User:Cool3/RfA Hypothetical 1

A Nice Guy
[ Voice your opinion on this candidate ] (talk page) 40/10/5 ; Scheduled to end 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– ANG has been on Wikipedia now for two years. He's clueful and active contributor with 10,000 mainspace contributions, including 4 FAs and 7 GAs. ANG is also active at WP:AFD, where his comments are always useful and thoroughly grounded in policy. In short, ANG will be a clear net positive for the project. AnEstablishedAdministrator 15:55, 4 August 2009


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you. A Nice Guy 15:56, 4 August 2009.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would like to do a little bit of helping out just about everywhere, but in particular I would focus on WP:AFD, where I am already quite active. I would also help clear out the old prods when they get backlogged, and I would try to tackle the most serious parts of the administrative backlog whenever time permits.  Finally, I am a first year law student, so I have some experience with copyrights, so I would try to help with image issues.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Well, I am certainly very proud of my featured articles. All of them required a lot of hard work, and it's very satisfying to see your own work featured on the front page.  I've also contributed extensively to WP:CHRISTIAN, collaborating with other users on several GAs and helping to sort, tag, and assess the project's various articles.


 * 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 work on a number of contentious religious and political articles, so I have seen my share of conflict in my attempts to maintain NPOV and uphold other WP policies. I always try to avoid edit warring, and while I once committed a fourth revert, I promptly self-reverted.  I always try to discuss problems with the other editor, but often I just find it simplest to take a short wikibreak after getting involved in conflict, so if something particularly stressful is going on, I may just leave for a few days and come back later.


 * Optional question from MajorAtheist
 * 4. You have several religiously and politically conservative userboxes on your userpage. One of them states "This user believes that the Bible should be interpreted literally" and another one reads "This user is VERY conservative."  As you obviously have strong views on these issues, how will that effect your judgement on controversial topics?  Will you agree not to take any administrative actions with regard to topics on which you have these views?
 * A. I do my very best to separate my personal views from WP policy, and I think I do so successfully. I will always make decisions based exclusively on policy and not my opinions.  I am, however, very active in WP:CHRISTIAN articles and I can not promise that I will not use the tools there.


 * Optional question from CommunicationIsEssential
 * 5. You stated above that your response to conflict is often to "leave for a few days and come back later". It is very important for admins involved in conflict to be available to discuss their actions.  What will you do to remain easy to contact if you disappear due to conflict?
 * A. I have email enabled. Of course, if the problem is urgent another admin can always deal with it.


 * Optional question from John Q Doe
 * 6. What does WP:IAR mean to you? When would you apply it?
 * A.
 * 7. Under what circumstances would you speedily delete a page with a hang-on tag?
 * A.
 * 8. Why does Wikipedia have notability guidelines?
 * A.

General comments

 * Links for A Nice Guy:
 * Edit summary usage for A Nice Guy can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Support as nom. AnEstablishedAdministrator 16:05, 4 August 2009.
 * 2) Support a clueful user, I've always liked what he had to say at AfD. John Q. User.  16:15, 4 August 2009.
 * 3) Support per nom as an all around good guy. He is a very helpful FAC and GAN reviewer, and has helped me with several articles.  Bill G. User.  16:50, 4 August 2009.
 * 4) Support proper mix of content work and work in administrative areas. And he's willing to tackle the backlog! Joe the Editor 16:55, 4 August 2009.
 * 5) Support a great guy. Adam A. Administrator, 17:00, 4 August 2009.
 * 6) Support I really like his FAs, they're excellent work and show the content skills we need from our admins. Bob B. Bureaucrat 17:30, 4 August 2009.
 * 7) Weak support I'm troubled by the diffs from Susie Q. User, particularly the lack of communication, but it's been six weeks now and ANG's excellent work elsewhere convinces me that we can trust him with the tools. Alice A. Editor, 17:45, 4 August 2009.
 * 8) Support an all around "nice guy". Lucy L. Editor, 18:30, 4 August 2009.
 * 9) Support. Everyone makes one or two CSD mistakes and otherwise he seems like a good guy.  Oliver G. Oversighter, 18:50, 4 August 2009.
 * 10) Support. Willy Wikipedian, 19:30, 4 August 2009.
 * 11) Support. A really good guy.  Infrequent contributor 21:30, 4 August 2009.
 * Support. JesusForever 21:40, 4 August 2009. — JesusForever (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 1) Support Why Not? Frank the Fearless Editor 22:00, 4 August 2009.
 * 2) Support Adminship is no big deal. Random G. Contributor.  22:15, 4 August 2009.
 * 3) Support I always support candidates for adminship who are FA writers, that's what we really need here on WP. Ferdinand Featured.  22:50, 4 August 2009.
 * 4) Weak support. Very Influential Wikipedian's comments trouble me, but I have always had good interactions with the user and feel he can be trusted.  RandomUser123.  23:01, 4 August 2009.
 * Support. We need people who are willing to counteract the liberal bias and misinformation.  BiblicalLiteralist, 23:55, 4 August 2009. — BiblicalLiteralist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 1) Weak support. I respect ANG and his nominator, and I think ANG has the proper judgement for the job.  The communication problems are bothersome, but none of them are especially recent, and if ANG will make an effort to respond promptly to queries, that will solve the issue. RandomUser789.  1:01, 5 August 2009.
 * 2) Unqualified support. I have full faith in ANG's ability to be a good administrator, and I am not bothered by any of the opposes.  RfARegular.  1:30, 5 August 2009.
 * 3) Support per nom and per above. Random User111 2:01, 5 August 2009.
 * 4) Support I've always had pleasant interactions and nothing in the contribs bothers me. The opposes make some points, but he never actually violated 3RR and is communicative enough.  RfARegular999 2:40, 5 August 2009.
 * 5) Support great admin material good nom. Hubert H. Editor, 3:03 5 August 2009.
 * 6) Support per above. Wikipedian888. 4:01 5 August 2009.
 * 7) Support an excellent candidate. JustPoppedIn 6:03, 5 August 2009.
 * 8) Support Why not? Adminship is no big deal, and per above.  LongTimeContributor 7:11, 5 August 2009.
 * 9) Support seems trustworthy and very clueful. AnotherRegular 8:00, 5 August 2009.
 * 10) Support he's a great guy. POVWarrior, 9:40, 5 August 2009.
 * 11) Weak support. The issues raised below are troubling, yes, but most of the incidents aren't especially recent and he has done excellent work on AfD and writing content.  AfDRegular, 10:03 5 August 2009.
 * Support. Trustworthy and good. 127.0.0.1 11:00, 5 August 2009. IP vote indented
 * 1) Very weak support. I have in the past engaged in editorial disputes with ANG, but they were long ago.  At the time, I found him willing to communicate and compromise, but at the same time Very Influential Wikipedian and RespectedAdmin raise some very troubling issues.  Nonetheless, they don't describe the ANG I know.  GoodEditor 13:01, 5 August 2009.
 * 2) Support trustworthy user with the appropriate temperament for an admin. DepartedEditWarrior 14:00, 5 August 2009.
 * 3) Weak support I don't like the sound of what the opposes say, but then again forgive and forget, right? And he's a great AfD and FA contributor.  JustAnotherEditor123 17:03, 5 August 2009.
 * 4) Support per nom. CasualEditor 22:30, 5 August 2009.
 * Support. Wikipedia needs people who believe in the BIBLE! 255.0.0.1 IP vote indented
 * 1) Weak support. Edit warring is a bad thing for an administrator to be engaged in, but he has respected the 3RR and most of the concerns refer to behavior in the past.  Regular555 2:30, 6 August 2009.
 * 2) Support. ANG is a good guy, and trustworthy.  I am not bothered by the opposes.  Edito8989 6:40, 6 August 2009.
 * 3) Weak support. The behaviors described by the opposes are cause by concerned, but ANG is level-headed and knowledgeable about policy. User9999 19:01, 6 August 2009.
 * 4) Support will make a good, christian admin. FA contributor and good work on AfD.  DevoutConservative 5:01, 7 August 2009.
 * 5) Weak support. We need more admins and ANG is generally civil, mature, and knowledgeable.  The apparent lack of communicativeness is worrisome, but I believe it can be overlooked given the user's strong record otherwise.  FrequentEditor121212 19:02, 7 August 2009.
 * Support. Of course. 1.1.1.9, 23:01, 7 August 2009. IP vote indented
 * 1) Weak support. I've always thought of him as a good guy, and I don't find the opposes convincing enough to make me oppose.  RandomUser9876 4:50, 8 August 2009.
 * 2) Support. Why not?  AddictedEditor, 18:50, 8 August 2009.
 * 3) Support per nom. Never actually edit warred, so I'm not too bothered.  RfAAddict, 15:25, 10 August 2009.
 * 4) Support great guy. WanderedIn 19:30, 10 August 2009.
 * 5) Support. Knows how to get it done on Wikipedia.  OccassionalEditor, 5:01 11 August 2009.

Oppose

 * 1) Strongest possible oppose. ANG and I were engaged in a dispute on the article Christianity and homosexuality about six weeks ago.  ANG made an undiscussed change [diff], which I reverted, telling him to discuss the matter on the talk page before making the change [diff].  ANG then reinstated the change, with a curt edit summary "No need for discussion, this is clear from the Bible" [diff].  I reverted a second time, with the comment "Use of the Bible as a source here constitutes original research, let's discuss this on the talk page please."  ANG then put a slightly modified version of his change back into the article, citing a conservative Christian website as his source [diff].  I reverted a third time, saying in my edit summary "Please gain consensus for this change on the talk page." [diff].  ANG then put the material back in, without even using an edit summary. [diff].  As I had now reverted three times, and did not wish to break 3RR, I continued to try to discuss the matter, posting on the article talk page and ANG's talk page.  ANG did not respond to my comments, even though from his contributions I could see that he was editing other article.  I sent him an email to which he did not respond.  Susie Q. User.  16:40, 4 August 2009.
 * 2) Oppose per Susie. Random G. Administrator, 18:00, 4 August 2009.
 * 3) Oppose due to CSD tagging mistakes. Three weeks ago, he tagged User:Cool3/CSD tag 1 as an A7, despite the assertion of notability.  Five weeks ago, he tagged an A2 as a G1, and I've found several other instances where he stretched G3.  CSD Stickler, 18:42, 4 August 2009.
 * 4) Oppose per Very Influential Wikipedian. Evan Editor, 21:02, 4 August 2009.
 * 5) Oppose per answer to my question. MajorAtheist, 4:01, 5 August 2009
 * 6) Weak oppose. I like ANG, but the allegations of failing to discuss and engaging in border-line edit wars can not be ignored.  RfARegular543, 16:00, 5 August 2009.
 * 7) Strong Oppose. We do not need any more christian POV-pushers as administrators.  LiberalToTheCore. 3:01, 7 August 2009.
 * 8) Oppose. We can't have admins who engage in edit wars, even if they don't technically violate the 3RR.  PolicyPolice.  6:51, 9 August 2009.
 * 9) Strong Oppose. My dealings with this user have left a very bitter taste in my mouth.  UnhappyEditor, 2:10, 10 August 2009.
 * 10) Oppose. Poor communications and edit warring are absolutely unacceptable for an administrator. 1:01, 11 August 2009.

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. I like and respect ANG very much, but I think what we're looking at here is a failure to communicate.  I'm concerned about ANG's answer to number 3 and his habit of not responding to others (as raised by Susie Q. User).  Several months ago, I was attempting to mediate a dispute between ANG and another user on the Sarah Palin article.  The discussion seemed to be going in a productive direction, but ANG suddenly changed the article to his own preferred version, totally ignoring the compromise that was forming.  Another user involved reverted, and I asked ANG to explain his actions, but instead he disappeared for two days, and after returning did not comment on the incident, and from there on out, the consensus deteriorated.  An edit war emerged on the page, though ANG was not directly involved, ending in page protection.  Although ANG did not edit war, I still think that his hasty, undiscussed change caused the compromise to fall apart and thus led to an edit war that could have been prevented. Very Influential Wikipedian, 20:45, 4 August 2009.
 * 2) Neutral. Like VIW, I am troubled by the communication issues, but I think ANG could make a really good admin.  I'm on the fence.  RandomUser456, 0:35, 5 August 2009.
 * 3) Neutral. In September 2008, I had warn ANG for border-line edit warring in the Leviticus.  He reverted 12 times in a 7 day period without discussion (though never more than twice in any 24 hour span).  It's been long enough that I was willing to forgive and forget, and came here planning to support, but the concerns raised above leave me in the neutral column.  RespectedAmin, 9:01, 5 August 2009.
 * 4) Neutral. I'd like to support, but the concerns raised above are too serious to allow me to do so.  FrequentContributor121, 19:30, 9 August 2009.
 * 5) Neutral. Failure to answer my questions makes me unable to evaluate the candidate. John Q. Doe. 15:00, 11 August 2009.