Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RandyWang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] RandyWang

Final (36/13/11) ended 13:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RandyWang (talk · contribs) – I've been active at Wikipedia for a little under five months now, although I've been registered since May 2005. In my time here, I've developed a strong involvement in a number of projects, particularly WikiProject CVG (most importantly, maintaining the list of CVG deletions, and contributing to those debates), NewPage Patrolling and, recently, responding to all new requests for Editor Review in the most helpful way that I can.

I've yet to produce an FA-class article, sadly, but I'm working on that. My involvement at articles such as Personal computer game (an ongoing attempt at improvement) and cleanup of Digital Rights Management are examples of major contributions I've made, and I believe they demonstrate a level of competence in editing articles, and my two Editor reviews (the most recent of which can be found here) are the result of my eagerness to improve.

The majority of my activity is in CVG-related projects, and NewPage Patrolling. Because of my specific involvement in these two activities, I would appreciate the ability to clear backlogs at C:CSD and close debates at WP:AFD; I'd certainly like to take a bite into those tasks, rather than simply palming the work off to someone else. RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, of course. RandyWang (chat/patch) 13:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As mentioned in my introduction above, I would mainly like to help with clearing deletion backlogs, especially at C:CSD. I spend a large amount of my free time adding to other peoples' workloads by tagging new articles for speedy deletion, so I would definitely appreciate the ability to cut into the backlogs that I've helped to create in the past.
Moreover, my experience with WP:AFD debates has increased my interest in closing AfDs, since I've developed a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy as it relates to the inclusion of articles. I'd like to involve myself in closing these debates, rather than simply voting on them, especially in cases that appear to approach WP:SNOW and the like - that is, where a clear consensus has already been developed.
Finally, I am a quick and eager learner, so would happily involve myself in any other activites needing particular attention at Category:Wikipedia backlog.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm quite happy with a number of my contributions to Wikipedia, especially in my work at articles such as Personal computer game (which is currently ongoing, with a number of major changes pending on the talk page), Digital Rights Management through my involvement with the Cleanup Task Force, and "minor" articles such as Point of information and Comedy debate.
Aside from those contributions, I'm very happy to help out in giving reviews (and posting editing statistics) for users at WP:ER, largely because it gives me a chance to promote valuable activities such as recent change patrolling that new and inexperienced users tend to neglect. I'm happy that I've been able to remain civil throughout my dealings with users under review, and always try to present suggestions as a means of improvement, rather than as a criticism, and with an appropriate level of explanation.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Oh, of course I have. Indeed, when I first came to Wikipedia ("for reals," this previous May) I came almost immediately into a conflict with User:Xino, which persisted for a number of weeks. My involvement in the dispute prompted me to check out Wikipedia's various Dispute Resolution processes, leading first to a request for a third opinion (responded to by the sadly-departed admin, Katefan0), and eventually to a Request for Arbitration. Xino was blocked shortly thereafter, although I'd have preferred for him to simply continue editing in a moderated way (he did contribute useful content, after all).
This very first conflict taught me a lot about the way we deal with disputes at Wikipedia. Since then, I have always attempted to disassociate myself from conflicts, in the sense that I keep in them perspective - they're disputes on a website, not personal attacks from close friends. With that mindset, I find that it's fairly easy to prevent myself from becoming offended by other users', and always try to walk away from conflicts when I realise that I've acted in error. I have done so in the past, and will continue to do so in the future: with a sense of perspective, I find that editing Wikipedia has remained consistently enjoyable throughout various conflicts during my time here.
Optional Question from Yanksox
4. Two Parts
Part A:You are an admin on NPP, and you encounter 5 pages which are:
      • This
        • This is tagged as db-bio, but does assert the notability of the individual - with that in mind, I'd first and foremost remove that tag. A quick Google search would then verify whether the basic assertion of the article is true (and that appears to be the case). From there, I would check that the article did not exist at Wikipedia (it doesn't appear to, from the very brief look I've taken), and then move the article to correct any spelling/capitalisation mistakes I can determine. Finally, I'd prod the original, for two reasons: first, Wikipedia doesn't need an infinite number of redirects from mistaken spellings and capitalisations in article names; second, there is no speedy tag for "typo in the name," and rightly so, so I'd prefer to let someone take a look at my nomination in greater detail before determining if the redirect should be deleted.
      • This
        • This article, I believe, deserves a db-bio tag (since it does fit the requirements of that tag, and asserts no notability). However, since the article is clearly written by a newbie to Wikipedia, I'd place a Test1article-n template on their talk page. I'd be particularly careful about this in the future, now that some editors have expressed concern about my over-eagerness to speedy articles and potentially bite the newbies.
      • This
        • The article's claim appears to hold up, which suggests to me that this page shouldn't be deleted - rather, I'd hold off the speedy tag, sort the stub to bio-stub or US-bio-stub (the latter appears to be correct), and provide a link to an article such as this assuming I could find one. Beyond that, I'd feel unqualified to contribute, so would leave the article alone.
      • This
        • This article was created by Yanksox, so I'm guessing it would be a good time to place a {{Userfy}} tag on the article, or else (if I were to find this exact article here) move the article to User:Yanksox's userspace, then tag the article with {{db-text}}. Finally, I'd tell the user about it on their talk page, linking to the userfied article.
      • This
        • Well, now, this looks to me rather like this. Of course, now that I've been told by folks such as CrazyRussian exactly why my actions at the latter article were incorrect, I'd take more care with this than in the past: I don't want to continue making the same silly mistakes. So, I'd stub it initially with {{russia-bio-stub}} and {{sports-bio-stub}}, Wikify it if necessary (and it appears to be, here), and then take a look for any links I'd feel confident in using to substantiate this article. In this case, since there don't appear to be many that I'd be comfortable using, I'd end my involvement in the article here.
What do you do with each page and why?
I've answered each of those five articles, but don't really have time at the moment to answer the second part of your question. I'll get back onto it after school, in around twelve hours. RandyWang (chat/patch) 21:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Part B: Do you believe that the critea at WP:CSD is the only critea that should exist for speedy deletion? Why or why not?
Thank you, Yanksox 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Assuming I've properly understood what you meant, I believe that the current criteria are sufficient. I would not like to see the current tags expanded to include more categories of page than they currently do, nor would I be happy for users to be encouraged to create their own. In particular, I never use db-reason in the course of newpage patrolling, and I don't believe that tag has much reason to exist - especially as a result of my own less-than-positive experience on my first day of patrolling, where I find admins are often happy to criticise newbies' mistakes without offering anything constructive. Rather than expand the criteria, I'd rather that people (including myself, obviously) learn to use them, for other users to properly explain their mistakes when they inevitably do screw up.
So, to clarify: I believe that the current tags are sufficient, and that db-reason doesn't appear to have much reason to exist. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that too little effort is made to explain the proper course of action to people when they make obvious mistakes. RandyWang (chat/patch) 08:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Helpful suggestion When I check new articles, I look to see if the contributor's talk page is a red link. If so, I drop a welcomeg on their page and then check their contribs. It not only welcomes them, but gives them another opportunity to understand Wikipedia guidelines. It also takes some of the sting out a little if there is a problem with their article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user RandyWang (over the 3073 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 427 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 23, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 11hr (UTC) -- 22, May, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 55.39 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 328 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3073 edits shown on this page and last 22 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.62% (19)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.63% (50)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.24% (745)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 15 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 66.21%
Special edit type statistics (as marked):
All edits to deletion pages: 9.7% (298 edit(s))
Identified XfD/DRV votes: 0.26% (8 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 1.37% (42 edit(s))
Edits to "copyright problems" pages: 0.13% (4 edit(s))
Edits to RfAs: 5.24% (161 edit(s))
Identified RfA votes: 0.26% (7 support vote(s)) || (1 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 1.2% (37 edit(s)) (19 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.46% (14 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 2.12% (65 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1606 | Average edits per page: 1.91 | Edits on top: 15.82%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 48.75% (1498 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 29.45% (905 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.57% (417 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 7.58% (233 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 38.17% (1173) | Article talk: 10.28% (316)
User: 8.72% (268) | User talk: 14.35% (441)
Wikipedia: 24.8% (762) | Wikipedia talk: 1.79% (55)
Image: 1.17% (36)
Template: 0.36% (11)
Category: 0.16% (5)
Portal: 0.07% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.13% (4)

Statistics for: RandyWang
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 3070 -
Main: 1179
Talk: 316
User: 268
User talk: 439
Wikipedia: 755
Wikipedia talk: 55
Image: 36
Image talk: 3
Template: 11
Template talk: 1
Category: 5
Portal: 2
-------------------
Total edits: 3070
w/ edit summary: 2946 (95.96%*)
w/ manual edit summary: 2816 (91.72%*)
Minor edits: 1003 (32.67%*)
First known edit: May 22, 2005
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------
Final (39/13/11)
Support
  1. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak support - I've been consistently impressed with all that I've seen this user do: his knowledge of policy, civility, and kindness are exemplary. His answers to the questions are also very good. Srose (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Update - changed to weak support in lieu of CrazyRussian's concern, although it doesn't trouble me too much - I've seen articles tagged within a minute of creation. Srose (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Support User:Bunchofgrapes (talk)
    Vote added by 205.188.116.67 (talk · contribs). - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak support, apparently a hard-working editor, but needs to be a bit more careful with the speedy tags. Kusma (討論) 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support good answers, oppose reasons currently seem rather trivial in my view.--Andeh 15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. switch to Weak support after edit conflict per Kusma. Of course, the times he was right do not show up in his contribs. :) Dlohcierekim 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Further rationale-- In his talk pages, he seems knowledgeable and articulate. I think the Xino affair shows he can handle conflict constructively. I believe if he takes a little more time to think things through he will make the right decisions. Also, with the delay between the time an article is tagged for speedy deletion and the time he'll get to it, the editor of the article will have been able to improve it out CSD criteria. A lot of new articles look like gibberrish. It is not practical when checking new articles to leave an article and then come back to it. If the creator can fix it before the admin deletes it or intends to, there is always the "hang on" tag. As an admin, he can compare the tagged version with the current one and then decide. :) Dlohcierekim 19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Rama's arrow 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. support «ct» (t|e) 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support - RandyWang does a great job as an editor reviewer. --Alex talk here 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support good article contributor; willing to deal with the perpetual speedy backlog. Opposes strike me as extremely picky. Everyone - newbie or not, "progressive saves" or not - should have the common sense not to post a blatantly inadequate article. Opabinia regalis 23:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry Opabinia, But we aren't all as bright as you. Sometimes the only guideline a newbie understands is BE BOLD. Newbies read, "don't worry, it's a Wiki." Next thing they know, they have a test 2 template on their talkpage. I can laugh about it, now, it was 9,000 edits ago. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Obviously I disagree with Opabinia. There are a number of good faith attempts to write articles that get tagged for deletion much too soon, which can be very discouraging. This afternoon, after making my earlier comments, I looked in at CSD and identified 6 articles that asserted plausible notability but were tagged A7. Four were saved but two were deleted, including an internationally known artist. The admins at CSD are an important second look and should be especially aware of the guidelines. I'm satisifed by Randy's answers to question 4 that he is aware of this and will be more careful. (Although I would call example 2 db-nonsense, and point out that while googling to establish notability is a nice extra and I would do it too, it is sufficient to replace a mis-tagged A7 with AfD or prod to give others a chance to look into it.) I had a conversation with an admin once who tried to speedy, prod and afd an article all less than 30 minutes after its first edit and while the author was working on it. He insisted it was not a case of biting because he never posted to the users talk page and his attempts to delete the article were "correcting a mistake" per policy. (It was kept after AfD.) I am glad to see Randy's willingness to think about this issue and not get defensive. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support it is very easy to get new pages patrol wrong - a absoloutely horrible new article can be about someone who is very notable. I trust that RandyWang will do some research into anything he comes accross in CAT:CSD and leave anything he is unsure about alone for another admin to deal with. ViridaeTalk 02:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support -- no reason not to --T-rex 03:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Are you mocking me? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think so. You have presented a diff, and people are free to give their own weightage to it. They can even dismiss it. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    No, I'm not mocking you. Should I be? --T-rex 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Weak Support Srose echoes my sentiments. That diff is from Crazyrussian is very telling, it puts me on the border of neutral, but everyone makes mistakes and it seems like ultimately no harm/no foul. Yankee Rajput 03:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    The only reason no harm was done is because those with a handle on notability policies removed the CSD tags from the articles. I agree that everyone makes mistakes, but inappropriately or prematurely tagging three articles hours before filing an RfA is a bit concerning to me hoopydinkConas tá tú? 09:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    By the same token of communication (as CrazyRussian has particularly noted), shouldn't those people have then informed me of my mistake on my talk page? I've never been informed of my mistake in the way that you suggest I should (and the way that intend to), and I suggest that the major reason for such screw-ups in the past is that WP:CSD isn't especially helpful to people unfamiliar with the process (particularly combined with responses to mistakes like this). Please remember that the administrators that currently keep watch over C:CSD don't appear to already abide by the suggestions you've made here, but that I fully intend to, now that I'm aware of my mistakes. RandyWang (chat/patch) 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Quick clarification: the above isn't a direct response to your statement. I'm aware of my mistakes (which I did not previously think of as such), and I hope I've demonstrated an improvement in judgement in my answers to Yanksox's questions, above. However, please bear in mind that I'm fully aware of these mistakes, and that I am determined to do better in the future. RandyWang (chat/patch) 09:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    It's a bit odd to expect one to alert you of your mistake when you, yourself do not leave messages to users whose articles you think should be speedied (not that I think either message should be necessary, as this is purely a voluntary effort). Sure, and I understand and appreciate that now this has been brought up during your RfA, you will take a bit more time to read the articles and the appropriate policy pages. Having said that, don't you think that you could use more experience before being granted the ability to actually delete articles and determine consensus appropriate to policies on AfD's? Half of your edits have come in the past month and most of the edits before this month have been lots and lots of stub sorting. This, coupled with the fact that you mainly plan on closing AfD's and dealing with the CSD backlog upon becoming an administrator, leads me to believe that your self-nom is a bit premature. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 11:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well, then, to clarify: would the actions I suggested in answer to Yanksox's question, above, be appropriate as a basis for future actions, in your opinion? RandyWang (chat/patch) 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    (outdent) Sure, I think that your answer to Yanksox' question (which, by the way was great as it was a rather detailed answer and an optional task) would be appropriate for a non-admin doing NPP. Since Yanksox asked what you would do in those situations if you were an administrator, I think that one would do things a little bit differently, but I understood that you approached it from a non-admin perspective and agree with the courses of action that you took with the examples. You took ample time to go over the question and really give each article it's due, which is great, but not something you seem to do when you're actually doing NPP. If you can demonstrate that you'll treat NPP the way you did Yanksox' question for a while, I would probably support your request for adminship at a later date. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    Excellent, thanks for the response. As I said on your talk page, I'll definitely keep this in mind. RandyWang (chat/patch) 10:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed. If you can get the (relatively) minor objections here worked out and put them into practice for a while, I suspect you'll sail through next time. -- nae'blis 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support as my standards met. Civil and helpful to boot. Ifnord 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support I understand the concerns raised by the oppose !voters, but for the most part, I like RandyWang's record. He has offered to work on backlogs that the current 990 admins have yet to tackle. We need RandyWang, and if he makes the occasional mistake, another admin can always reverse it. I'm convinced Randy has taken the comments by oppose !voters as a warning, and will be more careful in the future. -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support bright, levelheaded and a nice guy to boot. -- Samir धर्म 17:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support trending to weak support Sound knowledge of policy, always civil and good answers to questions. But I sincerely hope you take the oppose voters concerns seriously. Good contributions and a helpful, friendly guy. All the best, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 00:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support I agree with Tariq. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support - a very friendly, civil and insightful editor. I notice some of the people complaining about his janitorial services to CSD don't do anything of the sort, but prefer the "glamour work" which count towards their edits (as CSD's don't, if the article is deleted) - maybe they should get out and try to get their hands dirty (in the proverbial), rather than sitting back and picking out a buch of isolated diffs to base an oppose against a user who thoroughly deserves the mop. Daniel.Bryant 06:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    I respect your opinion of the candidate and feel that perhaps you should do the same of others'. Furthermore, the diffs provided were not isolated in the least. They were examples of misusing the CSD tag many times just hours before filing an RfA. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support with a couple of reservations - the cases of "shoot from the hip" with NPP patrol worry me, but surely he's learned his lesson from the criticisms below. I'm not too bothered by the username but suggest he give thought to some kind of slight modification (though I'm not sure what to suggest). Metamagician3000 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support per above. Michael 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. — FireFox (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2006
  23. Strong Support. I appreciate the diffs provided by the opposing folks below. At the same time, it's clear Randy has learned from his mistakes. He meets my 2K edit and civility requirements, and from my interactions with him, he's friendly and knowledgeable. Also, given our current huge Admin backlogs, and NoSeptember's recent data confirming the backlogs will continue to grow larger exponentially as fewer admins are promoted each month, there is no reason IMO, to oppose this user's RFA.Firsfron of Ronchester 11:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support RandyWang is one of the best users I've come across on Wikipedia: his attitude towards everyone on Wikipedia, particuarly fairly new users, is impeccable. In addition, RandyWang is always well-mannered, helpful and well-conducted. In my opinion, he'll make one of the best Admins around. Anthony 16:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (Talk to me)
  25. Support An interesting character, he seems to bring much life into Wikipedia. People Powered 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Weak support moved from neutral, after the discussion since my neutral I'm fairly convinced that you've learned your lesson about the deletion stuff and hence addressed the only concerns I had that caused me to go neutral. Good luck :) --james(talk) 02:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Weak Support per James. Cyde brings up a good point as well though, the name does make me laugh, I think that put me above neutral. Just H 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Weak support per Dlohcierekim, Opabinia regalis (with whom I don't entirely agree but whose assessment of some of the opposes as reflecting unnecessarily stringent RfA criteria I join), and Firsfon, and consistent with my RfA guidelines. Joe 03:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Strong Support. He's a good user, level-headed. Shakespeare once said - "What's there in a name?". Also, Crzrussian's concerns are quite valid, but I think Randy will be careful from now on. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support: Even one of earliest pages created by me was deleted - that did not deter me: a real wikipedian is a wikipedian from birth and he/she does require support where support is not required. This has nothing to do with biting or hugging! --Bhadani 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Constructive, helpful, and gives constructive criticism where needed. I hope he passes. --TheM62Manchester 17:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Support.--Andeh 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Note: Duplicate vote --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong support I great user, sure he has done some things wrong, but who hasn't? ILovePlankton 22:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. --Ligulem 09:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Strong user, has not committed any egregious policy violations, and I have no rea son to believe he would do so at any point in the future. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support In two minds about this at one point, but Randy is a good, solid contributor who, I believe, can help this project with the tools. I also feel the concerns over his username are unwarented. Good luck Randy. Thε Halo Θ 13:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Began a review of contributions, found this from earlier this morning. Unacceptable laxity - and biting to boot. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not ready to make a final determination, but this was a speedy deletion nomination on an article that was only 3 minutes old, and he did not try to contact the author who is a newbie. One of my pet peeves and a red flag for me. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    People just need to remember to do new page patrol from the bottom. The top only needs to be checked for WP:CSD#A6 pages, everything else violates WP:BITE. I don't disagree with the speedy tag on the article in question, though. It is about a player who plays in a club that we don't even have an article about. Kusma (討論) 14:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    It's the 3 minutes and lack of talk contact that bother me, not the article content in this specific case. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Have you ever actually done newpage patrol? There are thousands of new articles every few hours... we can't really keep up with them even under the current practice, if we were required to wait for a reply from the creator (owner?) of the article to do anything, things would be even worse. That said, the article clearly asserts importance (even if arguably dubious) and adding a speedy tag was not good. Newpage patrolling only works if you have a clear grasp of what can and can't be speedied. We're not just sweeping things under the rug. Not sure if the candidate should be opposed over one db-bio though. --W.marsh 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    He didn't know that in three minutes. It took me longer to find the links. Besides, Gaelic football turns out to be wildly underrepresented, but All-Ireland Senior Club Football Championship does say that Nemo Rangers won it in 02-03. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    First, thanks for pointing that out - I hadn't realised I'd bitten a newbie, and I'll try to keep my wits about me for such transgressions in the future. I was careless with this one, especially in light of this subsequent edit by User:ERcheck, which I didn't see until now. I've left the user in question a note on his talk page about it, and will certainly take more care to communicate with such users in the future. RandyWang (chat/patch) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    In fact, of the 8 most recent {{db}}'s I can find in your contributions, all of them were tagged 2 minutes or less after their first edit, with no user talk, and many were newbies. (In a couple of cases you talked with the author after s/he contested the speedy). I may continue this on the talk page. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for a few reasons. First, the diff provided by Crzrussian shows a lack of understanding of very basic notability policies. For those unfamiliar with Gaelic football and it's representation on Wikipedia, playing in the All-Ireland Cup is a very big deal. While the sport and its athletes are undercovered on Wikipedia, there are at least 100 articles on footballers and managers. What's more is that Seán O'Brien was already on Wikipedia as a redlink here. This is especially concerning if the user wants to use the admin buttons to deal with the CSD backlog and close AfD's. Also, half of the candidate's edits have been made in the past month. This leads me to believe that this RfA is a bit premature and the candidate would do well to have some more experience hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    The candidate also attempted to speedy Burger Geldenhuys, the most capped player on the Blue Bulls and Hashem Zaidan an international professional basketball player. All of these misplacements occured today. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose I keep running into instances where the speedy tag was misapplied in Randy's edits. I need an admin who understands speedy deletes better than I do. That way when I misapply a tag, they can remove it and tell where I went wrong instead of deleting the article. :) Dlohcierekim 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    I would also like to see more AfD work. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Some difs of articles (that weren't speedied) would be helpful please.--Andeh 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Check out the articles I provided (as well as Nenagh Éire Óg GAA, which the candidate also attempted to speedy today). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, it was this revision which was tagged and I don't blame Randy for it. It looks copied and pasted from somewhere and also note this part "Burger Geldenhuys was a tough player but will probably always be remembered for punching the NZ Cavaliers captrain".--Andeh 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    About the tagging of Hashem Zaidan, he tagged the revision - "Qatari Center who is 6'10" and is a very good rebounder. He is considered to be the tallest player on Qatar's roster." I'm sorry but I've never heard of 'Qatar's Roster'. If the edit linked to the team or said they were are professional basket ball player then it would be describing their notability.--Andeh 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Tagging of Nenagh Éire Óg GAA looks fine to me.--Andeh 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    A club that plays in front of 60,000 fans regularly is non-notable? hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Where is that in the article?--Andeh 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    The articles were pretty skimpy and hindsight is 20-20. :) Dlohcierekim 15:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    All the more reason to wait a few minutes and give users a chance to add content. Not everyone (including myself) creates full articles in their sandbox and then transfers them to mainspace. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose (moved to Neutral) - we cannot bite the newbies for using progressive saves. New Pages Patrol is not Whack-a-mole. -- nae'blis 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose. While qaulity on WP is now more important than quantity, lets at least give some new crappy (but not total vandal garbage) pages a shot. Cleanup tag them, and keep an eye on them, then consider deletion tagging. Having your new page deleted when you may have just not finished is very discouraging.Voice-of-All 03:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Obviously a dedicated user, but as I went through the contribs I found more mis-applications of the CSD tag. Other contribs indicate a lack of nuance when it comes to new articles and new users. I'm sure he'll get there but at the moment I wouldn't like to see him with an unreviewed access to the delete button. Rx StrangeLove 05:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose I've seen him around on AfD, but repeated misuse of CSD tags strikes me as newbie biting. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Please take a look at my answer to the second part of Yanksox's question (#4), above. It's one thing to bite the newbies, but quite another to an act in a way that one does not realise could be construed as such. In the course of my activity at newpage patrol I had never been told that my approach was lax, nor had any particular reason to think it was: I was, as far as I could tell, doing what I was supposed to. Now that I know better, of course I'm very determined to do better. RandyWang (chat/patch) 08:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose regretfully. Seems like a dedicated and hard-working editor, but his use of speedy tags bothers me. I don't like the idea of tagging new articles within a minute of creation, at all. It strikes me as a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, which can result in harmful mistakes given admin tools. Clearly from an example like Comedy debate, RandyWang produces a fairly fleshed out article on the first edit, but he has not created that many articles to understand the writing process very well (at least according to the Created/Uploaded area on his userpage). I do appreciate his response above to Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh, but RfA is not necessarily the best place to recognize and amend behavior. I'd rather see some ongoing evidence of it, and then reapply at a later date. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    To some degree this is a function of NPP subculture, and I'm not sure we should hold Randy responsible for the sins of the masses. (It would be very interesting if this develops into a general move against the RFAs of all aggressive NPPers.) I think Randy shows a willingness to learn from the concerns expressed here, but I don't disagree with the validity of your viewpoint. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Some aggressive NPPers are more aggressive than others. I was an aggressive NPPer in my day, was warned a few times by CSD-declining sysops (a long time ago), and internalized the lesson that deletion of other people's work is serious business. I am willing to posit that there are other aggressive NPPers to whom these concerns do not extend. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    I guess I'm saying two things. A) the admin is the last line of defense, and are we confident that Randy has absorbed our concerns or do we want to wait for proof-in-action; and B) should we look this closely at all NPPers who come up for RFA (judging individually of course). Thatcher131 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Per your username. Wikipedia administrators represent the project to some unofficial extent, and I'm not comfortable with someone named "RandyWang" doing administrative actions that could be picked up on by reporters and then used to portray us in a negative light. Luckily Wikipedia:Changing username is just down the hall. --Cyde Weys 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    google:randy+wang. There is nothing offensive about this username. ~ PseudoSudo 20:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Reply I've been active at RfA for over a month, been involved in an ArbCom case and come into contact with numerous administrators, but you are the first to have ever expressed concern with my name. RandyWang (chat/patch) 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Would it be inappropriate to ask if that is your last name? -- nae'blis 21:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    No, it's not. As noted on my userpage, neither "Randy" nor "Wang" appear in my real name. RandyWang (chat/patch) 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Apologies, this isn't on my userpage anymore. My mistake. RandyWang (chat/patch) 00:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    Cyde Weys is correct that the name could mean "lustful penis" in the slang of some countries, e.g. Australia and probably the the UK - but it wouldn't have occurred to me if he hadn't pointed it out. I don't think it's a big problem, and it could be solved by varying the name in some slight way. I'll be making up my mind on other grounds. Metamagician3000 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    We're not talking about 'Seymour Butts' here. There are arguably thousands of people alive born Randy Wang. Any reporter who could muster enough guts to publish an article poking fun at the name would be seen as incredibly insensitive. ~ PseudoSudo 06:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    (de-indent) It was a joke to start with (.. four years ago), but honestly, I can't imagine it'd be much worse thanm Dick Assman - and the media's reaction to his name was hardly unfavourable. RandyWang (chat/patch) 09:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    A Randy means - "prostitute" in Hindi, and if we are going to worry about names on Wikipedia - its a sad day. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    The eight-year-old within me still thinks it's a funny joke, but I'm quite happy to change my name if people are going to oppose on that basis (after this RfA, of course). Daveydweeb, my second choice and actual nickname, doesn't appear to be taken. RandyWang (chat/patch) 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Now that's a clear violation of WP:BEANS. =) Someone will come around and register that username. :P --Nearly Headless Nick 14:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Again and again I seem to take things too seriously. ~ PseudoSudo 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I really don't think it shows good judgement to have 5 db tag placements in a 20 minute span in your contribution history, since those articles obviously weren't deleted. I'd expect an admin to be less hasty in his decisions, since that will lead to someone else having to do more work. You might've just been caught at a bad time since I can't find a similar spree earlier on your history, and I'd probably support in the future if you fix that problem. - Bobet 20:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per User:Crzrussian's painstaking research on the user. --Ageo020 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    You really are mocking me. I provided one diff, for crying out loud! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Unilateral actions do not belong on Wikipedia juppiter talk #c 08:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose A good editor, but I am concerned about speedy tagging issues. I would likely change to neutral following a change of username. While it's true that there are real people named Randy Wang, the nominee is not one of them, so what we have is essentially a Seymour Butts situation. It's not offensive, but I do share Cyde's concern above. ×Meegs 13:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Improper CSD tagging suggests lack of familiarity with policy and process. Xoloz 16:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Weak Oppose per Juppiter. Georgian Jungle 23:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose. I agree with Cyde about the name. It might seem ridiculous to nitpick about names, but given how easy it is to pick a new name if somone points out that the name is rather suboptimal, I don't understand why the candidate doesn't simply state here he will pick another name. This would be really no big deal. Please read WP:CHU. --Ligulem 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support --Ligulem 09:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps you missed this diff? I intend to change my username as soon as this RfA is finished. RandyWang (chat/patch) 09:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed. Thanks. I missed that. Changed to support ;-). --Ligulem 09:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral leading towards support. Some of the speedy deletion tags are used in articles which have some notable content in them. His lack of basic notablility policies is also a concern. But his civility and kindness is outstanding, which cannot be ignored. I also wish to state that users also learn from their mistakes as well (in reference to the speedy deletion tags). Might change to support in the future if this comes very close. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Siva.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - Crzrussian has a point, but I really can't blame RandyWang for it. However, it is a self-nom, which although showing guts, requires higher standards. May change to weak support later, depending on his answers to Yanksox's questions and such. Good luck though, Zapptastic (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, leaning towards Support, per involvement in the new page patrol. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral—excessive zeal in deletion patrols as pointed out by Crzrussian is to be discouraged. Very dedicated though—and with a commitment to more thoughtful reviews, I'd willingly support. Will watch and may change to support if compelling arguments develop. Williamborg (Bill) 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral leaning weak support. – Chacor 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral leaning weak support... CrazyRussian's diff (and what looks to be a slight tendency to be a little too quick to delete) concerns me, but other great contributions mean that I'm not willing to opposed over a couple of isolated incidents. I'd also love to see a bit more experience (~700 WP: edits but what looks like a misunderstanding of notability guidelines). Would definitely support in a couple of months. Keep up the great work :) --james(talk) 07:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Moved to support. --james(talk) 02:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. I know RandyWany is a top quality and good natured contributor, but given the concerns raised by Crzrussian, I would prefer RandyWang spend a couple of more months familiraizing studying the notability norms, participating in xfDs, and being more carful with speedy deletion tagging before getting the mop.-- danntm T C 03:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian - Talk 15:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral, leaning to support. I'm not too bothered by the Crazy Russian's concern. While the nominee is certainly hasty with the speedy deletes, it seems he is being held to account for the many, many other editors who are guilty of the same behaviour. Therefore, that issue has little to do with my position. I just think this editor is still a little green and could use a bit of brushing up on his policy knowledge. I'll very likely support the next time around. Agent 86 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral per above. Yanksox 16:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Moved to Neutral from Oppose - I'm confident that he's absorbed the lesson about speedying new articles, but still not confident enough in his experience to support. -- nae'blis 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral— I really, really hate newby biting. If someone is going to perform AfD patrol, they really should be willing to take the time to review the originator. One suspects the problem is right here on the RfA page; people realize that to get accepted they must generate good statistics (churn). But a superficial read of a AfD leads one to concern that the same attention will be focused on admin activity. Williamborg (Bill) 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's your second Neutral, buddy. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    Must be a "Strong neutral". —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 28 August 2006 (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.