate WP:CIVIL. IAR can be easily abused by its nature, and for that reason, it's best not to break the rules unless you have a very good justification for it; otherwise, there's a good chance you're going against consensus and the rules, which usually leads to lots of drama and worse. It's also much better to discuss whether a rule should be broken before breaking it, to make sure that other editors also agree that the rule can be broken. However, there are often exceptions to the rules, and the existence of these rules shouldn't stop editors from acting differently in the exceptional cases. For an example which I was involved in, there's recently been some debate over whether all verifiable settlements are notable; though there's no official rule saying this, the consensus from numerous AfD discussions has been that they are. This goes against the general notability guideline in many cases, as sources cannot easily be found for many of these settlements, but since there are usually offline or foreign-language sources for these articles which are out of the reach of most editors, it was decided to consider them notable anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Lambanog

6. Agree or disagree: There are active vandals on Wikipedia with over 1000 edits. If you agree, explain in general terms what constructive steps you can take to mitigate the problem. If you disagree, please explain how you arrived at your conclusion.

A: I'd say there are some active vandals with over 1000 edits. They probably aren't full-time vandals if their edit count is that high, but there are probably sneakier vandals who both vandalize and make constructive edits; in the case of User:Karmafist, a vandal has become an admin in the past. These vandals are probably going to vandalize obscure pages with few to no people watching them or perform subtle acts of vandalism, such as changing statistics or adding false but believable claims, possibly using fake or irrelevant sources as citations. The first step toward handling editors like this is to make sure obscure pages are thoroughly watched. As I stated above, unwatched and obscure pages are easy targets for regular vandals if no one is watching them, to say nothing of the sneakier ones. Another important step toward stopping sneaky vandals is to check all dubious unreferenced claims for accuracy and to check the existence of the references on dubious claims. This is a little trickier given that many of these edits will be good-faith contributions, but there are still some things to watch out for (fake references are a red flag, for instance). Granted, both of these are easier said than done given how many articles need to be covered, but any progress is a good thing. As far as actually handling these vandals once they're identified, good faith should be assumed at first to sort out the legitimate editors, but if an editor has a pattern of making these kind of edits, the standard procedure for dealing with vandals should be followed. It is also important to check the talk page history of possible sneaky vandals, as they will likely remove warnings. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Collect

7. What is your general philosophy about AfD closings? Are they too often ruled "keep" when the arguments for keeping are too weak? Too often closed as "delete" when the arguments for deletion are not compelling? Too often closed as "no consensus" when the admin doing the closing should actually make a decision? Are your criteria significantly different for MFD closings?

A: I'm generally satisfied with the way AfDs are closed; usually if I disagree with the result of an AfD, it's because I disagree with the consensus rather than I disagree with the closing admin's decision based on the consensus. I admit I'm not much of a fan of "no consensus" closes, unless there's a need to wait until, say, better sources can be found; from my experience, AfDs closed as "no consensus" often get renominated several months later with the article in similar condition, and the 2nd debate generally mirrors the first. In cases where the article is contentious and isn't pending improvement, the closing admin is usually better off making a decision. I have less experience with MfD closures, but my philosophy on them is pretty much the same. The main difference with those from my experience is they often generate less discussion than AfDs, but they also generate less disagreement as a result, so I also generally agree with how they're closed. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for TheCatalyst31: TheCatalyst31 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for TheCatalyst31 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - An excellent candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 22:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Move to oppose -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Support: No problem for this user to become an administrator. Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. No problems that I can see, content creation checks out OK, so why not? The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 23:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - Good work, no problems here. Mlpearc powwow 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Won't abuse the tools, written articles. Secret ^account 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   As for question four so I don't see how he could abuse the tools in the just ignore scenario. The admin was reverting unsourced information from a BLP, no way he can't get blocked for that, as for the IP he needed a warning, and that's what messed the question up. I would have told the admin that look you should have warned him with the BLP rules and thats it. There shouldn't be a block for both editors even though they broke 3rr, unlike some suggested. Secret ^account 16:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Support -- Excellent, well-rounded editor with lots of experience. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 23:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Excellent Track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   No reason not to. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

8. Support Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
10. I asked Q4 to get a sense of the way the candidate thinks. There are a number of answers that can be given to it, including blocking both parties (including the admin) for edit-warring. Some might consider the candidate's approach to be a bit soft, but it's legitimate and the reasoning for it is sound. Also, the candidate's first thought is "what do I do about the content?" not "what do I do about the editors?" which is good and consistent with the candidate's track record as a content contributor. Good luck.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    Ah, here I was hoping you asked the question for better reasons :) No mention of whether IPs know how to find article talk pages? No response about why the admin never went to the IP's talk page? No mention of WP:BITE or how to deal with new editors? It's not all about whether or not we block; how about how we treat clueless newbies who are only trying to add to the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and may not yet know how to do it? No, the response doesn't account for "what do I do about the editors?" It gives a rude admin an advantage over a clueless newbie. It makes admins above the behaviors we should all know. Admins aren't here to fix content; they're here to regulate misbehavior, and the hypothetical admin behaved *wrong*. Of course* the "IP is no longer making the problematic edits"; it was chased off, while the admin survives to do the same to another IP. Rather than doing the content work him/herself, Catalyst might have dropped a friendly note to the IP, and a trout to the admin. The response shows that Catalyst either thinks admins are above the expected behaviors on Wiki, or doesn't know them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Re the non-supports over Q4 - the "blind eye" is exactly what many admins would have done in this circumstance. In my view, the admin should be blocked or at least reported to 3RR - the admin has broken 3RR and potentially driven away a new editor. But I can't fault an RfA candidate for exercising the same hesitation that many admins would. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, well no mention of 3RR either, but one could assume that's because it was a trick question about a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    That many admins can't tell their arses from their elbows is no reason to support another one who can't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    And fade to black... and we're in commercial. The pointless drama, Days of our Wiki-Lives, will be back after these sponsors. Vodello (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    Support -- Absolutely. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 01:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Moving to Neutral. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

11. Support evidence will be net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
12. No opinion for or against. Default to Support. Vodello (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    RE: I think it's weird that all the folk below are opposing for Q4 when the person that asked Q4 in the first place is supporting the candidate. I hope the bureaucrat takes this into account. Vodello (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

13. Support Seems good! Derild4921☼ 01:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    Support Looks fine, hope you have a nice Halloween. --iGeMiNix 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

14. Support no issues here.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    Support Why not? --John (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) q4. --John (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

15. Support – No problems here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
16. Support as nominator. Royalbroil 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
17. Seems to be a good candidate; no problems with supporting this user. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Support – Not noticing the 3RR and possibly overly tolerant reaction to an admin's edit warring may be a concern, but I'm satisfied the editor isn't naive and credit his content contributions. Lambanog (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
19. Support I will support, but why can't non-admins view pages unwatched by anyone? Minimac (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

    Unwatched pages are pages that are more vulnerable to vandalism, so we don't want vandals knowing which they are. ϢereSpielChequers 17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

20. Support Keepscases (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
22. Support No reason to oppose. Ronk01 talk 15:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
23. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
24. Support - Good answers to the questions, is experienced, and is active in many areas of the project. No doubt in my mind that this user having sysop tools would benefit Wikipedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
25. Support On the topic of Q4, remember we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to block every user possible. So the answer above is OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - trustworthy editor. Regarding the opposes and the answer to Q4, I agree that a response which discussed 3RR, exceptions and so on would have been preferable, however the candidate's answer is a long way from a deal breaker for me. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Sure Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
28. Support I'm not really bothered by the answer to question 4. AniMate 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
29. Support I would have done at Q4 essentially he same as the candidate--including the warnings. The only thing I would do also, which was alluded to at then end is check the contribution history --if the editor had been previously making similar unsourced edits in multiple articles, a very strong warning or even a block might be in order. (And I would make sure those edits were actually removed or else sourced, as they should have been--sometimes a few slip by).I am very reluctant to block but if it's obvious someone is here to vandalize only, I have a few times blocked immediately Unfortunately this exact type of vandalism is one of the most common. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    Q 4 was not framed as vandalism; it was framed as unsourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

30. Support A Wikipedian since July 2007; trustworthy & consistent--Hokeman (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
31. agree with PhilKnight. -Atmoz (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
32. Support Longterm experienced user with a clean blocklog and good contributions. Q4 is troubling, but it is a sin of omission not a sin of commission. I don't think you'd be the sort of admin who'd bite that newbie, and I'm more concerned about over eager admins than over hesitant ones. ϢereSpielChequers 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Add comment per Q4: While consistently under reacting could be a problem, a single instance of leaving well enough alone is OK. Since the candidate has indicated he's "listening" to the comments here, I don't expect him/her to walk away if a future situation requires reaction. I'm supporting for an over all record so far, and the character potential to be a good admin who will not run through Wikipedia halls as if in the Wild West creating problems while gaining more experience. (olive (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC))
34. Support. Seems trustworthy, and I thought his answer to question 4 was fine, if I understood it correctly. His instinct was to take care of the content issue, and not stoke drama by warning editors after the issue had died down. It's also a little unfair to expect people to be experienced admins before they've been elected. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
35. Support Seems like a reasonable person who isn't likely to act precipitately. Net positive. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
36. Support. The only possible issue is q4, but the fact that so many admins and other users with more experience than me disagree about what, if anything, is wrong with that answer makes me think that I shouldn't withold support purely because of it. FWIW, I think that approach could be helpful, as it sorts out the content issue without causing unneccesary drama. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
37. Support. SlimVirgin basically sums it up well. There's this certain subset of editors who are addicted to warnings and formal disciplinary pathways, the sort who prefer the letter of the rules to the spirit of them, who get a squirmy, squishy feeling in a certain nether-region over working out a rigid, completely inflexible and oftimes labyrinthine "dispute resolution flowchart". I do not consider myself amongst their ranks. What strikes me as particularly funny is the insinuation that not editing for eight hours is the same as "abandoning the project forever". I remember when eight hours felt like a long period of time, too. Badger Drink (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    Just curious, where do you see a penchant for warnings in the need to make sure a new IP isn't bitten, rather discussion occurs on its talkpage where it has a better chance of being seen by the IP, who might not know how to use article talk pages? I'm wondering if folks weighing in here are actually reading the discussion or understanding the issue-- it's a bit alarming that they don't seem to be in such an important discussion as RFA should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    If the one thing making a difference between a contributor "leaving forever" (or for eight hours, whatever) and hanging around is a generic, condescending template, then that contributor is either in Kindergarten or has the sensibilities of a Kindergartener, and is high-maintenance either way you look at it. This "Wikipedia is losing contributors and will soon become a barren wasteland" meme is Chicken Little all over again - I'm not sure how or when it got started, but the fact of the matter is that any project, of any sort, will have a similar pattern of intense, exponential growth (Wikipedia between, say, 2006-2008) followed by tapering off once it hits saturation point. It's not worth getting alarmed over, nor is it worth the somewhat insane focus it currently enjoys. To put it another way - there wasn't this heavily formalized "culture of ritualistic detached kind overtures" five years ago, and yet somehow, Wikipedia survived. To crib a Devo song, some things never change. Badger Drink (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

38. Support - seems to be a competent, sufficiently experienced editor with a good attitude. I'm not convinced at all by the Opposes. I think the initial answer to Q4 was perfectly reasonable; we need more admins who are reluctant to get involved in drama, and are more interested in improving the encyclopaedia than throwing around warnings and blocks. To me, opposing over the answer to Q4 looks less like a justified objection and more like looking for an excuse to oppose. Robofish (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
39. Support Even if they got muddled on answer 4 - so what?they are not expected to run the wiki single handed. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
    
40. Support The Catalyst has done an excellent job with the unincorporated communities in Wisconsin-Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
41. Support The situation described in Q4 is a tricky one, and depending on what one's pet issue is, anyone could find a reason to criticize TheCatalyst's answer. Things aren't always black and white. It's difficult to balance WP:BITE and WP:BLP. But from what I've seen of TheCatalyst's actual activity here, I think he'd be a good addition to the admin crew. Zagalejo^^^ 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
42. Firm support—I trust you. Mkativerata raises good points, and Rich Farmbrough said what I would have. I believe you being an administrator would benefit the project. A look through your contributions shows a good amount of experience and I'm sure that you now have a better understanding of situations like the one presented in Q4 than before this RFA began. Best of luck, Airplaneman ✈ 01:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
43. Support I see nothing wrong in Q4. Rami R 11:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
44. Support. I fail to see how anything brought up in "Question 4-Gate" should be used to deny an excellent user a few simple tools to maintain a large subset of articles that may escape the attention of other admins. To me, there is a clusterfudge of uspside to TC31 getting the mop. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Personally I would respond just as you initially mentioned with regard to Q4. Think about content first. However, I would make some strong suggestions to both the IP and admin on their talkpages about sourcing and 3RR etc. I wouldn't necessarily go straight to reporting it to noticeboards for punitive actions unless either one showed signs of continuing this behaviour either here or elsewhere. I think the initial question was designed to see if you would start blocking (using your admin tools on a content dispute on an article you created) you passed this test with flying colors. That is the important thing. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
46. Swayed to participate here by the fact that 100% of opposes thus far focus on Q4. When TheCatalyst31 hypothetically woke up, BLP policy had been upheld, and the block/protect buttons were not used inappropriately. As far as the content in question was concerned, the original answer sufficed, and the fact that one editor was an admin was therefore irrelevant. Admittedly "leave it at that" was very weak, but the follow-up answer reflected how I would have approached the situation, and although prompted, was a natural follow-on to the original response. Outside of that, a balanced and level-headed contributor. Most significantly, s/he appears to always be willing to explain decisions, and in the case of mistakes, reconsider. —WFC— 07:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
47. If someone's going to turn out to be a bad admin, there's going to be more evidence that they're off track than one BLP issue. BLP issues are contentious, with opinions all over the map. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
48. Support I agree the answer to Q4 wasn't optimal, but let's face it, that's a really good (and hard) question. I very much bet that 50% of those in the oppose section would have gotten it at least partly wrong themselves. Heck, I'm not sure there is an answer that would make more than 50% of the opposers happy. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
49. Support Good candidate, a lot of contribs and experience. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
50. Support Good editor who made one mistake answering one question. Nobody's perfect, the answer wouldn't break the encyclopedia, it wasn't disruptive and life goes on. Bigger digger (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
51. Support - The answer to Q4 isn't that bad. It's kinda good, even. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. TC31 seems like an experienced and conscientious editor with a good grasp of both policy and practice and a commendable absence of drama. The dispute around the answer to Q4 seems odd to me, because TC31's initial reply seemed good to me: drama minimised, focus kept on content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
53. Support per nom. Jonathunder (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
54. Support: I found the remarks in the oppose section to be petty. The candidate will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
55. Support -very constructive and potential user. I am very pleased to write in his support. --Anticipator (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
56. Support, a strong candidate overall, quibbles about Q4 nonwithstanding. Nsk92 (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
57. Q4 is one of those kind of questions where no matter how he answered, there was going to be some form of opposition, so that gets a pass for me even though I don't care for the answer myself. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
58. Support an editor whose history of contributions to the project bodes well as an admin. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
59. Support - I'm okay with this, overall. The answer to Q4 wasn't great but I wouldn't call it terrible; everything else looks fine. AlexiusHoratius 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
60. Support per Wizardman. Not overly concerned. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 22:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
61. Support Question reminds me of the ones on my bar exams, very easy to miss an issue. Once burned, twice shy. He'll do fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you Wehwalt, well put. My confidence still stands. Mlpearc powwow 09:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

62. Extremely Strong Support I believe the editor is an extremely competent prospective administrator. I checked his speedies, prods and AfDs. Cumulatively, when I minutely checked, 98 of the past 100 deletion nominations have been deleted - that's very good and impressive for me; and I think a similar number is what he has for the next 100 or so of his deletion nominations. I checked his new articles created count. The editor has 2456 new articles created in his 19872 edits - the figure (of 2456 new articles) is an outstanding evidence of the quintessential sincerity the editor holds towards contributing for our project! Talking about content, with 13 DYKs, 3 Good Articles, and one Featured List, the editor has proven that he can qualify quite competently on proving his mettle on the quality scale and on the clue-scale. Can he improve further in his content contributions? Of course, yes; and much! Even a cursory look around our project will show that the Catalyst can use many brilliant editors as his benchmarks; editors who have gone ahead and created multiple FAs, and who continue doing so even post becoming administrators. The Catalyst has many stubs to his creation credit that he can, is improving, and should do so further. Still, does his policy knowledge qualify as outstanding? Clearly not. And clearly again, it should have qualified so; more importantly because he might have ended up mis-applying the very policies he's supposed to utilise if he were to become an admin. Is this admin-hopeful so clueless that he cannot fathom the (mis)understanding of a situation/rule despite being told so? My perception is that, that is not the case. The fact is that this editor has shown regard and respect for being open to change and improvement throughout this RfA and even through his past two plus years with our project. I do observe his dissonance in trite badgering; yet, the editor has given his worth of sincere commitment through the past two years towards our project with a grinding schedule of working with an extremely civil orientation. And post all that, he has requested for adminship. I know that we have administrators who I look up to (like Fetchcomms, Fastily, John, Nikkimaria) in the oppose/neutral section; and I see some of my peers too, in Bejinhan, Salvio. Given all this, I take this opportunity to implore my peers, my administrators and the other respected editors in the oppose/neutral section to re-look at their vote considering one question which has become clichéd at our RfAs, yet retains its pertinence within its simplistic naivety, "Will this candidate be a net positive to our project?" If you truly believe the answer to this to be no, I will respect your vote - as most of you have more experience than have I. Yet, a moment of requestion will not take away the potency of your vote. With sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
63. Support - Trusted user with good judgment. 00:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
64. Support - no major concerns. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
65. Support'--Jab843 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
66. Support Will make good admin. Perseus!-Talk to me 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
67. Courcelles 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
68. Stephen 22:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The answer to Q4 is simply ridiculous, and demonstrates that the candidate does not have enough experience in dealing with content disputes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Admins need to be able to deal with content issues; the Q4 answer suggests this user, unfortunately, is not. Ucucha 03:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   We'd best desysop the six admins that support! They clearly don't know the right answer to Q4 either! Let it be noted that the admin that asked Q4 has voted to support. Desysop the question asker as well. Content? Pish posh. It's all about the editor. Vodello (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   They may do as they choose; I'm entirely unconvinced by arguments of the type "X admins did this, so it must be a good idea". Admins make errors all the time, after all (perhaps this oppose vote is among them). Ucucha 11:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   "Admins make errors all the time, after all." But admin candidate hopefuls cannot. Check. Vodello (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

   Regretful Oppose. After the first 3 questions and having had a look at some of TheCatalyst31's work, I was leaning towards Support. But last night Q4 was there and unanswered, and I decided to wait. And I'm afraid that answer has changed my mind. It is not OK for an admin to blatantly ignore the 3RR rule and engage in an edit war with an IP editor over an entirely harmless change which might even be correct, which has apparently chased them off and perhaps lost us a potentially great future contributor. (I confess I'm not sure what I would do so long after the event, but I think there is a bit of a Wikipedia problem in that there doesn't seem to be a workable way of handling such transgressions by admins). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   I'm going to switch to Neutral, after further response to Q4 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

3. Based on answer to Q4, which displays too much naivety to suggest the user is ready for adminship. The answer is simply written from the perspective of an editor, not an admin; it does not display the required understanding of 3RR or exemptions to it. I'm not saying that the hypothetical example necessarily required blocking but the answer required discussion of these issues, and a mention of WP:BITE and helping the errant IP (eg with a welcome message or friendly note) would have been nice. In addition, taking an interest in the content issue is fine (sometimes illuminates how to interpret the behaviour), but your comment about not starting up the edit war again also seems underthought: if the sole objection given was the lack of sourcing, re-adding with a (reliable) source should resolve the issue better than leaving it on the talk page, especially given the IP's previous failure to use the talk page. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose, per my struck neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   Would you reconsider if the candidate addressed Q4 further? On a separate note you've been here a long time and are as experienced as anyone so I would presume you are familiar with WP:NOBIGDEAL; I am correct to presume you disagree with it? I also note you haven't found it necessary to become an admin yourself, so I am wondering is that because you respect the role too much and not because you don't think it important enough to apply for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambanog (talk • contribs) 14:52, October 25, 2010

   I will respond on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

5. Regretful oppose per Boing said Zebedee; I was leaning towards supporting too, but I cannot do it now in light of your answer to question 4. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I can trust your judgement as an admin... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
6. (Moved from support) Q4, as well. My reasoning: I think that looking for a source is important. I think unsourced material should be discussed. I also think that it's not good to create more drama if the event happened while I was sleeping and I didn't notice till later the next day. But what I disagree with you is your statement "since the admin acted appropriately by attempting to discuss the issue and removing unsourced content". The admin acted in no way appropriately, considering that 3RR is a policy and the admin should know better. The admin should have notified the IP of 3RR, stopped reverting once the IP violated it, and reported the IP to AN3 to let an uninvolved user assess the situation. Pulling the "it was vandalism" card is clearly unjustified, as the content was not potentially harmful BLP material. At the very least, the admin needed a strong warning (if someone didn't already report to ANI), and a block if they were continuing to demonstrate similar behavior elsewhere. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   I thought we had leeway when it comes to unsourced information in WP:BLP Secret ^account 19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   As far as 3RR is concerned, only to the extent it is "contentious", and even then the admin should have sought outside help rather than edit-warred. But, as a general comment, it is an unfortunate manifestation of the question that many people have different views on it and it has caused many to oppose. See the oppose below - he/she thinks the IP is entirely in the wrong and the admin was right. We have to be careful judging the candidate on his or her answer to a question if reasonable !voters are going to disagree. Most of the opposes focus on the candidate having missed an important issue - which is fine - I'm worried about opposes that say he/she got the answer "wrong". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   Unsourced is not automatically an exception to 3RR. I agree with Mkativerata; the material would need to be contentious for 5 reverts to be justified. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   Potentially adding the wrong information in a BLP is usually an exception for 3rr, especially if it can't be verified on a reliable source, everyone including adminstrators has different opinions about this, so I respect yours. Just because you have a different opinion isn't a reason to oppose someone, and that's what most of the oppose votes aren't getting. Secret ^account 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

   My issue was with the "the admin acted appropriately" part of the answer. The admin in no way acted appropriately. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

   Mkativerata, I think you're making a good point, and I'd like to add that people under "Oppose" seem to have different views of why the candidate's answer to Q4 was less than optimal. I don't think either editor should be blocked for example, or that the IP should be warned (contra Tofutwitch11 below, for example); rather, I found it odd that he would not remind the admin of WP:BITE and also that instead of just being a bold and adding it, he would place his reliable source on the talk page before adding it. If we're going to ask at the talk page before making any edit, we're never going to finish an encyclopedia. Ucucha 00:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC) (Addendum: I fully agree with Rd232 above, who brought up some of the same problems with the candidate's answer. Ucucha 00:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

7. Oppose: Per the answer to Q4. What about WP:3RR? The IP added unsourced information to the article, which can be identified as vandalism and continued to do it! Leaving it alone is not the right approach...sorry. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   So you would block the IP and commend the admin? Unsourced != vandalism, so please re-read the relevant policies and WP:BITE. New users need guidance, not a block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

   I agree that the IP should have never been blocked, just warned. We don't do blocks for edit warring hours after the situation happened unless there is reason to believe that the user will continue edit warring. Secret ^account 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose: I don't really have a choice. Despite my best AGF, the answer to Q4 shows that the candidate isn't familiar enough with the policies. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Concerns with answer to question four and policy knowledge. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose - amendment to q4 represents an improvement, but not enough to cancel out the original answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose While I don't agree with some of the question four oppose votes, his amendments is putting himself digger to a hole and shows clear inexperience. We don't block people especially adminstrators if they violate WP:BITE. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality. It would cause a bunch of unneeded drama. Note I could change my mind, and go to neutral especially if the user claifies the WP:BITE comment, or if it's borderline territory, I just can't support because of that comment. Secret ^account 03:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    I wasn't suggesting that the administrator be blocked for violating WP:BITE; if I blocked the administrator, it would be for violating WP:3RR, and even then it would only be if the admin had a track record of edit warring. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    @Secret: When you say "especially administrators", surely you're not suggesting that admins should get special treatment and be allowed to break the rules more than "ordinary" editors, are you? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    "I just wouldn't block him/her unless they had violated 3RR/BITE in the past" I don't agree that adminstrators should get special treatment, but blocking them, or any long-term user for WP:BITE will cause unneeded drama, as we usually can't tell if a person is violating it or not, it's up to a personal opinion. Its also a vauge rule that admins and other users usually without knowing violate, like for example when we delete a good faith article by a newcomer, even if it doesn't meet criteria, that's a violation of BITE, that admin in the question who kept on reverting the page, I doubt they knew they were violating BITE. See where I'm coming from, blocking an editor for it will cause unnessary drama. Of course if it's obvious they are violating BITE and they were told to stop by multiple editors, there are other ways to go, like an RFC. Secret ^account 17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    Well I agree that it's not blockable, because there is no evidence that the block will help. On the other hand multi reverting an IP on non-contentious facts is clearly bitey, unless the IP has a history of inserting incorrect unsourced non-contentious facts (possibly the most dangerous type of vandal) - but even then the registered-user should have left a warning. Similarly with GF articles, there's no reason a talk-page message about the deletion can't be left, leaving the door open to userifying, DRV etc. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
    

    Oppose Hmm... I don't trust you. I have not interacted with you as far as I know, so I don't really know what you do, what have you done, etc. and I just don't want to go look your contribs. Diego Grez (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    Not really sure if your opinion really holds any weight if you don't really decide to look into the candidate.--iGeMiNix 22:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    I opposed as well, but that's probably one of the most nonsense oppose vote I seen in my six years at RFA. Secret ^account 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

    I agree with Secret here. Why vote when there is no rationale on which to base your decision? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, consider this as neutral, then. I really should not oppose him just because I'm lazy to review his contribs. -Diego Grez (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

11. Oppose per Q4. Plus, the oppose-badgering is as annoying as ever. BLGM5 (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    Where's the oppose-badgering, all the oppose badgering makes good points, it's not "annoying" Secret ^account 14:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

12. Oppose: Per Q4 - Admins should always try to hold themselves and each other to a higher standard, especially under the usually valid presumption that they should know far more about Wikipedia; which means the reverting admin should have been aware of the numerous other options available to them - none of which included 3, 4, or 5R or edit warring. Semi-protect (I've requested a few myself to stop such till an anon reads their talk page), welcome templates, more thorough message on the anon's page explaining things, taking the time to try to find a source for the info (or the correct info) to end the edit war by correcting the lack of a cite on the anon's part (with a polite msg on the anon's talk page explaining what was done and why), a hidden comment (ie: HTML comment) next to the section of text the anon is editing so next time they edit, they will see it (maybe short explanation? or direct user to their talk page?) <- working pretty well on another article with contentious content, request/implement a short block if they think it's THAT serious, etc... (could go on and on). Point is, admins should not be reactionary in such circumstances (well, all editors really, but those entrusted with the mop and bucket, even more so). Sorry for rambling. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, looking for experienced thorough editors for the admin corp, and the "miss" in Q 4 is disappointing. Equally disappointing are more than half a dozen supports after the response was added without pointing out anything amiss in the response to Q 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued disappointment. We all make mistakes, and we can't ask potential admins to know everything, so I lodged a neutral pending Catalyst's response. But, although Catalyst has edited this RFA since the response to Q 4, there has been no explanation. At FAC, we do our darnest to put articles through the wringer so we can put Wiki's best work on the mainpage, but while good content contributors are trying to work, some abusive admins at worst make their work harder, or at best, don't make it easier. While FAR is a process for defeaturing FAs that have deteriorated; there is no easy process for desysopping abusive admins; RFA should be taken with the seriousness it deserves, at least akin to FAC. Yes, it is "hell week", but adminship is a big deal and does create a semi-permanent class of superusers, so candidates should take this process with the importance it deserves. Since Catalyst has not responded to explain the oversight, I am moving to Oppose, noting that had s/he not edited this RFA subsequently without addressing the concern, I would have stayed neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutral per SG. --John (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral mentioned above, q4's approach is rather questionable.--iGeMiNix 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral upon re-reading Q4. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
4. neutral - I mostly agree with SandyGeorgia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Would have liked to support, but response to Q4 illuminates significant weaknesses, as explained by others. Not enough misgivings to oppose, but enough doubts to not support. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral Per Q4. There is no doubt that this editor has done great work, but the answer to Q4 raises concerns about the editor's ability to handle conflict. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral, switched from Oppose (see above). After further response to Q4, I think the candidate was probably focusing on the issue of content rather than the editors' behaviour, and has clearly accepted that the original answer was off the mark. But I'm not sufficiently convinced to support, so here I am. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
8. I just don't agree with the question four opposes, or Diego's nonsense oppose. I have my concerns involving WP:BITE, but I don't think he's going to use the tools that much, or would block WP:BITE violaters after my oppose vote. Firm Neutral Secret ^account 13:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral - because of Q4, i'm not in position of supporting at the moment. Sorry, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Neutral. Generally good contributions. However the answer to question 4 is somewhat disappointing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral. I think there is far too much fuss being made out of the Q4, it's typical of the pile-on opposes that the so-called 'optional' questions section spawns. However, I generally expect sufficient content building in order to be convinced of an understanding of basic policy concerning article production, and I don't think that 3 short GAs with 23 - 35 edits each, and 2,500 one-line settlement stubs really do it.--Kudpung (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    I respect your neutral, and ask this not because I disagree, but because if it were 2,500 BLPs I would most likely be in the same boat. Would you agree with the view that a one-line settlement's article has far more scope to be stumbled upon and expanded by another editor than, say, a one-line athlete's? —WFC— 04:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

12. Neutral Per answer to Q4 Bejinhan talks 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Neutral - The answer to question number 4 is unacceptable. On the other hand, they seem like an great editor overall. I am sitting in the neutral camp until either they conclusively prove they don't have the knowledge for the tools or it's proven that that was a little mistake. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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