Crboyer (talk·contribs) – A Wikipedia user for almost 12 years. Reported multiple vandals to WP:AIV. Dealt with numerous vandalism sprees. Corrected typos when I spot them. I make up for my mistakes when I make them. If I acted terribly, I'll answer for that. I'm very active throughout most of the day. I hope to help. Crboyer (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Find vandals and block them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Find vandals, revert their edits and report them to WP:AIV. I've reported multiple vandals to WP:AIV.
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: The users that have caused me problems the most are problematic vandals. Special:Contributions/Sotosbros being one notable example, a user who made multiple misinformation edits and reverted them with glaring hostility. I reported Sotosbros and their socks to AIV, I asked one administrator for help blocking a few, I told them to stop a few times by pointing out their edits contradicted factual evidence. They wouldn't listen and it caused me stress. They've since been indefinitely blocked and stopped socking. In the future, I won't let a blatantly hostile vandal like that bother me.
There's also the "Putin Pooted" vandal, a troll spreading childish nonsense on Russia-related articles like 2014 Winter Olympics. They've also been bugging me personally on my talk page. I got my talk page protected for a while and my sandbox and its talk page (other avenues they've bugged me at) protected indefinitely. I also reverted their edits multiple times and reported their socks. I will continue to revert their trolling in the future and not respond to their gibberish.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
A: No, and I don't think it's appropriate for other users to act this way. If I become an administrator or am turned down, I will work to minimize this behavior. Especially when it's dealing with users who feed on animosity.
5. If you were an un-involved admin, what action would you have taken against the recent vandalism on American Sniper?
A: Due to the user's history, I would've blocked the user on sight. This is the same user that's gone after anything Russia related since 2014 (see 2014 Winter Olympics) and has gone after me personally. They are WP:NOTHERE to be constructive, so it's best to minimize their damage.
More specifically: would you have used a range-block here? How long a block would you have applied? Was page-protection also necessary? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. What would you do if while going about your everyday editing you ran across an article that had been created in 2007 but had just been tagged for speedy deletion?
A: I will assess the article, see if it's reliably sourced and is otherwise appropriate for Wikipedia. I'll make sure the article was tagged properly (I've seen a few articles tagged for speedy deletion by trolls). See this recent case for something I encountered. If the article was obviously plagiarized, or has no explanation of their significance, or is incomplete, that's a few ways to tell that article needs to go. I'll need to see what the article is and if it meets the qualifications for Wikipedia before I make the call.
7. Can you give a few examples of what you would and wouldn't consider to be a credible claim of significance for a living person?
A: Who I would consider significant: A person who made the news for a significant event, like an entertainer, politician, or criminal. Who I wouldn't consider significant: some random person from the obituary section. See the strange case on Deaths in January 2017 where Special:Contributions/Jayden Turner (now indefinitely blocked) kept adding some random person without explaining their significance or sourced their deaths. Multiple times. Also, someone whose only significance is being related to someone famous isn't considered significant.
8. I've already voted, but here goes: Are you happy to perform other admin duties other than anti-vandalism when it is necessary for you to do so, or will you self-restrict yourself to working just in the field of anti-vandalism?
A: ::A: I think anti-vandalism is what I'm good at right now. If I need to do anymore administrator duties, drop me a line.
10. I think you have missed some subtleties and show some lack of deeper understandings in your answers to questions 5, 6 and 7. Would you care to re-examine them, think about them more deeply (maybe read up on the appropriate policies), and perhaps expand on your answers?
A: I have rephrased my answers above. Am I allowed to do that?
Support I have no problem with admins just doing one thing. You can do whatever tickles ya fancy here. Be nice to see more folks at AIV; we can see a net positive here. Clean block log, edit summaries are good, been here long enough, doesn't care about the recent AfD fad here since he has apparently only voted once :P Yeah, yeah. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I've always thought that editors who nominate themselves for any position of "Power" (ie admin, crat, rollback) to be crass and overly confident, but I feel like I am, in this case, comfortable with the user after seeing some of his past work. In addition, vandalism is a huge problem lately, and having an admin dedicated almost solely to reverting it would be great. However, I think that admins who focus solely in one area are sometimes more of a liability than an aid sometimes, so I think that the user should branch out. I would also like to see more content on the user's userpage. Until these concerns are fixed, I will not fully support, but I suppose my vote still counts. MasterMetalhead309 18:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalhead309 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Oppose
Oppose the answers to my questions don't leave me with a lot of confidence that they will handle the delete button appropriately. In the case of the 2007 question, I'm worried because with few exceptions (such as G12 that we haven't caught for years, which is very rare but does happen), an article that has been in Wikipedia for 10 years will never be uncontroversial to delete without discussion or the opportunity for someone to object. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I feel quite strongly that administrators need to treat people with respect -- even those who have temporary lapses in judgement. So, as much as I respect the candidate's hard work on anti-vandalism patrol, I must regretfully oppose. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The candidate has made only one article - Keith Robinson (actor), not a good example of anything. A single vote on AfD for a very obvious speedy delete. A single SPI filing, even though he is a self-proclaimed vandal fighter. There is clear evidence of alot of repetitive reversion of vandalism but no wider interaction with Wikipedia and therefore no real experience. I am concerned that this editor is too focused on a single issue, and that he would be unable to properly ground decisions to block people, unable to properly assess their net value to wikipedia, and could easily judge a situation incorrectly. The blocking power being the only tool he has an apparent interest in, yet I do not believe this candidate is ready for it. Dysklyver 19:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 'You've only created one article in your tenure, it appears, and although I respect and understand that standards were that much lower regarding referencing (particularly regarding BLPs) in 2006, I think article creation is pretty important- if only for purposes of illustrating an understanding of what causes issues and how people react to them. However, I respect that not every editor feels the same way re. content creation, so let's have a look at the need for the tools the candidate presents us with. The answers to the questions are generally weak, beng mostly a vague handwaving towards "blocking vandals" etc. This is the deal-breaker though, and certainly an elephant in the room; the only area of maintenance the candidate wants to get involved in is vanfal fighting (fair play to them on that)- yet I see [https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats
Oppose I don't like to oppose, but there is simply a lack of experience in enough admin areas to be able to make an informed decision in this case. Also, I don't think the candidate understood question #4, so I think more work in other areas and then maybe try again in 6 months or a year.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
General comments
Re question 4: I think if someone pastes in an article the string FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE FART POOP AND PEE (repeated several dozen more times), then it's perfectly acceptable, for any kind of user, to revert it with an edit summary like grow up and find something else to do. – Uanfala 18:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. User:Ritchie333 you may want to refactor your question. The person writing nonstop pee poop and fart is not an “editor,” as you’ve posed in your question, but a vandal. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear the candidate's answer to the question. In the meantime, see WP:INSULT. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]