Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang

Edit stats
X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	Steven Zhang User groups:	autoreviewer, filemover, rollbacker First edit:	Feb 07, 2008 16:53:12 Unique pages edited:	12,716 Average edits per page:	2.36 Live edits:	27,526 Deleted edits:	2,476 Total edits (including deleted):	30,002

Namespace Totals

Article	9052	32.89% Talk	1111	4.04% User	1745	6.34% User talk	9837	35.74% Wikipedia	4698	17.07% Wikipedia talk	492	1.79% File	117	0.43% File talk	3	0.01% MediaWiki talk	1	0.00% Template	365	1.33% Template talk	21	0.08% Help	6	0.02% Help talk	5	0.02% Category	47	0.17% Portal	26	0.09% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2008/02	1644 	2008/03	9797 	2008/04	3430 	2008/05	1923 	2008/06	885 	2008/07	1540 	2008/08	532 	2008/09	21 	2008/10	0 	2008/11	0 	2008/12	0 	2009/01	0 	2009/02	0 	2009/03	226 	2009/04	355 	2009/05	490 	2009/06	223 	2009/07	362 	2009/08	194 	2009/09	592 	2009/10	298 	2009/11	31 	2009/12	64 	2010/01	12 	2010/02	2 	2010/03	19 	2010/04	24 	2010/05	2 	2010/06	0 	2010/07	0 	2010/08	363 	2010/09	2 	2010/10	1 	2010/11	0 	2010/12	0 	2011/01	6 	2011/02	0 	2011/03	0 	2011/04	3 	2011/05	735 	2011/06	1014 	2011/07	656 	2011/08	661 	2011/09	345 	2011/10	822 	2011/11	252

Top edited pages (hide)Article

280 - 24_(TV_series) 114 - Martha_Logan 106 - List_of_minor_characters_in_24 103 - Jack_Bauer 88 - Bill_Buchanan 63 - 24_(season_7) 54 - List_of_24_characters 49 - Tony_Almeida 40 - Minor_government_agents_in_24 34 - Charles_Logan_(24_character)

(hide)Talk

158 - Prem_Rawat 65 - Sovereign_Grace_Ministries 28 - List_of_minor_characters_in_24 22 - 24_(TV_series) 20 - Second_Intifada 18 - 24_(season_7) 17 - Ming_Dynasty 16 - Divine_Light_Mission 14 - Martha_Logan 14 - Encyclopedia_Dramatica

(hide)User

287 - Steven_Zhang 240 - Steven_Zhang/Status 158 - Steven_Zhang/monobook.js   88 - Steven_Zhang/talknav 83 - Steven_Zhang/CSD_log 44 - Steven_Zhang/Nav 40 - Steven_Zhang/Mediation 31 - Steven_Zhang/List_of_declined_speedies 25 - Steven_Zhang/Adoption 25 - Steven_Zhang/24_Ref_table

(hide)User talk

1604 - Steven_Zhang 210 - Tiptoety 74 - Lucy-marie 60 - Saranghae_honey 59 - RyanCross 57 - AGK 55 - MBisanz/Archive_8 51 - SeanMooney 49 - Steven_Zhang/Mediation/Prem_Rawat 42 - Lan_Di

(hide)Wikipedia

721 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 129 - Dispute_resolution_noticeboard 94 - WikiProject_24 85 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 78 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20_Prem_Rawat 71 - Administrators'_noticeboard 64 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases 63 - Requests_for_page_protection 51 - Village_pump_(proposals) 50 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights_m...

(hide)Wikipedia talk

47 - WikiProject_24/Merger_Discussions 44 - Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_4 32 - Requests_for_adminship 30 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 30 - WikiProject_24 25 - Mediation_Cabal 24 - Dispute_resolution_noticeboard 15 - Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard 14 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-06/Corrib_Gas 14 - Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_3

(hide)File

7 - TomLennox.jpg 5 - 24_Season_4_Cast.jpg 5 - Jack_Bauer.jpg 4 - Marthawater.jpg 4 - AudreyRaines.jpg 3 - 24_Season_2_Cast.jpg 3 - 24_Season_3_Cast.jpg 3 - Allison_Taylor.jpg 3 - 24_one_shot_cover.jpg 3 - 24_Season_7_Cast.jpg

(hide)File talk

2 - 24_-_The_Game.jpg 1 - Example.jpg

(hide)MediaWiki talk

1 - Watchlist-details

(hide)Template

66 - AIV 46 - AIV/doc 22 - Vandalism_information 18 - 24_Characters 16 - MedcabTemplate 12 - WikiProject_24 12 - 0   10 - MedcabStatus 9 - UAA/doc 9 - UAA

(hide)Template talk

3 - Talk_header 3 - 0   2 - Dispute-resolution 2 - Tasks 2 - Did_you_know 2 - AIV 1 - Infobox_Jews 1 - Edit_protected 1 - Grammar 1 - Elementbox

(hide)Help

4 - Edit_toolbar 1 - Diff 1 - Pipe_trick

(hide)Help talk

5 - Using_talk_pages

(hide)Category

5 - Stub-Class_24_articles 4 - 24_articles_by_quality 4 - 24_(TV_series)_images 3 - 24_(TV_series)_characters 2 - Merge-Class_24_articles 2 - Start-Class_24_articles 2 - Wikipedia_Medcab_active_cases 2 - Frazioni_of_Italy_by_province 1 - Forced_disappearance 1 - Mechanics

(hide)Portal

4 - 24/Selected_picture 3 - 0   3 - 24/Selcted_Article 2 - 24/Featured_Article 2 - 24/Intro 1 - Republic_of_China 1 - Arts 1 - Contents/Overview/Culture_and_the_arts 1 - Technology/Selected_articles/2 1 - Science/Featured_picture/5

Executed in 3.30 second(s).

AfD stats for Steven Zhang
Total number of unique AfD pages edited by Steven Zhang: 212 Analyzed the last 50 votes by this user.

Keep votes: 2 (13.3%) Delete votes: 4 (26.7%) Speedy Keep votes: 0 (0.0%) Speedy Delete votes: 0 (0.0%) Merge votes: 1 (6.7%) Redirect votes: 8 (53.3%) Transwiki votes: 0 (0.0%) Userfy votes: 0 (0.0%)

Number of AfD's where vote matched result : 12 (85.7%) Number of AfD's where vote didn't match result : 0 (0.0%) Number of AfD's where result was "No Consensus" : 2 (14.3%)

Note on IP comment
This edit is made to look like it was made by the candidate. The IP address appears to locate to an entirely different continent than the one in which the candidate resides. Please do not be confused by this malicious effort. Pedro : Chat  08:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink's comment
Oppose - Even leaving aside the 2008 incident, the above comments reveal what is, to my mind, a rather unhealthy "cult of personality" around this user. An admin candidate who cannot be criticized, no matter how gently, without people popping up left and right to offer helpful non-sequiturs (oppose #2), bicker over technicalities (oppose #8), needle (#5) or just generally badger (#4) is, simply put, not healthy for the project, no matter how capable and trustworthy the candidate himself may or may not be. To put it another way, if Joe Blow Who Nobody Knows makes a weird block or a questionable XfD decision and I bring it up on AN/I, I can be reasonably confident that the subsequent discussion will be focused on the action itself (to the extent that AN/I discussion ever is). Here, I get the feeling that there'd be a lot of kneejerk reactions to support the decision of a guy people are personally buddies with, which leads to kneejerk reactions to oppose the decision of a guy who's part of the Wiki Cabal, which leads to kneejerk reactions to support a guy who's being unfairly targeted by the self-styled anti-cabalists, which leads to kneejerk reactions to oppose a guy who's being passionately defended by some other guy who made some bad blood on a random Talk page somewhere, which leads to... plenty of kneejerk reactions to go around, which itself leads to a lack of confidence on my part in the ensuing circus. Just too much emotion surrounding the candidate. I'm sorry, Steven. Badger Drink (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I should offer my apologies to both Badger Drink and Steven. You see, I have very little experience at RfA, but I had somehow been under the impression that (given that this is not a "vote") this was a forum for discussion of a candidate's qualifications for the mop, and because in my (apparently twisted) life's experience, "discussion" consists of people offering viewpoints and countering those with other viewpoints, I somehow thought that I was correctly engaging in the process.  Had I realized that I was participating in the creation of a new Stalin, I would have just kept my mouth shut, so as to protect the Wikipedia community from this cult of personality. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand this oppose. If you have a criticism against Steven, that's valid, and you're free to oppose based on that - but opposing because you don't like how people are discussing the candidate? How is that Steven's fault in any way? m.o.p  02:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Badger, with all due respect, I'm pretty sure that the emotion is not surrounding Steven himself, and therefore not a buddy / cabal / wossname thing; it's surrounding the fact that a non-actual-damage-causing mistake, made by a teenager, years ago, is now being held against an adult candidate. One of the many criticisms of RfA is that ancient sins are dragged up as reasons to oppose, and here we are, illustrating yet again that this is true.  That's why people are emotional.  Injustice does make people emotional.  We can't hold things this old against someone.  Statute of limitations, kinda thing.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 06:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't listen to the IRC channels myself but recall some grumbling that there's a clique that hangs out there and which promotes their membership to become admins. The earlier trouble with passwords seemed to start on IRC.  Is this the background to the badgering? Warden (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can find "cliques" everywhere you look, if you want to! Anyone is, of course, welcome in IRC. But any theoretical clique member would have a hard job promoting me, for example, for adminship!  I've made it abundantly clear in oh-so-many places that I'm "Never gonna be a Nadmin"!  So nobody but nobody could suggest that I'm in a "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" situation. My actions here have far more to do with addressing the problems being worked on by an RfA Reform task force than any theoretical cabalistic tendencies. I'm not at all sure that other supporters would wholly appreciate the subtle suggestion of any kind of "!vote-rigging", either. My apologies, of course, if that's not what you were suggesting,  but your edit summary of "Oppose re IRC"  leaves little room for doubt.  May I respectfully suggest that you strike that comment out? Either that or, alternatively, if you really do mean it, make an appropriate report, in the appropriate place, as to who you think is / are meatpuppets of whom. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Within the span of five hours there's already three reply-threads to this !vote, which somewhat illustrates the exact concern I was doing my best to eloquate. From top to bottom: Husky, thanks for the stream of histrionic bullshit nicely bookending a lovely reference to Josef Stalin. It definitely helps to promote a calm and rational discussion, and I find it a very positive contribution that does not in the slightest way reflect poorly on the maturity of some of the supporters telling us the candidate is mature. M.O.P., the fact that this certain "backing band" (for lack of a better term) follows the candidate is, unfortunately, the candidate's problem, though not necessarily his fault - an extreme example would be someone born without arms being denied a position as a soccer goalkeeper. Not the guy's fault, but definitely his problem. Pesky, there's a swarm of people offering very emotive responses in this particular RfA. I'm not sure how more clearly I can put it: I do not give a rat's shit why they're emotional or what drove them to participate in this RfA. The very fact that they're here is what troubles me about this candidate, full-stop, period, dot, end of thoughtstream. This leads me to believe that the discussion of any future issues - trivial or non - involving Steven in his administrative role will be a spectacular pain in the ass to slog through. The fact that certain people feel that the previous issues involving account security and judgment are non-trivial may, or may not, be cause for even more concern, depending on who one asks. My opinion about that issue is unimportant and a non-factor in my opposition. Badger Drink (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your points, Badger. However, when people see something wrong happening, they are often likely to say so for no other reason than to point out that it's wrong.  I know you don't care, but, having found that perfectly good-faith comments by supporters have resulted in IRC-based-conspiracy assumptions - accusations of wrongdoing which, as such, cannot be considered to be civil, and are, really, bordering on attacks undermining supporters, then something has gone very wrong indeed. I have trouble understanding, clearly, why people participating in an RfA is in any way a reason to oppose said RfA.   Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodness me! I didn't realise a candidate being popular was enough for an oppose vote! :P I don't even know Steven, but I've heard only good things about his work these days, so that will be the reasoning behind my vote. You're perfectly entitled to oppose for whatever reason you like, Badger Drink, and people questioning opposes is pretty common in RFA with most candidates so I'd disagree that it's a sign of something sinister, but opinions and all that. Best to leave this, when people start getting offended it's just going to spiral downhill until it gets silly. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 10:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pesky, your assertions that I'm claiming a conspiracy exists are downright ridiculous. I guess they make your defense seem a lot more valid - I'm sure Don Quixote felt a lot more important when he pretended those windmills were giants. It's also somewhat puzzling that you would say you "appreciate" my points, while dutifully opening up a thread on AN/I regarding my statement one hour later - it comes across as very insincere, like some form of forum shopping to squelch discussion. For someone incredibly eager to wikilink AGF, you sure seem clueless about what a "personal attack" really is, and your definition of civility is simplistic at best. It's central to my issue with this candidate - he has a lot of very rabid defenders who seem eager to cite whatever Trendy Policy of the Moment exists in their defense of him, without actually having a mature, adult understanding of those policies themselves. Badger Drink (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asserting that you were claiming any kind of conspiracy - it was Warden's barely-veiled accusations of meatpuppetting (windmills?)to which I was referring. I understand your points quite well; my problem was not your points, but your lack of civility.  As usual, in situations like that, I work first on the assumption that someone may simply have been having a bad day, and spend a little time seeing how they interact normally.  All I found was a history of more and more of the same, with many complaints,  hence my (only, to date) thread at AN/I for long-term civility issues.  I don't go in for drama-mongering, it's not the way I work. But, regardless of what many may erroneously believe, there has never, to my knowledge, been any consensus that RfA (or, indeed, anywhere in Wikipedia) is exempt from the normal rules of basic good manners and civility.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't go for drama-mongering, you just call for a "civilty block" based on cherrypicking from four years of User Talk comments. I see. Thanks for the clarification! Badger Drink (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a deliberately provocative oppose designed specifically to attract the very badgering on which the eponymous opposer is basing his oppose. I think that the best course of action at this point would be to call it a day.  &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the valuable and much-needed contribution. As somebody who's been here since 2007, working on the encyclopedia as opposed to working on finding new ways to make my signature a garish, unreadable eyesore, I am really glad to be called a troll and told, in so many words, that my opinion doesn't matter. Please keep up your wonderful contributions to RfA, Randy. Badger Drink (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Snotty, I think you got this one wrong dude, seriously. Badger's opinion matters as much as anyones. I don't think it was set out to be provocative, and I wouldn't be surprised at a civility complaint towards you from him were it to be forthcoming.  Your comment is opinion, not fact.  Don't treat it like it is.   Badgering is becoming a very real problem here - i rarely see people supporting an RfA get badgered because the opposers don't understand why they're supporting, but vice versa, it's a different matter.  We don't question your reasons, lay the hell off and don't question ours.  BarkingFish  13:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)