Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 22 February 2011

Snottywong

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (27/16/6); Scheduled to end 22:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Snottywong (talk · contribs) – I've been on Misplaced Pages since 2007, but the majority of my activity has been in the last 1.5 years. I've learned a lot in that time, and I believe I have accumulated a sufficient amount of clue, and have the appropriate level of maturity required to use the tools responsibly. As article space grows larger and larger, it requires a higher level of maintenance. This is where I excel, and the mop would allow me to contribute more to that end. SnottyWong  21:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would start working in areas with which I am most familiar, and then gradually and carefully branch out to other areas with backlogs. I am very familiar with the deletion processes and would be comfortable jumping right in to XfD's, speedies and prods. I'm also well-versed in complex template syntax and would be capable of responding to {{editrequested}} requests on protected high-use templates. I don't have extensive anti-vandalism experience (the Huggle folks always beat me to it), but I'm familiar enough with the policies that I could cautiously begin responding to non-controversial requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: The reason why I first registered an account was because there was no article on CobraNet, which is a pretty important protocol in the industry in which I work. Over the course of a few months, I created the article and brought it succesfully to GA. After that accomplishment, I stopped editing for quite awhile since there was nothing else I felt compelled to write about, and I didn't have much time to write at that point in my life. Later, CobraNet was delisted and I came back to work on restoring its GA status. This is when I started to notice the vast underworld of Misplaced Pages beneath the articles. Since then, I've done a lot of new page patrolling, a handful of GA reviews, and took a stab at resolving some conflicts at WP:3O. I eventually wrote some more audio-related articles, like Constant voltage speaker system and Dante (networking), as well as some other unrelated stubs. More recently, I spearheaded the (rather time-consuming) effort to convert List of fighter aircraft from a poorly organized list into a sortable table. Finally (and most recently), I am the creator and operator of a bot (Snotbot!) which tracks unpatrolled new articles, and has also done some other requested one-time tasks.

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: Like most editors, I have had my fair share of conflicts. When I first started editing here, I responded negatively and sometimes uncivilly to these conflicts. I soon learned that such responses to conflict not only stress me out, but also substantially diminish the strength of my argument. I think that in the last 6-12 months, my efforts to remain level-headed and suggest reasonable compromises have been largely successful. One of the areas where some of my conflicts have arisen is with the Article Rescue Squadron, as I have been an outspoken critic of some of their members' actions (but I have come to regard the overall concept of ARS as noble and useful). I always make a point to remain civil, and I contribute often to discussions on WT:ARS without incident. However, since this request for adminship could be a concern for some ARS members, I would be happy to automatically consider myself involved with regard to rescue-tagged AfD's should there be a consensus among ARS members that such a restriction was necessary or desired. Even if it is not necessary or desired, I already !vote on most rescue-tagged AfD's and I don't intend to stop doing that as an admin, and therefore I don't foresee myself closing many rescue-tagged AfD's either way. All in all, I think the conflicts that I've had here have taught me that Misplaced Pages works a lot better when you focus less on your personal opinions and more on cooperation, consensus, and collaboration.

Additional optional question from RJaguar3

4. You expressed an interest in working in deletion debates. Could you describe how Misplaced Pages's notability policy interacts with subject-specific policies, like the guidelines found in Category:Misplaced Pages notability guidelines?

A: WP:V and WP:NOT are the overarching policies, and the secondary guidelines are simply guidelines which attempt to help explicate those policies. The secondary notability guidelines have a few primary uses. Firstly, they provide a "rule of thumb" to use when gauging the notability of a subject. In other words, if the subject of the article meets one or more of the criteria in the appropriate secondary guideline, then we can assume that it is most likely notable. Secondly, they provide a point of reference which is helpful in determining what is and is not a notable event (i.e. an event which, if documented in reliable sources, would establish notability). For example, if a amateur high school baseball player gets some coverage in reliable sources about a particularly good season they just finished, is that enough to satisfy WP:GNG? Probably not, since being a good baseball player at the high school level is not one of the criteria listed at Misplaced Pages:ATHLETE#Baseball, and therefore it is probably not a notable event despite it being covered by local sources. The bottom line is that WP:GNG trumps the secondary guidelines every time. If, however, there is a question as to whether an event which is covered in reliable sources is notable, we can consult the secondary guidelines for help. (Note that my answer is geared towards the typical subject-specific guidelines without commenting on the exceptions, like WP:PROF).

Additional optional question from Balloonman

5. I'll be honest with you, your user name causes me some problems. I know that Wong might be a Surname, but when combined with snotty, it evokes a slang term which making it sound like its referencing a body part. Thus, I just have a hard time seeing somebody with your name intervening in a conflict in the role of admin. Could you A) explain your name and B) would you be willing to change it should you be entrusted with the tools?

A: I appreciate the honesty, and understand the concern. Without getting too far into personal details, I can reveal that Wong is not my surname (I'm not even Asian). Snottywong is actually a nickname given to me a long time ago, for no apparent reason and with no particular meaning. It caught on and this is what many of my close friends refer to me as. It is in no way intended to reference a body part or be offensive in any way. This has been my user name for quite awhile, and I haven't heard very many objections until now. I'm a bit hesitant to change my user name, but I suppose that if there was support from multiple users that my username would deter me from performing as an effective admin, then I would agree to change it.

Moved discussion RE name to talk page

Additional question from Keepscases

6. You are given the option to have three of your fingers surgically, painlessly, permanently removed. You may pick any three fingers you like. Should you have the operation, Misplaced Pages will go on normally. However, should you elect not to have the operation, a massive hardware failure will cause every bit of Misplaced Pages and its data to be permanently destroyed, and Conservapedia will likely become the de facto free online encyclopedia. Note: If you choose not to have the operation, no one will ever know that you are "responsible" for the total destruction of Misplaced Pages. What do you do?

A: Naturally, I think anyone would agreeable to sparing a couple of fingers for the sake of Misplaced Pages. I would choose White Chocolate, Dark Chocolate Mint, and Toffee Crunch.

Comment: The candidate seems to have lived up to the challenge of treating this question as non-serious and responding accordingly. Nonetheless, this question was stunningly inappropriate. We all know that there has been increasing concern recently about experienced editors' not wanted to go through the RfA process. In that regard, I can't help considering questions of this type to be disruptive and potentially damaging, and if the candidate had not already answered the question, I would have removed it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A grossly inappropriate question. Keepscases questions are now beyond a joke. Kudpung (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, did I misunderstand this question? I assumed the "correct" answer would be, "I'd keep my fingers, Misplaced Pages's only an encyclopaedia". While we may want dedicated crew at the Wikimedia Foundation itself, surely we want admins that keep a sense of perspective? I'm not sure that it's inappropriate to test whether admins are able to engage with the project without letting it get personal. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from OlEnglish

7. Would you consider yourself a deletionist?

A: A relevant question, given the circumstances. When I first started !voting at AfD's, I did consider myself a deletionist, and only later realized that to be a defensive reaction in response to those who consider themselves hardline inclusionists. I then consciously moved more to the center and got rid of the label. I am still firmly in favor of measuring articles against clear standards for inclusion, and deleting those articles which do not measure up to those standards. If that makes me a deletionist, then so be it. I think, however, that I more closely identify with precisionism.

Additional optional question from Lambanog

8. Agree or disagree: Misplaced Pages is a better reference than either Citizendium or Encyclopedia Britannica. Why?

A: I would say that Misplaced Pages is definitely a better reference than Citizendium, based solely on completeness. Citizendium lacks articles on many important topics, and only has a bit more than 15,000 articles total. As a point of comparison, Misplaced Pages has more articles at GA or higher than Citizendium has articles total, and I don't believe that Citizendium's approved articles are any better than Misplaced Pages's featured articles just because they were written solely by people with college degrees who are willing to identify themselves publicly. As for Encyclopedia Britannica, the choice is a bit tougher and depends more on what type of information you're looking for. The choice hinges on what you mean by a "better reference". If I were writing a business paper or scholarly work, I would feel a lot more comfortable citing Encyclopedia Britannica as a source than I would be citing Misplaced Pages, even though they are both tertiary sources. That's just the way it is in the real world, unfortunately Misplaced Pages doesn't fly as a good source of information in a professional context. However, I would be much more likely to start my research on Misplaced Pages than on Encyclopedia Britannica, just to get an overview of information and to quickly find good sources to cite, since Misplaced Pages is far more complete and up-to-date than Britannica.

Additional optional question from Armbrust

9. Could you please give examples of some XfD arguments you have made that you are particularly proud of, or which you feel demonstrate your abilities in that area?

A: I don't keep track of these very well, but I found a few recent ones that I thought were pretty typical. Surfer hair was a pretty thorough evaluation of the sources. I also thought that my comments at the subsequent DRV were fair and reasonable. Next, Kob-dhehaad District was an example of an article that I made an effort to "rescue". Finally, while it's still on-going, it seems my comments at Massacre are beginning to convince those with differing opinions.

10. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.

A: Oppose rationale: Candidate is an outspoken deletionist who speaks his mind too abrasively at XfD's. I am uncomfortable with granting him adminship because I feel he may be likely try to push his deletionist POV by closing XfD's in a biased way and blocking editors with whom he disagrees.

Rebuttal: I can't fault people for occasionally being turned off by my comments at XfD's. I do speak my mind unabashedly, and I do acknowledge that I could do so more gently and I will make a conscious attempt to do so. However, I'm confident that I have not given any indication that I am incapable of separating my personal opinion from consensus. In some ways, looking at my XfD contributions is not a perfect way of determining how I would close XfD's, because voting on XfD's is much different than closing them. Voting on XfD's involves formulating a personal opinion and expressing it, closing an XfD involves ignoring my personal opinions and evaluating other editors' comments for validity and compliance with policy. I'm confident in my ability to selectively ignore my personal opinions, but I'm not sure how I can effectively demonstrate that. As far as blocking editors with whom I disagree, that is so far from anything I could imagine myself doing that I'm not sure how to respond. Block policy is crystal clear, and I suspect I would not remain an admin for very long if I started blocking editors solely for disagreeing with me.

Additional optional questions from Hydroxonium

11. For the last 5 years, the number of active contributors has been dropping. The Wikimedia foundation, and the larger Wikimedia movement, would like to increase participation and have a proposed goal of 150,000 active contributors by 2015. This is a four-fold increase over the current 35,000 active contributors. What do you feel has been Misplaced Pages's difficulty in attracting and retaining contributors. What do you think Misplaced Pages should change in order to reach the 150,000 goal?

A: I think there is a natural cycle that editors go through during their time here. There is an initial bloom of interest when one discovers the depth of experience that Misplaced Pages offers, and then there is a gradual wane of interest due to various reasons. Many of those reasons revolve around the notion of deletion, whether it is having your edits reverted, having an article you started get deleted (correctly or not), or getting into an edit war. Some of the more discouraging social dysfunctions that occur here are a result of the way that humans naturally interact in this unnatural environment where writing notes back and forth to one another anonymously is the only means of communication possible. Some dysfunctions are correctable, others are not without enacting a paradigm shift in how WP operates. Here are some potential solutions, off the top of my head: Fostering an attitude where violations of WP:BITE are considered much more serious than they typically are today (perhaps even a blockable offense for repeat offenders?) could result in improvement if it is widely adopted. The new page patrol process could use a major reform, as it currently suffers from both editors who tag and delete overzealously and editors who barely read the articles and let a lot of bad articles through. I'd love to see NPP evolve into a place where a lot more editors contribute with a focus on fixing the fixable problems and educating new users, but that would require a lot more participation. Another good way to keep editors' interests is to afford them the opportunity to work in different areas to keep things interesting, and this is probably one of the many reasons that I've made this request.

12. I noticed you've had an interaction with Misplaced Pages Review in October 2009. Could you describe that interaction and what your feelings are today?

A: That incident took place a long time ago, right around when I started becoming more active. It was before I was aware of Misplaced Pages's canvassing guidelines, and it was certainly what gave me the opportunity to learn about them. It was also before I really knew what Misplaced Pages Review was all about, and I haven't posted there since. That AfD in particular is a prime example of the poor reaction that I used to have to conflict (i.e. question 3 above). I regard that incident as well as that entire AfD as a big mistake, although I can't say I didn't learn a lot from it.

General comments

• Links for Snottywong: Snottywong (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Snottywong can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats on talk. -FASTILY 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• On Balloonman's question about the username, it might be a reference to a minor character from Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Nice find. I think I've seen that movie before (decades ago) but never picked up on the reference. Not the type of movie you really pay attention to. SnottyWong  23:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - I see no problems. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
2. I have interacted with this editor before, particularly during his disagreements as outlined in answer 3. In dealing with disruptive editors, as far as I have seen he has always been civil and fair, so see only positives. AD 22:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
3. I see Snotty's work at UAA and I can support on that basis, though it's early, and RFA is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   On the XfD issue, I think User:Mkativerata gives some excellent links. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Support. I've seen Snottywong around for quite some time, and I see someone who cares greatly about the project and is very knowledgeable. I think it's fair to say he has, on occasions, expressed himself perhaps a little more forthrightly than is ideal, but I do see some mellowing with experience and I trust him to use the tools dispassionately. I think the honest self-appraisal in Q3 is highly commendable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Support I may not agree with him all the time, but overall I think granting him the tools would be a net positive to the project. Based on what I've seen, I trust that he'll follow policy. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Support This candidate I think would be useful with the mop. Baseball Watcher 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Support in light of answer to question 4; could not find any significant issues. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Support He'll be fine. Wayne Slam 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Skinwalker (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Support — an appropriate candidate for the tools. I've no concerns about misuse of them, and trust that they will only be used appropriately. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

    && author of User:Snottywong/diffconverter, which is pretty useful ;) Jack Merridew 21:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

11. Support Cerebral, level-headed answers. A quick review of his contributions reveals a high level of technical expertise. I suspect that the candidate will be a tough but fair sysop, just like on RfA--Hokeman (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Support. From recent interactions, I know that this is a quality candidate. Overall, this candidate would be a net positive for the project as an admin. Caveat - I'm unclear why being a native English speaker is a problem - it's never been an issue for me. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 02:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Context = win. Also, in re: Question six - Well done. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
13. Support. I have collaborated a great deal with Snotty and I know his work well. I most strongly support this nomination in every way possible. Kudpung (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
14. Support—I share Boing! said Zebedee's sentiments exactly. Barring some occasional mild abrasiveness (if you could even call it that), Snottywong knows what he is doing and is more than ready to wield the mop. Airplaneman ✈ 03:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
15. Support - no problems here & should be just fine :) - Alison 05:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
16. Support per nom and demonstrated understanding that personal opinions have no place in AfD closures (QQ 3 and 10). The userbox in its first version is troubling, also that the wording remained that way for several months. But the other concerns in the oppose section I do not share—actually I would submit that he !voted along policies and guidelines in every one of them, albeit in an enthusiastic manner. Prospective and sitting admins should be allowed to take sides in the inclusionist / deletionist debate, as long as their admin actions follow policy. --Pgallert (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
17. It bemuses me that editors raise speculative concerns about the candidate's intention to close AfDs given his confessed deletionist tendencies. It bemuses me because there is a clear track record we can look at: the candidate's extensive DRV contributions. It is easy to work out how a candidate will approach closing an AfD based on their views on closes at DRVs. Excellent contributions like 1, 2 and 3 indicate that the candidate will do a very good job of closing AfDs and can separate his own views from the task of closing a discussion. But I would add that as an admin, SW would do well to tone some of his statements down a little. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
18. Support That small thud offstage was the sound of Snotty falling off his chair. I have a long and acrimonious history with this editor, and some heated rebuttal of his past deletionist stance. However he seems to have shifted his position: he'd still delete things I'd probably keep, but he's doing it from a balanced position now, not just as a reflex. I might not agree with his judgements any more as an admin that I would as an editor, but I trust him not to abuse mop powers and to recognise that on subjective content judgements, admins remain as just another voice amongst editors. I wouldn't support any admin with that userbox, but that's a past issue now and I don't think we're talking about the same person. His technical skills also appear to be at a rather higher level than most editors can offer, and I'm sure that would be of benefit to the project. I'd like to see him tone down the opposition to ARS though - that sort of confrontation is never productive long term. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
19. Support per excellent answer to questions 6 and (more seriously) 10. Also, answer to Q3 indicates that SW is unlikely to be closing many AfD discussions involving the ARS. SW seems clear on the difference between voicing an opinion in an AFD !vote and trying to rise above personal opinion when performing an AfD closure. A safe pair of hands, IMHO. Kim Dent-Brown 13:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
20. Support. Answers to questions 3, 7, and 10 have allayed any temperament-related concerns. Candidate has his wits about him, as the answer to Q6 indicates, and I can see no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. Would make a strong admin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
21. Moral Support Barring a significant turn around, which I don't see coming, this RfA looks likely to fail---the opposes have legitimate concerns (which if I looked closer at SW might have me go the other way.) That being said, I've decided to cast a supporting vote for two principle reasons 1) He has given excellent answers to all of the questions and 2) even though his opposers seem to think he'd be a lousy admin, most acknowledge that he is either a good or improving editor. (Which indicates a level of respect from those who disagree with him, which in my book counts for something.) I would, however, suggest a name change... Snottywong just strikes a negative chord, which is not the first impression (and IMO, that impacts future interactions.)---Balloonman 15:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
22. Support per above. --Perseus 8235 15:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
23. Support - Just because the candidate has voted "delete" many times doesn't mean that he will misclose AFDs. Also, as regards the Porch sitting AFD, remember that Snottywong saw it as this, a collection of original research with no evidence of notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
24. Support I feel compelled to support SW. Too many of the "tone" issues raised in the opposes are quite simply non-issues, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - SW is an asset to the project and understands the big picture. Misplaced Pages needs users that are decicated and SW is certainly dedicated. However, I would encourage SW to work on areas that others have mentioned. Personnaly, I think SW would be highly valuable at teaching new users how to create proper articles, but I will leave that up to him if he wants to participate in that area. - Hydroxonium (H₃O) 19:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
26. Support - Having read the opposition comments, I've just spent a couple of hours checking SWs history of contributions in quite some detail, looking at the specific discussions and context; and whilst I sometimes saw brusque comments, I saw nothing that crossed the line into incivility. Close, but not quite. I also saw a lot of polite, courteous interactions. In the cases of AfD, I saw reasoned, rational debate. I don't agree with some of it, but I accept the viewpoints expressed are valid. I think SW is perfectly aware that some of xis views are toward the deletion-side of the equation, but I think that awareness means xe will be able to remain neutral in judgements. I see good knowledge of policy, and - despite working in a contentious area - no major blow-ups. Chzz   ►  20:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
27. Support Why is it that whenever I find my way in here I find people that I had previously thought to be already mop-holders? Snotty and I cross paths (but not swords) fairly often at AfD and I've always found his (can't be a girl - but Robert Silverberg made a mistake like that over James Tiptree, Jr) contributions to be of value - and for some time thought him (OK: /her) to be an admin. Peridon (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose My limited interaction from the editor has not been positive and I am left feeling that he does not understand the guidelines and policies enough to deserve the tools. Unfortunately, it would take some tracking down of discussions to find the diffs so this is an oppose without any evidence backing my thoughts.Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   To be fair, those diff's are pretty handy. Whilst the lack of them does not, as such, undermine your oppose they would help other editors to research the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   I have a link to at least one deletion debate the candidate participated in that is the basis for my posing question 4; once the candidate answers, I will post a link to the page here. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   Now that question 4 has been answered, I will post the link: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Merkow. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose due to numerous conversations at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron and especially this reply to me in which SW is aggressively hostile toward a collaborative process. SnottyWong has a problem with concensus (as determined in this TfD discussion) which he unilaterally reversed when an editor got around to implementing the change. In the ] SW would not even acknowledge a problem, and sought to maintain their preferred version regardless of the opinions of others. I do not believe that SW can be trusted to determine or follow concensus, collaborate well with others, or decide closes at XfD discussions. Jim Miller 00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but that is your right. I feel compelled to briefly defend myself: Firstly, my reply on WT:ARS was not meant to be aggressive or hostile, and after re-reading I still don't think it came off that way. Secondly, your description of the {{ARSnote}} situation is somewhat misleading. Here's my quick recap: The TfD happened in July 2010, one editor said they thought it should be reworded, 2 agreed, I disagreed, the discussion ended, and nothing ever came of it. Over 6 months later, an IP reworded the template without discussion (and I can find no indication that the IP was specifically trying to implement the change discussed 6 months prior). I reverted it and asked them to get a consensus first, per WP:BRD. The IP started a discussion on WT:ARS, got a consensus (which differed from my opinion), and then reworded the template. The template remains reworded to this day. If I could have handled the situation better, please let me know how. SnottyWong  00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Snottywong is a valuable and experienced editor, and there's nothing about being a self-identified deletionist that would stop someone in theory from being an excellent admin. However, Snottywong's frequent and provocative clashes with the ARS gives me little confidence that he would not be tempted to use the tools to push an ideological position about content standards through blocks and AfD closures, and his often unnecessarily confrontational arguments at AfD suggest to me he may be sometimes unable to communicate his ideas in a sufficiently calm and detached manner to use the tools effectively, neutrally, and provide clear reasons for his decisions. I'd reiterate that Snottywong is without question an asset to Misplaced Pages and that as far as I can tell he's getting better, not worse, so I'd welcome another application in, say, six months. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   NB. When I talk about clashes with ARS, I'm talking about stuff like this, and this userbox (the subject of an MfD or ANI, I think, but deleted before the discussion resolved), along with regular clashes with the more enthusiastic members of ARS. - 03:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   A copy of that userbox that non-admins can see can be found here: early version; later version. SnottyWong had long ago asked for that copy to be deleted, but since it's being discussed here, I think it's only fair that non-admins get to see what's being discussed. 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, that's the one, thank you, and I don't suggest that SnottyWong still thinks that the userbox is a good idea, merely that I'm not convinced that the combination of opinions and poor judgement that led to it being created in the first place have been grown out of enough to give me confidence in granting the tools. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   Update - Just noting that I've had the opportunity of considering the candidate's excellent response to question 10, which significantly swayed my position and caused me to rethink my Oppose. However, after careful thought, my worry is not that the candidate is not normally capable of making clear and reasonable decisions by reference to policy, but rather that the candidate has on several occasions had bursts of poor judgement (often in interactions with the ARS), and during those periods I would have been very uncomfortable with the candidate having access to the admin tools. Again, the candidate is swiftly improving as an editor but those run-ins in the past are not so distant as to leave me confident Supporting today. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

4. I don't think working primarily in XfDs is a good idea for this candidate. Despite the statement that he has moved more to the center, I still get a strong deletionist vibe when reading his AfD comments and am unsure how he would read consensus in such discussions. Two that I looked at today were Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Porch sitting and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nagging; other participants noted the existence of relevant reliable sources, but reading comments like "so better to delete until such time that someone has the time and motivation to start from scratch" is distressing, as it shows a "someone else should fix this" mentality. Indeed, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative encyclopedia but I see little content development apart from a GA or so (please correct me if I am missing anything). I cannot support this candidate not because I disagree with his opinions at XfDs, but because I perceive a serious flaw in his mindset that I think will lead to (unintended) bias in closing deletion discussions. Other than echoing DustFormsWords' concerns above, I don't really see any other issues; PROD/CSD work seems fine (mostly endorsing PRODs recently), but I really would like to see a lot more content building. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   The mindset which you describe is outlined in WP:Delete the junk. When this essay was nominated for deletion by a staunchly inclusionist editor (who describes deletionists as "snotty elitists"), the nominator tried to canvass Jimbo Wales himself in the hopes of gaining his approval. Jimbo's response was, and I quote, "I actually agree with that essay completely." So you see, our friend Snotty's position is not without high-profile support... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   I don't know why Jimbo's opinion on some random essay (note, anyone can write an essay on their beliefs) is relevant at this RfA. I am not questioning the candidate's opinion, and I personally tend to agree more with Misplaced Pages:Blow it up and start over, but the attitude of the candidate at XfD is worrying in that this mentality is inherently biased in a deletionist fashion. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   I will also add that the answer to question 10 is a bit unsatisfying (although it could just be word choice on the candidate's part). XfD !votes are not mere opinions, they are interpretations of current policy. I certainly hope, Lothar von Richthofen, that neither Jimbo nor this candidate close an XfD based solely on his interpretation of an essay. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose I'm sort of deletionist, but the responses to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Porch sitting and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nagging are too much even for me. Would not feel comfortable with this candidate having free rein with the delete button. The answer to Q6 is perfectly in line with policy though. ;) Steven Walling 04:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

   All he did at the nagging XfD was tag it as having been flagged for rescue by the article rescue squadron, and then politely state: "Delete or redirect to Wiktionary per WP:DICDEF." What's wrong with that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose Regretfully. Concerns with judgement and maturity. It does not bother me if you're deletionist, but I really wish you wouldn't openly attack the Article Rescue Squadron. -FASTILY 04:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose. It looks like you've allowed a strong personal bias to manifest itself on Misplaced Pages. That's concerning to me. WikiPhilosophies are just like real life philosophies: I wouldn't trust a self-proclaimed Young Earth creationist who clashing with others over at Wikiproject Evolutionary biology to impartially assess the neutrality of evolution. In that same sense, I couldn't trust a self-proclaimed deletionist who clashes with others at the article rescue squadron to impartially assess deletion discussions. An admin has to demonstrate a neutral demeanor to those with different opinions. You've demonstrated the opposite. Swarm 05:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose Editor goes primarily into the deletion area, but occasionally has a tendency to make very poor decisions and make irrelevant comments into a deletion discussion like "Give me a break". I'm afraid he is not mature enough to be given the administrator functions. Minima c (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose, not because of the contributions, but primarily because of the user name. Admins are usually the first brush with authority that new users come across, and I don't think it will give a professional impression if that admin is named 'Snottywong'. Lankiveil 07:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

   If I recall, the same issue was brought up at my RFA. I had thought then that I would change my username; I later decided not to. But my username has come up as an issue maybe all of three times in the past year and a half. I think that if it is good enough for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names, it should be good enough for RFA. NW (Talk) 15:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose - I can't recall if we've had any past interactions, but I have seen the canditate's name often enough to agree particularly with some of the concerns brought up by Jim Miller, DustFormsWords, Fastily, Swarm, and Minimac. I agree with Lankiveil, but won't oppose based on that reason. I know that my wikiphilosophy is about at the other end of the spectrum as regards inclusionism, and at my RFA the mere suggestion that I might get involved in the deletion process raised some eyebrows, so I quickly recanted and almost two years later I still haven't touched it once. I'll reconsider my oppose if the candidate reconsiders any administrator involvement in the deletion process. BOZ (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Oppose - So far, most of my interactions with Snottywong have been negative. From what I've seen, he seems to fail to assume good faith a lot, fails to remain civil when under fire, and fails to understand core Misplaced Pages policies. That, combined with the username itself, compel me to oppose. (X! · talk)  · @416  ·  08:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose that Snottywong is even considered a serious candidate for adminship shows how combative Misplaced Pages has become. In my interactions with Snottywong he is quick to pick fights and template the regulars. He would be a disastrous administrator, alienating good faith editors, and causing division and strife. Okip 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

    That was my experience too, and a year—six months ago I would have run to the barricades to oppose this. However he definitely seems to have changed. Are your experiences recent? Have you still seen this behaviour in the last few months, because I'm pleased to say that I haven't. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

    BATTLEGROUND much, Ikip? nb: a 'retired' and disruptive editor who hates this site. Jack Merridew 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

13. Oppose. Some things that bother me. Early in the (very recent) Porch sitting AFD, an editor pointed to this NPR story entitled "Sitting on the Porch: Not a Place, But a State of Mind" which a few sentences down reads "This summer, All Things Considered is examining the front porch: its history, its role in American life and literature and its rich symbolism." SW later !voted to delete, saying "not convinced that the activity can be shown to be a notable cultural activity..." It looks to me as though he didn't check the provided link - if so his !vote didn't demonstrate a careful evaluation. Another is that he consistently takes the effort to add the tl-rescue tag at AFDs, but AFAICT seldom or never notifies the associated projects - I strongly disagree with that prioritization; the project people are the most knowledgable. Another - the original answer to the question 'have you ever been in conflicts here' rather understates the issue. Lastly, it seems to me that a fair number of the articles that he wished to delete were kept, but I don't see any withdrawals on his part. Could you, SW, explain why this is so - was the presented evidence of notability wrong, or the closings wrong? Novickas (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

    I don't deny that my opinions on AfD's don't always represent the eventual consensus that is formed. If I read an AfD and I believe the nominated article should be deleted, I will vote that way even if there are already 10 keep votes. Same thing goes for if I think it should be kept. If that makes me appear to be frequently wrong, then so be it. Your question seems to seek for evidence that I am able to admit that I am wrong and withdraw. I think some of the DRV examples linked by Mkativerata above show this, but I also did a quick search through my contributions and found these: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Blue's Big Musical Movie and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ryan Canning. SnottyWong  16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

    I'm glad to see that you have made some withdrawals. I still have concerns about the first few points I raised, but that's probably better done at the talk page. Novickas (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

14. Oppose this candidate has temperament issues which concern me. He seems unduly combative in discussions and I do not feel he confident that he would not use the tools inappropriately. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

    weak oppose I've had poor interactions with SW in the past ( being one example) but in the last few months I've found him to be greatly improved though still rough around the edges. I'm pretty much where I was with Kww's first couple of RfAs: I think he's got a better-than-even wchance of being a good admin, but the risk is too high. In another 6 months I could see easily see moving to neutral or supporting. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

    Striking, I've confused two editors. Hobit (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

15. Candidate has recently treated me with incivility bordering on contempt. No thanks. Townlake (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
16. Oppose The few interactions that I have been in with you as well as what I have seen you do on the community are quite worrisome. You are overly combative and seem to lack a whole bunch of other things that administrators need. If it was one or two things, I would support you, but the fact that there are a lot of issues are pushing me towards opposition at this time. Otherwise, I think you are a marvelous editor but a year or two of more experience couldn't hurt you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral (old commentary removed but in history)Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   Are you saying the "en" userbox by itself is a red flag, or is there something else that looks off? - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   No Dank - just (unblued) making a point - sorry. I've seen the candidate around but a little more research is needed first. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   Not a problem ... if you see something that looks off, please let us know, I take your concerns seriously. His userpage doesn't set any bells off for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral, I see no reason to oppose at this time but my (admittedly very limited) past interactions with the candidate at AFD has been about average, and nothing really stands out enough for me to support. StrPby (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Neutral pending further review. I don't recall seeing the candidate outside RfA discussions, but I also don't typically go look through the stated areas of interest. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Neutral Not enough edits to the article space, given the amount of time that the candidate has been active on the project, for me to be able to support. Best of luck, however! --Strikerforce (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Although this may yet change, I just don't see myself supporting at this time. I still have concerns about his past interactions, from which I got the general impression that he tends to be a drama magnet. I also find myself disagreeing with his viewpoint on many issues, although I can't exactly say that's relevant to whether he'd make a good admin. With all that said, I'm not in support, but it's not enough for me to oppose either, because I trust he won't break the wiki, and because I realize we need as many competent admins as we can get.. so I guess I'll see how it goes from here.. -- œ 02:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral I know that the user name to some doesn’t appear to be a huge issue. But it if I’m a new editor needing help from an admin, the name does not send a good first impression. That is easily remedied at the option of Snotty if they choose too seek. Two of the above opposes relate to Snotty and AGF concerns. However no diffs were presented showing this alleged behaviour. Going through my own search (while brief i admit) i have not come accross these. It interests me greatly what these exact allegations of not AGF are. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)