Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scott5114

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.

Contents

[edit] Scott5114

FINAL (17/13/3); withdrawn by candidate[1] at 07:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Scott5114 (talk · contribs) - Scott5114 has been a longstanding and exemplary member of Wikipedia since 2005, with over 8,000 edits. Since then, he has become an essential contributor to WP:USRD and WP:OKSH. He has performed many tasks relating to assessment, maps, and shields for these projects. In addition to this, he has contributed to Kansas Turnpike, a WP:FA. He is a civil user and has an empty block log. I believe that Scott5114 would be an excellent administrator. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you. I accept this nomination. —Scott5114↗ 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My focus would probably be on clearing administrative backlogs. One that I'd probably focus on often would be the copied-to-Commons categories. I've done new page patrol in the past, so I'm familiar with the speedy deletion criteria and would be likely to help out clearing those too. Vandal-fighting is not really my forte, however - I'd probably not do much blocking unless it was particularly egregious vandalism that happened to hit my watchlist.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The two recognized articles I've contributed to are Kansas Turnpike, which is an FA, and Oklahoma State Highway 74, which is currently a GA. The Kansas Turnpike article took about a year's worth of work, collaborating with User:SPUI, which was a lot of fun. Currently, I'm in the process of improving all of the Oklahoma state highway articles to B-Class (or greater!), about three-fourths or so I wrote originally.
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 ever been in an intense edit war. The only editing conflicts that I've been in have been large-scale, involving much of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. The two most notable instances are the WP:SRNC debacle, which I was only tangentially involved in, and the recent debate over whether "decommission" was a neologism. In that debate, I think if I were to do it all over again, I would call the Mediation Cabal in earlier, because the mediator that took the case did an excellent job getting everyone to calm down and come to the table to discuss the situation.
Optional questions from O (talk)
4. Explain how you would deal with a BLP dispute in this scenario: there is some content in an article that is libellous and biased to some but perfectly fine to others. It appears extremely libellous to you. What do you do?
A: I would probably move the content to the talk page (removing it from the article) so that it could be worked on to reach a version that everyone involved agrees is more neutral version. That would remove the section from the eye of casual readers and Google, but allow it to be improved to a point that it could be re-added to the article.
5. If you find an article which has been blanked or deleted quoting OTRS, and the person who created the article would like it restored as they contend there is no problem with the article. What actions will you take to either follow OTRS or the article creator?
A: My first course of action would be to find out more about the nature of the OTRS action, such as who was responsible for fulfulling it and their reasons for doing so. I would then attempt to explain the situation to the editor (presuming, of course, the OTRS action was valid) and, if I felt that I couldn't adequately explain it, put them in touch with the OTRS person that handled the request.
Follow-up: When you are explaining the situation to the user, what is the most appropriate venue to do so? Be as specific as possible.
A: It would depend upon the method they used to contact me. If it was through user talk pages, that would be how I would respond. Contact with the OTRS member should he handled depending on the specifics of the case, as the OTRS member may have sensitive information that shouldn't be publicly divulged.—Scott5114↗ 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
6. What do you do when you come across a user who has an excessively long signature, or one which may look offensive or shocking to others?
A:Probably leave a note on their talk page requesting they change it. If they refused, I'd probably leave a note on the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page to verify that other people share the same opinion as I do. (Offensiveness is often in the eye of the beholder, and there always exists the possibility that perhaps I'm just missing something.) Then, I'd probably give a short block if the user was still unwilling to change it. If the user persisted afterward, I'd issue a longer block.
7. You are involved in an arbitration case, in which involved disputes over an external links section, a whole lot of personal attacks, and misuse of admin tools. You give your input, and get attacked on your talk page. How would you handle the situation after getting attacked?
A: I'd do my best to brush it off. Responding to personal attacks seldom gets you anywhere – why give the attacker the satisfaction?
8. Do WikiProjects own the articles they keep an eye out for? Why or why not?
A: WikiProjects do not own the articles by any means, though setting and enforcing standards on the articles under their care is certainly within their bounds. Any editor can and should be able to edit any article no matter what WikiProject it falls under.
9. Would you use admin rollback on article edits that violated a couple of policies and guidelines? Why or why not? If not, what is another appropriate action you could take?
A: Not admin rollback. Manual reversion with a proper edit summary is better in this case. All opportunities should be made to reach the editor to inform them of the guidelines, including talk pages and even HTML comments within the article. Policy infractions should be handled in the manner which the policy prescribes and established precedent, of course.

Strictly Optional question by DarkFalls

10. Take a look at User:DarkFalls/Fair-use test 1. Please identify the problems (if any) with each rationale, and discuss how to fix it. Which of these images have the most severe flaw with rationale? Which has no flaws?
A: I'm going to assume that these all refer to the same file. In that case, the most severe flaw would be Example 2, which has the false assumption that creation of the file means that you hold the copyright and thus can release it to the PD. Example 1 should go into detail on the purpose of use (like Example 3), and the "Other Information" field should probably contain information that relates more to the copyright/licensing situation (also like Example 3). I think Example 3 is the unflawed example, as it gives the most information and is most specific. Examples 4, 5, and 6 are missing the standard template (though I don't feel that should be grounds for the file's deletion by any means - but the template would be an improvement). #4 also lists reasons that don't match with the "required components" of the relevant policies. #5 is horribly vague and doesn't include any of the required components. Example 6 doesn't include the competition and purpose components. —Scott5114↗ 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
11: As a follow-up question, which images will you delete out of the examples given?
A: None of them. I would try to fix the fair use rationales before deleting, if possible, because in most cases it'd only take about five minutes of my time. My opinion is that only in cases where the content itself goes against policy (that is, unnecessary fair use images) should it be deleted. —Scott5114↗ 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

12. Do you find this amusing? http://lolinator.com/lol/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship/Scott5114
A: RFA in lolcat? Definitely amusing! Maybe that's the solution to "fix" RFA that everyone's been missing. :P

Optional question from Balloonman

13. Wikipedia has established 4 key policies related to article content that every administrator should know. What are they? Why are they important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A: WP:BLP, because incorrect information in biographical articles can have negative effects on living people (e.g. the Seigenthaler incident); WP:NPOV, a foundation issue because Wikipedia is collaborative, and allowing biased articles would cause hopeless edit warring and disagreement; WP:V, because to be a reliable encyclopedia, articles must be able to be cross-referenced; and WP:NOR, because original research is often a fringe view (usually not NPOV-compliant) and is not verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott5114 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is why people are so concerned about your answer to number 4. BLP isn't a random guideline/essay that we can choose to ignore, it is one of the four key policies concerning article content.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
And he implied this where? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Another question by DarkFalls

14. As of now, do you stand by your previous views of BLP? If not, please demonstrate your current understanding of the policy.
A: I certainly feel different about the importance of BLP. I remember hearing about the creation of the policy but did not closely follow the discussion at the time and thus grossly underestimated its importance. Unquestionably, whenever there is badly sourced or otherwise contentious information about a living person in an article, it should be removed. Unquestionably. My answer to question four only applies if and only if the specific situation described in the question comes up. In that context, where the bias of the passage in question is disputed, I stand by my answer. Should I get the tools, that does not automatically make my opinion hold more weight than others'.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Scott5114 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

The content cites this notice from Jimbo in the footnotes. As an added note, the content above has not changed since the start of this RfA (see this previous version for verification). My apologies if this seems heavy-handed or out of place, but given that this is going to be a particularly contentious point in this discussion, I thought it best to take the initiative and put it up here at the top so that commenters on both sides could readily verify the content. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I did say that I would remove the content from the article, but considering the circumstances presented in the question (some editors do not feel it is biased), I felt it would be best to have the content moved to the talk page in order to work out a version of the text that would be agreeable to all parties involved. This is regardless of my own feelings on the content, because the possibility always exists that I may be wrong or not interpreting the passage in the manner it was intended when it was written. —Scott5114↗ 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
And you were right to say it. You said it because you're not a tyrant. I just assumed that we resolved controversies through discussion around here. While I understand that an encyclopedia is no place for unsourced material, I'm disappointed to see such a noble position used as a basis to oppose your application. I would never fault anyone for saying that they would seek consensus or encourage debate on a user-edited encyclopedia. Perhaps Wikipedians care more about the letter of the law than the intention behind your statement. DOSGuy (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
BLP only mentions stuff related to actions on-wiki. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:19, 28 November 2007 (GMT)

A lot of people seem to have jumped the gun here. The question never specified whether the contentious material is sourced or not. If it appears libelous to some editors but not to others but is properly attributed to a reliable source, should it be "removed immediately and without discussion"? --Polaron | Talk 15:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the objections to the answer to the BLP question. BLP merely states that such material can and should be removed without discussion. Not that we should never ever talk about whether contentious material should be included in an article or not. I might, for example, remove the content and then go to the talk page and write "I removed a statement that said blah blah libel. Unless someon can produce a source for this claim, it should not be in the article." Trying to turn BLP into some sort of blanket ban on even talking about contentious biographical information is misguided, in my mind. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to me, and as I have then deduced, there is a logical fallacy in most of the oppose votes to Scott. "Scott does not know about BLP" does not necessarily mean that "Scott will be a bad admin." The logical fallacy of excluded middle is being used here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but a lot of people look for any excuse to oppose a candidate. They want the bar set impossibly high, and care more about the memorization of policy than the goodwill and talent of the candidate. I don't know Scott, and I have no personal stake in his application. I just can't stand hypocrisy. Scott is human and, like every other Administrator, he is imperfect. He might even, God forbid, make a mistake. Hands up, Admins, if you've never made a mistake. Anyone? And when you made that mistake, did someone fix it, point it out, and did you learn from it? The nice thing about Wikipedia is that anything that can be done can be undone. It's almost as though someone had the foresight to recognize that no one's perfect! Does Scott have a woefully inadequate grasp of Wikipedia's policies? Certainly not. Would Scott ever abuse the rules on purpose? I don't think so. Will he try his best to learn all of Wikipedia's policies? I believe he will. Will he read the policy page before he takes action on a matter that he's unfamiliar with? Will he ask other Administrators for help? Will he learn how to be a great Admin? I don't see any reason why not. He is experienced, he has made a lot of edits, shown a willingness to take on additional responsibilities, and I believe that he has the character to responsibly use Administrator privileges. Nobody's perfect, and I really hate to see a good candidate tossed out because people have set an unrealistic ideal for what an Admin should be. An Admin should be doing all of the things that Scott is doing and, unfortunately, an Admin will be human. Perhaps those of you who decided to Oppose based solely on #4 would like to reconsider? DOSGuy (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No the concern is that Scott showed no understanding of wikipolicy in any of his answers---especially but not limited to the one concerning BLP. All of his answers were weak. Those answers are often the first impression people have of a candidate---thus, it is his opportunity to show mastery of a subject. Yes, many of the questions could be enhanced, but that being said, those are the questions where the candidate can demonstrate his mastery of the topic. Those are the options where he could show how he would analyze the scenario and evaluate the appropriate response. For example, question 4 did not indicate if the subject was cited or not. If it was cited, then that could potentially change the response. If it was cited, how reliable is the citation? Nor did it indicate if the statement was attributed to another party, again that could potentially change the response. But Scott didn't delve into these options. The question is vague and can be read in several different ways. But that is an opportunity for the candidate to demonstrate his analytical abilities. Scott didn't do that. He gave a short answer, without asking the questions that needed to be asked. While question 4 is the one that is of most concern, Scott didn't do that with any of the questions. If Scott had knocked the other questions out of the park, his answer to 4 might have been overlooked. Unfortunately, he didn't. I'm sorry that this RfA is in jeapardy, but one's RfA is a time to put your best foot forward. I honestly don't believe Scott did that here. He was provided with a link, and didn't bother to read the policy before responding. If he isn't going to read the policy, when a link is provided, how likely is it that he will take the extra effort to research an issue after getting the tools? Again, I would strongly recommend that he go through Admin coaching (from somebody who is not familiar with him) and coming back in a few months.Balloonman (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a position I can respect. Statements like "Oppose per #4" were flimsy. I'd just like to say that if Scott's RfA fails, that I encourage him to go through Admin coaching and try again. We all want what's best for Wikipedia, and I want Scott to be the best candidate he can possibly be. He has good intentions and maturity. If he's not ready yet, let's make him ready. DOSGuy (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not personal. I've never encountered Scott before, and based upon the support votes that I see below, I have no reason to believe that he doesn't have the temperment to be an admin. (He has garnered respect, in my eyes, in how he has handled the criticism leveled here.) I have no doubt that WHEN he runs again, he will be better prepared for the RfA. I hope to be able to support him at that time.Balloonman (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support as nom --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Good editing on articles about roads. NHRHS2010 talk 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I've found that in my time working with Scott, this user has been a fair arbiter in heated debates that have popped up within the USRD community. From that, I believe that this user would handle other situations outside of USRD well. That aside, from my personal experience of working with this user, I believe the said user has a fairly good knowledge of how the entire encyclopedia works, and is worthy of being an admin. Hence my reason for supporting this RfA. --Son (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Scott is unquestionably one of the best and most dedicated editors that I've had the pleasure of working with at USRD. What has impressed me the most is his ability to remain calm in even the most fiery of discussions, an absolute must for an admin. Due to the nature of USRD, by participating in the project and the various XFDs, Portals, and subprojects, an editor learns about the inner workings of Wikipedia very quickly, and I believe Scott knows his way around Wikipedia very well. I see no reason not to give him the mop. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 09:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Will make a good admin. Epbr123 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. A good, decent editor who can be trusted. Meets my standards for syops, has reasonable (if imperfect) answers to questions above, and has no red flags. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Those opposing per the answer to Q4 are being rather unfair. The candidate is trying to describe how he intends to continue to foster the community discussion aspect that is so central to Wikipedia. The question explicitly says that the material does not appear libelous to some, and as such, if it has any possible merit, it absolutely should be discussed on the talk page, but not, as the candidate correctly notes, in the article. The question also fails to note whether the information in question has any possible sourcing that could corroborate it. It looks like people are jumping at the chance to oppose this quality candidate. GlassCobra 17:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I agree with GlassCobra on the opposition on the merits of his answer to Q4. Also - even though situations like what the questions describe come up and should be tested on for qualifications, everyone - admin or not - will run into such situations and will need to know what is the best course of action to take. Yes - Adminship is not a reward, but this RFA is not about that. Scott has handled himself in well situations that were escallated from what I've experienced working with him. Before opposing one's nominations think about all of the possibilities that might be of light in this nomination. based on that - I don't see Scott as one that would be likely to abuse his priviledges of adminship. master sonT - C 17:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Keepscases (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Seems to be a good editor and I feel this user would make a great Admin. Dustihowe (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support He has been a wikipedian since 2005, with much experience. I haven't seen him in any conflicts, and he has been a huge help to WP:USRD. He will make a great admin. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Support I don't know why so many people are being critical of #4. If it was a clear cut case, that would be one thing, but the question states that some people don't consider the material to be libellous. Since the situation is contentious, the proper thing to do is to open the floor to discussion. We don't want dictators who remove content because they think the material is inappropriate when there are others who think the content is perfectly fine! Wikipedia is a user-contributed encyclopedia made up of a community of equals, so we really have no choice but to approve content by consensus. Anyone who doesn't understand that should not be an Admin. That was an outstanding answer from a longtime contributor, and a great many people have vouched for your character. I would be proud to have you as an Admin. DOSGuy (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Reluctantly changed my vote.
  13. Support We have some hideous backlogs here and anyone who is volunteering to tackle them should be welcome. Scott has has shown himself to be a good editor. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Some of the opposition have some relevant arguments, although I don't think the user will abuse the admin tools. If this passes, I am sure Scott will take it slowly, and only use the tools that he feels comfortable using. His answer to #1 is a good indication that he will do so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - the only concern is the understanding of BLP issues, and I would imagine by now the below opposition has resolved that. Neil ☎ 10:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - Strong editor - Always a great guy to work with. In USRD, he's supposedly next in line. :) Mitch32contribs 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - good editor, deserves sysop tools. Good luck.   jj137 ♠ Talk 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose the answers to the questions show a lack of understanding of Wikipolicy. Particularly 4, 6, and 8. Question 4 indicated no familiarity with WP:BLP which states, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." (emphasis in policy) Question 6- he didn't even mention RFC name. Question 8 he implies that the project sets the standards for the pages under it's purview. The various wiki-projects do not enforce anything. The standards they set are only good insofar as they represent the views of the participants of the project. If a project were to declare that general notability guidelines do not apply to their project and that anybody from their target arena was worthy of an article then the rest of the Wikiworld can override the project.Balloonman (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    If the WikiProject standards cannot be enforced, then what is the good of a WikiProject? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    WikiProject standards represent the views of those people who participate in the project. They can help give guidance to the wider commuity that may not be as intimiately familiar with the subject, but the standards provided by a project cannot override those of wikipedia itself. They are merely guides issued by people who are interested in the subject.Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Your stance seriously undermines the purpose of the WikiProject. Why have rules if noone will follow them? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    No, Wikiprojects cannot override Wiki-policy. If an article is up for AFD, the people at the AFD may refer to the appropriate wikiproject, but they are not required to adhere to the guidance of the project. Wikiprojects do not establish policy. Wikiprojects DO NOT enforce rules---a perfect example is AFD. If the participants at a Wikiproject thought an article needed to be deleted, they don't have the ability to delete it. If an admin associated with the project deleted it without going through the proper steps, the article could be recreated and a complaint lodged against the admin. They are expected to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Generally, people outside of a project will defer to the people who are more knowledgable about the subject, but that is assuming that the project adheres to the overarching policies. For example, suppose that WP:Christianity decided that all articles under their umbrella should use the BC/AD convention. That's fine and good for them to say so, but that would be against existing policies concerning dates. And then how do you handle it when an article falls under the purvue of two wikiprojects that have differing views? Balloonman (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    However, when WikiProjects do not conflict with Wiki-policy, then the standards should be enforceable. That is what I believe Scott means. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    It may be what Scott wanted to say, but his answer was very weak. When responding to optional questions, he should remember this is his time to shine. It is his chance to show people that he not only knows and understands wikipolicy, but knows how to look it up and articulate it when asked a question he isn't familiar with. People are asking questions that matter to them. By giving inaccurate (question 4) or incomplete (question 8) answers, he fails to demonstrate his understanding of Wikipedia. With the exception of the question about images (number 10?) , none of his answers demonstrated a familiarity with Wikipolicy. RFA is like an interview, you want to make yourself look as good as you possibly can. I would recommend that Scott go through admin coaching and return in 3 months.Balloonman (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    You still have not demonstrated how his answer was incorrect. Furthermore, you assumed that Scott meant that WikiProject guidelines were above Wikipedia guideline. This is jumping to conclusions. My concern regarding number 8 is that many esteemed editors do hold teh same values that Scott and I do, and there is nothing wrong with that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    And I quote, "setting and enforcing standards on the articles under their care is certainly within their bounds." Setting standards is not within their bounds. Enforcing standards is certainly not within their bounds. At best, the answer he gave is incomplete and needed to be elaborated upon. At worse, it is incorrect. Wikiprojects help bring like minded people together to help them establish consensus, but it does not give them guardianship over specified articles. The normal avenues of enforcement still prevail. In one's RfA one should give complete answers that demonstrates a breadth of knowledge concerning wikipedia policy/guidelines. With the exception of the question on Images, he failed to demonstrate knowledge concerning applicable policies/guidelines on any of the questions.Balloonman (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    Problem is, you have restated his answer, but not backed it up except for a restatement of your position. Many Arbcom candidates do believe that WikiProjects can set and enforce standards (and I did not ask them for the purposes of this RFA). --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    I do not edit biographical articles, so I am not familiar with the policies that apply to them. I can't see the hypothetical situation posed in the question coming up during the course of my editing. —Scott5114↗ 06:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Therein you are showing your lack of experience with wikipedia. This is a very real possibility. But your lack of familiarity of the policy and inability to research the appropriate response are what bothers me. I don't expect people to know the answer to every question, but you should be able to research it--hell the person who posed the question provided you the link to the answer! I was asked about inappropriate names on my RFA, I had never dealt with the issue, but I answered the question by citing the appropriate policies. I didn't know the answers but I knew where to look. You gave poor answers with no indication that you realized that policies might exist.Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    I don't edit biographical articles. I might have edited Chris Tomlin once. Does that mean that I have a lack of experience with Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    BLP is not exclusive to biographical articles! It is relevant to ANY article that discusses a living person. To take an area that is one of Scott's interest, an article on highways may discuss the Secretary of Transportation. The article isn't a biography, but can still have a BLP concern. ANY article that mentions a living person can. Again, however, I want to pull you back to the concern that not only is Scott not familiar with this policy, but didn't appear to know where to research it.Balloonman (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    I am an administrator and am not familiar with BLP. Is this of concern to you? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    If you were provided with the link to WP:BLP and asked a question about the provided link, would you look at the policy before responding on your RFA? I would like to think that you would. Again, I'm not asking that he be familiar with everything---I had never heard of OTRS---but if I was asked about it, I would have investigated it before responding. If he doesn't take time to research the applicable policies before becoming an admin (or during his RFA) what is the likelihood of his researching them afterwards? Right now he knows that he is going to be evaluated on his answers, but he gave very weak answers. Before giving somebody the tools, I would like to know that they know how to look up and identify applicable policies.Balloonman (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    Also, there is no mechanism to deal with obscene / long signatures at RFC name. Or if there is, it is not evident. Even as an administrator (which I have been for nearly 2 years) I was not aware of the BLP policies or the so-called RFC/NAME mechanism related to signatures. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    There is no official process (that I know of) to get rid of extremely irritating signatures. WP:RFC/NAME only deals with the actual username. --DarkFalls talk 06:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    You have a point there, I did misread the question. I thought it as asking about usernames, not signatures. I would have still liked to have seen a reference to WP:SIGNATURE, but I will strike that concern from my comments above.Balloonman (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    I take issue with the policy as it stands. I honestly don't care whether it comes from Jimbo Wales himself; there are obvious times when discussion should, or should not, occur. So I take issue with the policy's statement. Without question. --Son (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    If you don't like it, work to improve it. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (GMT)
  2. Oppose - Scott5114 is a fine editor and a credit to the project, but I'm afraid that I can't support this nomination. Adminship is not a reward given to people in recognition of their services--it is a task taken up by people who want to deal with the muck and the thankless jobs required to keep Wikipedia humming, and I suggest the nominee keep that in mind as this process continues. As far as my specific concerns go, Scott's answer to the first question is particularly troubling, as a prospective admin should be prepared to field requests from all sections of the project, which in turn requires a broad level of experience and knowledge. Regarding this point, I think his Wikipedia namespace contributions are the most telling--the vast majority of these are edits in road-related project spaces, with no reports to WP:AIV or WP:UAA and a single edit each on WP:RPP ([2]) and WP:AN/I ([3]). Although Scott has participated in a number of AfDs, most of which were related to his primary interest, I have not been able to find any comments convincing me that he has a firm understanding of how to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines--a number of comments do not attempt to make an argument or address concerns raised by the nominators (1, 2, 3, 4), and most of the arguments he did make in AfD do not reflect a full understanding of policies. The one that really sticks out is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor Mill Road, which illustrates a less-than-complete understanding of WP:N and WP:V as well as the AfD process itself. That being said, I am heartened by his participation at WP:IFD and WP:MFD, which shows an interest in administrative tasks and forces him to branch out a bit. If he continues to do work on more quasi-administrative tasks and shows a better understanding of the application of policy to topics other than roads (e.g. WP:BLP, which is not demonstrated above), I'd be more than happy to support him the next time around. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 11:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - response to Q4 is concerning. Otherwise a good editor. Addhoc (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per response to question 4. Believing that "extremely libellous" material should exist on WP (in any form) is hopelessly out-of-step with current policy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - per Jonny. I don't (currently) see any need for the tools and most of your Wikipedia related edits can be do without them. I may support next time though. — Rudget contributions 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per the answers to Q4 and Q8. Even accepting Rschen7754's clarification of the answer to Q8 as a possibility of what was intended, I'm very uncomfortable with this view of Wikiprojects in practice. Suggest the editor take some more time to brush up on policies and guidelines and try another nomination down the road.--Isotope23 talk 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. I'm very sorry to do this, but the answers to the questions, overall experience, and some of the other oppose comments speak for themselves. I highly respect Scott as a level-headed user wherever I work with him, but I have doubts on how he can handle difficult situations that are outside of the roads scope. The lack of knowledge on how to respond to queries he may not be the most familiar to is something that I should be able to invoke on any random administrator [candidate] without any trouble. When dealing with something that has OTRS involved, you never discuss the situation in publicly viewable venues, since anything that has to do with OTRS is almost always sensitive. Sensitive material, including libellous and/or unsourced ones, [at the very least on Wikipedia], do not belong anywhere [on Wikipedia, at the very least], not even talk pages for discussion. The flawed judgements on the AFDs that jonny-mt pointed out will reflect on how good an administrator's judgement is, and by looking at those AFDs signify that more education on the various content policies/guidelines is needed. Because of all that, I am going to have to say no for now. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (GMT)
  8. Oppose. All the above explain why. Answer to number 4. I know you wouldn't abuse the admin tools; you're a good editor, but I can't support because of that. Jack?! 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand this position. The question states that some people think the content is biased and libellous, and some people think the content is perfectly fine. The issue is contentious, but the Administrator believes that the content is libellous. Are you saying that the Administrator should just impose his opinion and override all of the people who think that the content is fine? Scott5114 answered correctly, saying that he would remove the content from the article and allow the content to be debated. Please tell me that you wouldn't just delete the content if you were in his position. We need consensus and discussion, not dictators imposing their own opinions. I fear for Wikipedia if the people who dislike Scott's answer to #4 get their way. DOSGuy (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    I think by and large, the issue with the answer to #4 was that Scott didn't say "he would remove the content from the article and allow the content to be debated"... he said he would move it to the talkpage during the debate. In the case of potentially libelous, unsourced material, it should be removed from the article and not moved anywhere. The content can certainly be debated (it would still be in the page history), and sources can be sought, but the policy is crystal clear on this: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material"; that applies to both the article space and the talkspace. Just moving potential libel from one place to another, or restoring it unsourced because there is some sort of consensus to do so isn't responsible editing. This isn't even an admin function... every editor should be doing this.--Isotope23 talk 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Due to concerns over the user's understanding of policy, particularly question number 4 regarding WP:BLP. --Strothra (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. oppose I just did not like the answers I read to the questions --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per the answer to Question 4. Whether or not one is familiar with the finer points of BLP, one should never do anything to preserve content that appears "extremely libelous." The candidate either didn't read the question or didn't think before answering it. On such a sensitive issue, this lack of care is a major concern. Xoloz (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, due to your answer to question four. WP:BLP applies to talk pages too, and indeed every page on Wikipedia, not only mainspace pages. I can see you becoming administrator in a few months, when you've become more familiar with the guidelines and policies, however. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Good editor but needs greater variety of experience (e.g., edit more kinds of articles, get involved in XfD and/or policy discussions) and needs to demonstrate greater knowledge of policy and guidelines. -- Wryspy (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - Has Good Edit History and Quality but as others have said, the response to certain questions does not match WP Policy. PookeyMaster (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Per answer to question #4, but still a good editor. Jmlk17 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral It's unusual for such an excellent editor to have such a contentious RfA. I never thought I would see the day when saying "I would allow the issue to be discussed" would be the wrong answer, but this time it was. While I still think that it was a noble sentiment, and while I don't expect you to memorize all of Wikipedia's policies, my support was dependent on the notion that, since I believe in your maturity and responsibility, you would look up any policy before taking action. You don't have to know all of the answers as long as you know how to find the answers when you need them, but there appears to be valid concerns about the research you put into your responses. I think it would benefit the candidate to get some mentoring from an Administrator about the duties and daily responsibilities of an Admin, and then apply again, if for no other reason than to have your RfA pass with flying colors. But for better preparation, this application would have easily passed. DOSGuy (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2007 (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.