Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sony-youth

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] Sony-youth

Final: (31/24/10); ended 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sony-youth (talk · contribs) - It gives me great pleasure to nominate Sony-youth for adminship. He is a consistent and conscientious editor who stays cool in a crisis and has extensive knowledge, both of the subjects of the articles he edits and of Wikipedia policy and procedures. We've had the occasional disagreement in the past and Sony-youth has always remained civil and responded with positive suggestions. I think he's an excellent candidate and would serve the project well with the mop. Waggers (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: --sony-youthpléigh 19:11, 14 December 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: I'm around long enough to know that adminship really is no big deal - it's a mop, not a big gun, and it means just being able to help out in ways that could mess things up if done improperly. It means lending a hand to delete articles, images, etc. from the database, blocking repeated obvious vandals, and protecting pages from attack. Decisions on these are based on policy, which is determined by all editors, and/or the consensus of editors involved in a particular situation. It just means tidying up things that have already been decided - on behalf of other editors.
Occasionally it will mean stepping in to referee conflicts: to protect pages, block "offenders", etc. This, in my experience, is not the "work" of an admin but the breakdown of Wikipedia. Often a heavy hand only exacerbates a bad situation - one that needs to be resolved by the editors involved, not by a "cop". Where I've seen admins work best to resolve these kinds of situations, it has been more in their role as respected and level-headed editors, and not anything to do with them being an admin.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Some of my favourite contributions to Wikipedia are when conflicts have been resolved and worked out for the better, but more of that below.
I'm a designer in real life so I've taken particular interest in creating some templates. Two I'm really proud of are {{Timeline history of the British Isles}} and {{Timeline of Irish states}}, mainly because they were so damned complicated! I stated the Gaeilge Task Force with the aim of improving the standard and usefulness of Irish-language elements of the en.wiki (e.g. translations of Irish place names, etc.) and also "took over" the Ireland portal after it had been left in a state of disrepair for a very long time. The portal was of great personal interest to me because it was one of the first things that I had seen on Wikipedia and was very disappointed by how it had been left go to ruin. It's a great way to showcase the success of contributions to Wikipedia and I'm glad to be able to give something back to my fellow Irish Wikipedians by working regularly on it. The portal is now a Featured Portal candidate ... so fingers crossed!
I sporadically check for Wikipedians looking for help. These are mainly from new users, they can be very rewarding to resolve as you act like an envoy for the entire project by lending a hand on usually fairly simple things and reminding people that they are not alone.
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: My contributions to Wikipedia have been mainly in and around Irish and British-Irish politics/history so my experience of conflict has probably been more frequent and potentially more explosive and bitter than ordinarily so - but, regardless of the frequency, the same issues apply everywhere. Any editor is going to meet with conflict at one time or another, and it can be very stressful and upsetting when it happens. One of the most distressful for me was a recent one, here, where I felt mistreated and unlistened to. It, among other, has taught me that the greatest root of conflict on Wikipedia - and how things can get out of hand - is not showing to other editors the respect that a true community of collaborators owe to each other. If this can be handled properly and with understanding then 99% of disputes can be resolved without turning into conflict.
Probably the worst conflict that I have been involved in was a long-term one with User:Sarah777, stretching across first half of this year. I think now that it was inflamed more by a clash of personalities than anything over content, and I've since come to respect Sarah greatly. Along with Sarah, conflicts with other editors have taught me a lot: The world will not end. Don't make an edit in anger. Think about the other editors perspective. Very few people are actually trolling or acting in bad faith. The other editor has a valid a point. Real NPOV means integrating both perspectives fairly ... Of course I still make mistakes, but I believe that maintaining genuine relationships with other editors is key to keeping a lid on things. When things appear to be getting out of hand, there's nothing to feared from stepping back, admitting that you're losing your cool, leave a personal message on their talk page, take a break, leave it for a day, and come back with a fresh mind ready to hammer out another deal all over again.
4. Regardless of the merits of what you were saying, do you think you expressed yourself well here? --John (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
A: There are a number of issues involved in that incident, the most pertinent being calling a spade a spade. I gave the same view of Domer some weeks earlier when another editor contacted Wikiproject Ireland seeking advice on an issue with him. The case was very similar to the ArbCom ruling on Domer's behavior on the Great Irish Famine.
In this case, the incident had been preceded by a long, drawn-out and at times acrimonious debate about when and where to use Irish-language names for people. This is covered in the Ireland MOS but there is confusion about it. A consensus was arrived at that sources would be needed to evidence Irish-language names unless it was the common name for the person concerned. Unsourced Irish language names on contentious articles were in the process of being removed when Domer reversed this process by provided "sources" for them - an English-Irish name translation website e.g. John = Séan, Mary = Máire, David = Dáithí, etc. Despite attempts to explain what was wrong about this, and why it wasn't a valid source for a person's name, Domer insisted that what he was doing was sourced and therefore it had to stay. This was simply disruptive behavior and I advised the other editor involved to conserve his energy and to stop feeding a troll. He took my advice and the trolling did indeed stop.
(Whether unrelated or not, a day or two later another incident was reported to the Irish Wikipedians notice baord - genuine Irish language names being back-translated in the same way into English!)
5. Your username includes the word Sony, which is the name of one of the world's largest corporations. Do you think this username is acceptable under our username policy, and if so, why? Sandstein (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
A: Obviously when I first opened my account I didn't know anything about policy on this area, but it crossed my mind when I did become aware of it. I don't see anything in the policy for why it would be inappropriate, but I can understand why it might be. sony-youth is my long-term handle on the internet. I have two websites that use it: www.sony-youth.eu and www.sony-youth.com. At this stage it's closer to my real name since I use it so often and in so many different situations. It very easy to find my real identity through sony-youth - but this is not something that really bothers me. It's never been raised as an issue before, so I don't think many people are misled by it - of course I could totally be wrong! I don't edit anything related to the "real" Sony, although that is not a deliberate choice, just a matter of interest.

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A: I wasn't aware of the ArbCom but, from reading it now, the issues raised related to disregarding the ethical concerns of the policy on biographies of living people. I fully subscribe to the spirit of these concerns as Wikipedia should seperate itself from being "just another website." We are an encyclopedia, we have standards.
That aside, the disregard the editors involved in the ArbCom showed to policy is in itself worrying, whatever their personal views it. Acting as an editor your views are your own. Acting as an admin your views are obsolete. Consensus in this matter had been established in policy. They let their own views direct their decision when consensus dictated otherwise. That's not on.
Finally, reversing the decision of another admin is not a decision to take likely. Wheel warring undermines the philosophy of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia.
7. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A: The first step is to examine the original deletion debate (or summary in the case of a speedy deletion) and contact the deleting admin to understand the reasons for the deletion. If it was questionable under policy then a deletion review is merited. In interpreting the review, the basis of the decision should be based on genuine consensus, not votes, this means understanding the reasons why an editor endorses the delete or says to (re)list. This may have to be understood in terms of the original discussion or in terms of policy (which is the overriding consensus). If the decision is to (re)list, then the article should be (re)listed at AfD. Only if the outcome of that is to undelete the article should the article be undeleted.

Optional Questions from Nat

8. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?
A: An indefinite block is a block that does not have a set end time. A user might be blocked indefinitely to allow a major disruption to be resolved through discussion, while preventing the parties involved from disrupting the project. A ban, which may or may not have a set end time, is a community-enforced punishment for breach of the projects policies or aims: banned users are no longer welcome to edit here as a consequence of their disruptive actions. If a user is blocked indefinitely while a dispute is being resolved, but for whatever reason the block is never lifted, then that user can be considered effectively banned.
9. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?
A: This happens very frequently on the Ireland/Britain-Ireland related articles that I am involved in. The cost of this kind of contribution is that it saps genuine discussion, not because the contribution is not genuine or valuable, but because it corrupts the contributions of editors with differing points-of-view. The life blood of many articles that I am involved in is a genuine NPOV treatment of its content. Good articles allows many points-of-view to be aired freely, and where POV pushing exists genuine treatment of differing points-of-view becomes warped.
POV pushing causes a knee-jerk response from those from opposing perspectives. There is a natural human instinct to believes that a point-of-view that is pushed in inherently wrong because the perspective itself has inherited a kind of sin-of-the-father from the editor who has pushed - a belief that WP:NPOV can be cited as a way to invalidate a perspective that is pushed. This is wrong and it in turn causes a knee-jerk response from the pusher that they must push harder in order to have their perspective aired. This is not to the benefit of any any article: good articles include both perspectives. To achieve that, the circle of knee-jerk responses needs to be broken.
In my experience, a person who genuinely believes in their point-of-view, whether they push it or not, has little to fear from a fair airing of opposing points-of-view. If problems with POV pushing exists in an article, or on its talk page, nine times out of ten it's because the article is not NPOV. You must work towards fixing the article, when the article is fixed, the pushing will go away. That can mean creativity. That can mean extending oneself to understand the perspectives of others. That can mean trusting and having faith in people that you naturally don't. But ultimately, if you can achieve that, the article itself will be better for it - and probably also those editors involved too.
10. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?
A: This is a question really of what is "reasonable" to expect: is it is "reasonable" to expect that a free photograph could be taken of the person involved? Guidelines are that that it is almost always considered possible: singer perform at concerts, writers appear at book signings, politicians kiss babies. So, non-free portraits should not be used to illustrate the appearance of living people.
There is an exceptions, however: it must be possible to create a free image that serves the same purpose to the project as the non-free image that it is intended to replace. A person may still be alive, but the purpose of the image may be to illustrate their appearance at a time in the past on which their notoriety is based. If it is not possible to capture a picture today that illustrates the purpose of the image then non-free images of living people are acceptable.
11. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: Personally, I would have no problem doing so if requested, but I wouldn't otherwise. The basis of adminship is the trust and confidence of the community. If that trust and confidence is lost then an editor's standing as an admin is lost as well. This is by default. I wouldn't need to add myself to a category to confirm that. Admins are always up for recall and sufficient procedures for de-sysoping already exist.
12. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?
A: Ignore all rules is the most pragmatic of all rules: where a clear consensus exists that a certain course of action is in the best interest of the project then don't let the "rules" prevent you from taking it.
What is crucial, however, to remember is that the "rules" exist for good reason and that the "rules" are already based on consensus. Overriding the "rules" should be a very well-thought-out and reasoned action, and not one to be taken willy-nilly just because it easier. This means that sound discussion between interested parties needs to be backbone of any decision based on IAR. As part of that discussion, the clear benefit of ignoring the rules should compellingly outweigh the often subtle cost of ignoring them. Ignoring the rules should never be done unless the "rules" themselves - and why they are they exist - are completely understood all involved.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Just to clarify, you guys are opposing because one of Sony-youth's friends created a hoax article? That's just ridiculus. How is he responsible for that?--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 11:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, we're opposing for the reasons set out in our comments - which you should probably read more carefully. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but he didn't give the respnse you wanted when you mentioned it, so you opposed--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 12:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Pheonix, but I think the substantive argument is that I treated Gazh differenly because he is a "friend". I deliberately haven't responded to the "accusation" that Gazh is a "friend" of mine - which somehow went from a presumption to a fact as a matter of "clarification" - because this kind of mud-slinging of guilt-by-association is unsightly at best. Besides the fact that the admins involved on the day actually praised my handling of the hoax, I've asked Aecis‎ and Fram to comment on the situation rather than have others read more into it than there actually was. --sony-youthpléigh 12:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The "admins involved in the day praised your actions"? One editor who doesn't seem to be an admin at all thought you rightfully moved it, while I afterwards deleted it anyway as a) an unattributed copy of Cornish Potato Famine (as mentioned in the AfD before you redirected it) and b) an unlikely search term (since the term is never used). You claimed it was "not a hoax" without providing any evidence (which may be hard, seeing it gets five Google hits, no Google scholar hits, and no Google books hits). Please get your facts straight. Fram (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies appear below. It's clear that in this case my judgement was definitely off. --sony-youthpléigh 13:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Often disagree with him but a steady head and an good decision maker.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom user would make an excellent admin --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support but perhaps you could use more edit summaries for minor edits? EJF (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think those edits are from months/years ago - I can't remember the last time I marked an edit as "minor". --sony-youthpléigh 20:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    Looking through your contribs, the last time you marked an edit as minor was September 22nd. Useight (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Definite support excellent user, good judgement and able to keep his cool.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support You look to be a great contributor, good luck with the tools! Icestorm815 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Switching to Neutral for reason brought up in oppose number 1. Icestorm815 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong support for an editor who, in my experience, has consistently worked hard with an even handed approach to difficult or controversial issues, achieving agreement and a meeting of minds. Has abilities and judgement well suited to admin work. .. dave souza, talk 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support No serious problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - Good answers to questions, pending replies to Daniel's, and good all-round contributor. — Rudget Contributions 12:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - we (Sony and I) have had a number of minor content disputes in the past (gritty, but not nasty or uncivil and all within discussion pages), but I have nothing but the utmost respect for this user. He is engaging, thoughtful and his primary aim is blindingly clear; to further Wikipedia and its content. I would welcome this user as an Admin. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support.--Padraig (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support, I think the hoax thing is a relative non-issue, and all your other positive contributions far outweigh it. Good luck! Lankiveil (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
  11. Strong support The hoax issue is overblown and rather minor. And per Dave Souza and others. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Very strong support That some "editors" (and I use the term lightly) dredged up and presented as evidence a situation where an alleged friend of the candidate created a hoax article as a reason to impugne the capabilities of this candidate makes me want to support him. Nice job, folks. If that is all you can find, then this is a pretty reasonable choice. It also says a lot about those making the negative comments; you should be ashamed of yourselves.--Filll (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    The reason for most of the opposes is succinctly stated by King of the North East: "Creating hoax articles is a pretty serious issue and there is no justification for taking the side of the hoaxer against another wikipedan who is asking why the hoax article was created". There is also no justification for you launching personal attacks against editors in good standing who have serious concerns about Sony-youth's fitness to be an admin. --Folantin (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    If you want to reflect yourself in such a light, then be my guest. Good heavens.--Filll (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Eh? --Folantin (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Beg pardon? What's wrong with my edits?? Dlohcierekim 16:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Per OM and others. •Jim62sch• 16:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Weak Support I highly doubt he will misuse the tools but the opposers have a couple of points Alexfusco5 17:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Excellent editor and all the hoax issue is massively overblown. Harland1 (t/c) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Excellent editor, will be a fair admin. Alun (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. I've dealt with Great Irish Famine at some length and come away impressed by Sony's behavior. I'm not familiar with this "hoax" hoo-hah, but he's demonstrated good handling of sources and referencing. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support as nominator (better late than never!) Waggers (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support evidence of good 'pedia building - not thrilled about material below but it was August and I see good stuff since. Overall I think a net positive for the project. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Always open minded, usually the voice of reason in heated discussions Fasach Nua (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support Open minded, neutral, always reasonable, willing to listen and consider arguments. The 'hoax' stuff just says to me that chill pills should be compulsory before coming on here to edit. MurphiaMan (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support. (per Vintagekits - that must be a first!) A humble man that is able to analyse dissenting viewpoints and, where appropriate, modify and adapt his initial stance. Will grow in the job rather than become inflexible and partisan like many admins from the North East Atlantic Archipelago. A Star!  W. Frank talk ✉  19:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. A very good user, has done a lot to create articles on WP. We could use another sysop who can translate articles to/from Gaelic. Concerns about past errors have been noted and considered, but overall, he can be trusted with the mop. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I have crossed SY - I don't agree with him but the impression he has given me, personally, is that he is a good egg. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Guettarda (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. support --.snoopy. 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support, after much consideration. I've thoroughly examined the diffs in the Oppose section below, and I don't see that his conduct was inappropriate. It is perfectly legitimate IMO to disagree with a sanction taken by an admin against another editor; even if that editor is a "problem" editor or acting disruptively, there is nothing wrong with challenging an excessively harsh block. This edit, cited by Folantin below as "defending Gazh", actually makes a very good point, which I will quote in full: "I didn't see the one-week block [of Gazh]. Come on, Ryan! That's not going to solve anything. I've seen this kind of situation before - I'm especially reminded of User:Onenightinhackney. It follows a familiar pattern: a needlessly heavy block led to a user loosing the head, the block get extended for a an even harsher duration, which leads to the user getting more angry, etc. - its just feed a circle of resentment and ever more draconian "solutions." In the case of Onenightinhackney, the user, in rage invoked his right to vanish, the admin "accepted it" and deleted his page. A good contributor has been lost ever since. I don't want to see the same thing happen here." This is a perfectly well-reasoned, civil, good-faith objection to a block of another editor; to me, it shows that Sony-youth is concerned with the interests of the encyclopedia, and is prepared to stand up and disagree with a consensus of established admins. To me, this denotes moral courage. Sony-youth didn't even come close to being uncivil or behaving inappropriately; he put forward a legitimate opinion, and disagreed in good faith with other editors. This is exactly the kind of admin we need, and accordingly he receives my strong support. WaltonOne 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. No evidence to suggest that this user will abuse the tools. Acalamari 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Per Acalamari, Dave Souza. My reading of the Gazh drama is closer to Walton's than to Folantin's. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per W.Frank and Vintagekits. Which should say something! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support always found him to be a good editor and even handed - I think the "Gazh issue" is being blown out of all proportion and believe he understands the issues quite well after all the criticism. ww2censor (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose Per this edit [1]. One of Sony-youth's friends, Gazh, made up a hoax article, thus wasting everybody's time putting it through AfD. Sony-youth's response when User:Fram asked for an explanation of the hoax was: "It's really not that important. If Rijk Van Roog is a hoax then big deal. Delete it and get it over with. Who cares why Gazh created it. He did. So what? Delete it". This incident occurred only a few weeks back. I would not trust a user with that attitude with admin tools. This looks like favouritism. I'm not happy with the idea that some users will be allowed to bend the rules on Sony-youth's watch. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    User:Gazh created two problem pages that day, the other one being this. No rules were "bent": the hoax was deleted and the other page redirected by me to a more appropriate page that I created in it's place. The issue was dealt with quickly and cleanly. My comments on Gzah's talk page were to stop a conflict that was brewing between Fram and Gazh. It looked like Fram wanted to demand a pound of flesh over why Gazh created the hoaxes. Why was not important, and it was clear that demanding it would only have created more trouble. What was important was to remove the hoax and fix the other problem article quickly. If Fram had seen fit to punish Gazh for the hoax then so be it. The comment was to end the dispute between Fram and Gazh before it turned nasty. It worked. --sony-youthpléigh 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but that's a pretty poor explanation. Creating hoax articles is definitely "bending the rules", yet you took Gazh's side over Fram's when the latter complained about Gazh's trolling. Far from the dispute stopping there, Gazh went on to launch a personal attack against Fram: "Fram stop playin th' dictayta, stop playin mr reet-wing" (i.e. "Fram, stop playing the dictator, stop playing Mr. Right Wing"). I suspect Fram, as a non-native speaker of English, did not understand this abuse and that's the only reason there was no further response. You made no comment on Gazh's attack. --Folantin (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Update Of course, you've already got a record of defending Gazh. Here [2] you object to his one-week block for gross incivility. Gazh had wished that the mothers of his Wikipedia opponents should get cancer [3]. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think you're misreading the situation. Fram didn't complain about Gazh trolling. Gazh's personal attack was after I advised Fram to leave the situation be. You're quite right that I didn't make any comment on Gazh's personal attack - policy for dealing with this kinds of isolated personal attack is "not to respond at all". I'm contacting Fram to ask for his opinion on the situation.
    As for the earlier block on Gazh, this concerened a block for a single breach of 3RR (4th revert). The editor that Gazh was edit warring also though the block was too severe. My comments were that such a severe block would only exacerbate the situation. That is indeed what happened - the comments made by Gazh that you referred to came after my call for a more sensible block. This reading of the situation was supported by the other editor involved. (forgot to sign: --sony-youthpléigh 11:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC))
    I'm not misreading anything. You were clearly biased in favour of a problem user, Gazh. The incident with Fram (and others who asked why Gazh had created hoax articles) happened less than three weeks ago. You cannot be trusted to be a neutral admin. --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    I've left a message on Fram's talk asking for his view. --sony-youthpléigh 11:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    My view? You tried to defend Gazh with some pretty poor arguments, ignored whatever he did wrong (both the creation of hoaxes and the personal attacks), and redirected an article which was an unattributed copy from another article and was a term that is never used otherwise in a scholarly context (and very rarely outside of it). This multiplication of bad judgments, and your failure to see what you did wrong there, are more than anough to oppose, which I'll do below. Fram (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Wow! Well, there we have it. Sorry, Fram, if that is how it came across. That certainly wasn't my intention, but your comments and those of Aecis below show that in this case I definitely missed the mark. Certainly I didn't mean to defend Gazh's hoaxing or to slight you in your work at catching it. Again, my sincerest apologies, and I hope that my bad judegment doesn't deter you in your future good work. --sony-youthpléigh 12:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I'm inclined to agree with Folantin's oppose. It doesn't seem becoming of an admin to do such a thing. Although, if the candidate were to offer a reasonable explanation as to why he would say such a thing, then my mind might open to persuasion. ScarianTalk 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely not. His behaviour with regards to the Great Irish Famine disputes did not sit well with me; getting involved in something one is rather ignorant about is not a characteristic I'd want a potential administrator to have. Also, his snarky response to Gazh coupled with this diff referenced above illustrates his poor communication skills and dismissive nature to good faith volunteers. gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    My behavior here was out of line. What was particularly frustrating about that was that my contribution to that dispute was to offer a solution that was to everyone's satisfaction. Thankfully, we were able to pull it back again. Discussions on that page can be very terse. The decisions of the earlier ArbCom, found nothing against my behavior. --sony-youthpléigh 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per all above. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per all above. I feel nom is currently to contentious on the one hand and too dismissive of problems on the other. Snappishneess does not bode well. Admins need to deal with contention with greater dignity, aplomb, and coolness. The pressures do not go down when one has the buttons, and nom has not handled stress as well as one might have liked. Dlohcierekim 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Switch to strong oppose. (struck strong per Brown-haired girl. Nom has learned form this experience)_ Nom lacks some essential quality, such as maturity, judgment, and/or values fundamental to adminship. (King of the NorthEast sums it up pretty well.) Having re-read this topsy-turvy discussion @ User_talk:Gazh#Rijk Van Roog‎ hoax in which-- Aecis [4],[5] and Fram [6],[7],[8], express concern over Gazh creating hoax articles; in which, Gazhthanks Sony-youth for his support, tells Fram"anytime you're ready to apologize" and to "never mind, "stop playing "dictayta," [9]; and in which, Sony-youth first denies English Potato Famine is a hoax andsnaps at Fram about the Rijk Van Roog hoax, I believe his actions here are unbecoming a nom for adminship. . Not once does Sony-youth tell Gazh that creating hoax articles is, shall we say, a bad idea. Not once does he ask Gazh to stop pouring fuel on the fire with rude remarks. He only opposes other editors' legitimate and well-founded concerns for the well-being of the Encyclopedia. If nothing else, Admins need to be objective in disputes. Would Sony have condoned and supported a hoax created by someone else? Yes? No? This was not a content dispute. It was intervention on behalf of the creator of hoax articles. Creation of hoax articles is anathema to Wikipedia. Supporting those who create hoax articles is anathema to adminship. Dlohcierekim 14:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    English Potato Famine isn't quite a hoax, but was better dealt with in another article that was created in it's place. It was I believe, however, created to make a point.
    On the matter of how to deal with Gazh, damanding answers from a problem editor is hardly constructive. It only makes the matter worse by creating an atmosphere of conflict and feeding a troll. My advice to Fram and Aecis was to get on with the business and not engage with an editor who was obviously stirring for a fight. If they were to punish him - which he deserved - then let them, but demanding answers wasn't going to do anybody any good. Feeding these kinds of editors/situations only makes matters worse. My advice was to stop doing so, and I stand by it. --sony-youthpléigh 14:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortuantely, that is not how it reads on the talk page. Gazh thanked you to supporting him. What message does it send to give the appearance of approving unacecptable behavior? Your respnse to Fram hardly calmed the waters. The requests for calrification were made in good faith and in a less confrontational manner than you took with Fram. (Dlohcierekim at work). Cheers, :) MikeReichold 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The event from oppose #1 with was in November rather than August. Dlohcierekim 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - per Dlohcierekim comments and the fact that the issue in Oppose No. 1 occured recently. PookeyMaster (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose; I say this with real regret as I have admired many of your positive contributions to the various Ireland furores, but I cannot support someone who doesn't realise that, for all WP:SPADE exists, like WP:IAR it is to be used with very great caution. Calling someone a troll is far more likely to exacerbate a situation than it is to resolve it. Come back in a few months having learned from this and I will support you, I guarantee it, for I see the good in you. Just not ready yet, sorry. --John (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that it has to be used with caution for the very reason that it is more likely to exacerbate a situation. In this cause, however, it was demonstrably used adroitly: a spade was called a spade and the disruption stopped. None the less, you're entitled to your view and thank you for the kind words. --sony-youthpléigh 10:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong oppose; over the Gazh issue. Creating hoax articles is a pretty serious issue and there is no justification for taking the side of the hoaxer against another wikipedan who is asking why the hoax article was created. King of the NorthEast 11:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, reasons given above. Fram (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Very dubious about this per Folantin and Fram. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Not a big deal, but bigger than the candidate appears to think. Not convincing answers, and not indicating the kind of attitude I hope to meet in an admin. MURGH disc. 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Per the Gazh issue. Vandals of Wikipedia should not be treated so lightly. --Sharkface217 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. No NHRHS2010 talk 23:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Sorry, but, as the above have stated, you're lacking in the user communication department. Aside from all the above disputes your edits are quite thorough, though. Master of Puppets Care to share? 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose for the reasons given above by other editors. Sorry, but this is not the attitude I expect to find in an administrator. You do appear a capable editor, but I am concerned that you may not always act with a neutral point of view. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Sorry, and I wish I could add more value / help to the candidate, but the diff by User:NHRHS2010 shows a lack of understanding that leads me not to trust you with deletion and protection tools. Pedro :  Chat  23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose On account of the diffs raised above. Jmlk17 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Dlohcierekim, Folantin and Fram. Sarah 02:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose; sorry but I cannot trust you'll be and remain impartial when you need to apply the rules against acquaintances or friends of yours. — Coren (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Anything (BLP in particular) that has been through OTRS and/or ArbCom is almost always controversial, and with that, discussion cannot happen in a public venue. At best, it has to be private. Sorry. 哦，是吗？(review O) 04:47, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
    The question concerning undeleting an article on the basis of BLP made no mention of ArbComs. You're right that I didn't mention OTRS. It was bracketed, I thought optional, and I over-looked it. --sony-youthpléigh 05:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, with regards to the nature of OTRS, it is almost always uncontroversial. In fact, many tickets consist of new users asking for help or people sending thank-you notes for all the hard work you all do. I just wanted to drop a line here to help quash any sentiment that OTRS issues are always controversial. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Strong Oppose; absolutely not due to Gazh issue. That type of conduct is unnaceptable for a potential admin. Mr Senseless (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose - has displayed what appears to be numerous examples of behaviour not expected by an admin. I mean this not just one or two occasions, which everyone will end up doing at one time or another while on a learning curve, but this is frequent, the most frequent of which is the replies to opposes here. The Wikipedia participation is minimal anyway. Lradrama 12:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose for now. This has been a difficult call, because I have found S-Y to be generally a productive and thoughtful editor and I was impressed with Sony-youth's answers to the opening questions. However, I have to agree with those who express concerns over his handling of some disputes, particularly (though not only) the gazh hoax issue: S-Y's conduct there was incompatible with adminship. Nonetheless, S-Y has now acknowledged that this episode was handled badly, and I think that there are good grounds to believe that he can learn from the responses here. So although I oppose adminship for S-Y now I hope that the lessons will indeed be learnt and that I would be able to support him at a future date if he can demonstrate that he really has taken on board the feedback at this RFA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, BrownHair - that pretty much sums up my own view too, but rather than withdraw the request I'd prefer to let it run in order to hear out some feedback. --sony-youthpléigh 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per Folantin.¤~IslaamMaged126 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral pending answers to additional questions. --John (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (changed to oppose)
  1. Neutral While you do appear to be a good editor, the comments you made that were brought up in oppose number one didn't sit well with me. Icestorm815 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for now, depending on whatever details come up later in the RFA. You appear to be a great editor, but might not act with a NPOV at all times. Good luck anyway! Malinaccier (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral for the time being. The issues brought up in the first oppose make me uncomfortable in trusting this user to take some things seriously. Also, while it's a minor issue, that's an obnoxious sig. I'd like to look over some more of his / her work before making a final decision. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I don't know enough about Sony-youth's editing and his contributions to cast a !vote here. But I think it's extremely poor form for someone to more or less defend a hoaxer. If this occurred a long time ago, I could oversee it. But this occurred only a few weeks ago. AecisBrievenbus 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Seem a capable editor but some of the points in Oppose are unsettling. Jhfireboy Talk 01:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. All else aside, this RFA has clearly been sidetracked by the AfD incident. I recommend you withdraw for now and (if you wish) come back when it's more clear that the event is behind you, because it clearly concerns a lot of editors here. Dekimasuよ! 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Don't oppose in principle but I think some water needs to flow under the bridge in relation to the hoax incident so we can be sure this was a one-off. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral I think you would be a good sysop, but support the idea of a pause to allow the (few) vocal detractors to cool off and see progress. docboat (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Love the activity, but the concerns that were raised have neutralized me. Sirkadtalksign 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral Good overall, but the situation in Oppose statement number one made this a difficult choice and I have to be neutral. Heights(Want to talk?) 02:12, 21 December 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.