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

Mentoz86[edit]

Final (58/13/3). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 10:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Mentoz86 (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Mentoz86. Mentoz likes his football (or his soccer, depending on where you're from), and does some very good work over at WikiProject Football. His main focus is content - he has brought Andreas Tegström to Good Article status, submitted 69 successful DYKs, and he has made over 16,000 edits to article space. To get an idea of where all those edits come from, you can look at his watchlist, his sandbox index and the list of articles he has created.

I first became aware of Mentoz at AfD, and his AfD statistics speak for themselves. His rationales are well-thought-through and show a very good knowledge of the deletion policy. And to top it all off, he is helpful and just generally seems like a nice guy. I really can't find anything to fault with him, and I hope that you will agree with me that Wikipedia will benefit from giving him the admin tools. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Stradivarius, I accept the nomination. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I started to nominated articles for DYK about two years ago, and after I became more confident with the DYK-process, I started to promote nominations to the preparation areas, checking that the reviewers have done their job that the articles meet the DYK-criteria and are free of close paraphrasing. If I become an administrator I would find it natural to do the admin-job of moving the sets in the prep-area to the queue. Another part that is appealing in becoming an admin is closing discussions like AfD, RM, CfD and TfD. I don't have as much experience from the latter three as I have in AfD, but I am confident in how the process works, and wouldn't have any problems with closing discussions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The obvious answer would be to say my only GA, but the biggest job of editing Wikipedia are when articles I expand or improve are read by the public – the GA is about a minor footballer that doesn't receive a lot of attention. A good example would be the article Molde FK, the article is the reason that I started editing Wikipedia. The quality of the article isn't very good, but the feeling when tens of thousands viewers in May 2012 (when the club's manager was heavily linked to an English Premier League side) could read this article instead of the stub-like article that was there before I started editing Wikipedia, is what keep me editing Wikipedia.
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: In 2012, there was an user who thought that I was "hounding" him, and reported me at ANI in June 2012 for "praising the deletion of his family". That user has later started to written articles about Norwegian jazz musicians, some of which I felt wasn't notable and that I proposed and/or nominated for deletion. See for instance this AfD, this DRV or his talk page from October 2012. When looking back at it, I agree with the user that my behaviour towards him wasn't the best, but I decided to leave the articles he created alone, despite that we both write about Norwegian topics and I regularly "patrol" Norwegian articles.

I've also been involved in a lot of small disputes about minor issues, and one recent example would be this edit, which I thought was incorrect and reverted along with other similar edits by the same editor. After a couple of minutes my reverts was reverted by a third user, resulting in a discussion at their talk page. If situations like this cause me stress I try to edit other articles or simply take a break from the computer, and return to the dispute when I have thought it over, and try to reach a consensus with the other editor(s), though in this example the discussion ended without reaching any consensus. In a quirky way it is satisfying to have other editors disagreeing with you, because that means that other editors actually care about what you write, and that is what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Additional question from Trevj
4. Hi. Did this footy-related deletion discussion change in any way your interpretation of notability guidelines for footballers, as applied to women? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A:Yes, that WP:NFOOTY is inapplicable for women's footballers, as there are almost none fully-pro leagues for women. The women's footballers that are playing on the best teams in the top women's league, like the Swedish and German, or in the UEFA Women's Champions League, does normally receive enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline. After that discussion I've been cautious to nominate women's footballers for deletion, but I believe this recent AfD shows that my interpretation has changed, as I tried to show that she wasn't notable without mentioning the irrelevant fact that she hasn't played in a fully-pro league
Additional questions from Leaky Caldron
5. Which 2 of these best describe your attitude towards becoming an Admin.: Elevation, Selection, Promotion, Recognition, Deserve, Entrust.
A:It was never my goal to become an administrator, but when I was first asked by Mr. Stradivarius in September 2012, I was thinking that I might become an admin some day, but that it was too early for me. When I again was asked this autumn, I thought "why not", and I am happy that my contributions to Wikipedia are of the character that makes other people consider me a candidate to be Entrusted the tools and Selected for adminship.
6. It is important that members of a small but powerful group such as Admins be able to offer criticism to fellow Admins. Choosing always to turn a blind eye or err in favour of maintaining harmony / siding with fellow Admins. will likely result in a place less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, set out how you would challenge instances of improper behaviour by fellow Admins. Use the examples of (a) errors of fact in a decision and (b) behaviour or attitude by an experienced Admin. towards an editor which you feel is inappropriate. If you have ever involved yourself into such a situation, please provide diffs.
A:If I find some behavior by other admins improper, I would talk to them and try to show that their actions isn't good. If that doesn't help, I would probably try to get some other admins to have a look at the situations, for instance at WP:ANI. I was involved a situation where I thought the behavior by the admin was improper in September 2012, when I noticed this discussion between an admin and another editor. I started to question the admin's behavior, especially after this and this edit, where the admin from my point of view changed the policy to get the upper hand in the dispute with the other editor. I reverted the admin, as I thought it was incorrect to add this without discussion, (diff diff) and a discussion was started on the talk page. The admin had the consensus on their side, but I wasn't aware of that consensus, and I couldn't know because it wasn't written anywhere. It should also be noted that I one month after this discussion I realized that the other editor's action, adding birth dates without a citation, was disruptive after I found this article which claimed that a handballer was born after she played for the national team.
Additional questions from Hobit
7. Could you explain the relationship between the SNGs and the GNG? In particular consider a BLP where the SNG is clearly met (WP:PROF say) but there was no independent sourcing on the topic (just a bio from their employer)? What if there was no biographical information at all other than their (self-published) vita and their rather long list of publications? Hobit (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: The SNG's are made to show editors what normally takes for a subject to meet the GNG, which means that most subjects that passes the SNG are notable. Though if a subject pass the SNG, but fails the GNG the article should be deleted. Especially when it comes to BLP's we should be strict and delete articles where GNG isn't met despite meeting SNG. For a person that passes WP:PROF with a long list of publications, we need reliable sources discussing the publications to confirm notability, not necessarily biographical information. In your example, are you talking about what are presently in the article, or that there cannot be found any coverage in reliable sources besides the bio from the employer and a self-published vita? If the first, I would have searched around for more sources before drawing any conclusions on the notability, but if no coverage in reliable sources could be found I would say that the subject wasn't notable.
Additional questions from Carrite
8. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name? If so, what was this name or what were these names?
A. No, I haven’t edited with any other usernames than Mentoz86. I did some edits as an anon before I created this account in 2010, and I even got a friendly message from an experienced editor. I’ve tried to find my old IP to thank that editor for the kind message, but I haven’t found it. I’ve also done a couple of edits as an anon after I created this account, but that is only when I have been logged out without noticing.
9. Since you indicate a desire to do work as a closer at Articles for Deletion... How would you close the following two debates: (a) A 2000 byte piece on John Smith Elementary School showing three references from local newspapers; (b) A 2000 byte piece on John Smith High School showing one reference from a local newspaper? What is the rationale for these decisions?
A.I wouldn’t say that I have a lot of experience from school-related AfD’s so I would probably read and participate in a few discussions before attempting to close one. My closing decision would depend on the strengths of the arguments presented in the discussion and the consensus in the AfD, but as far as I know articles about high schools even with fairly weak sourcing are normally kept, while we would need evidence that the elementary school was particular notable to be kept.
Additional question from Coffee
10. As you've indicated your wishes to close AFDs... Would you please elaborate on what in policy brought you to this conclusion?
A: As I stated in that discussion, I am of the opinion that the sources I’ve presented can assist the list in meeting the notability guideline for stand-alone lists, WP:LISTN, as it is discussed as a set in multiple reliable sources. I should probably have elaborated how the list didn’t fail WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, as I am of the opinion that well-sourced explanatory text could have been added using the sources I presented in the AfD.
Additional question from Steel1943
11. The role of an administrator can sometimes require you to be a "jack-of-all-trades" when it comes to all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. With this being said, is there any specific policy or procedure that you would consider yourself "not experienced" or "not knowledgeable"? And, if so, do you either: 1) have a plan to make yourself more knowledgeable and experienced in that policy and/or procedure, or 2) have a specific reason why you have chosen to not participate or become knowledgeable in the aforementioned policy and/or procedure?
A: By looking at the list of policies, I must admit that I don’t have much knowledge about the Image use policy or Revision deletion. The reason I haven’t read much about the image use policy is primarily because I haven’t had a lot to do with images at all. If I was going to do an administrative action in one of those two fields, I would read up on the relevant policy and instructions, go to other editors more experienced in the relevant policies, maybe even ask questions on relevant noticeboards to assure myself that I was doing it right. And if I was unsure still, then I would hand over the issue to other experienced editors.
Additional questions from DGG
12. I'm following up on Q7. Please reread WP:PROF, especially the first paragraph under criteria, and then tell me if you still hold by your answer. If you do, examine a few relevant AfDs and comment.
A: I stand by my answer that most SNG's are made to show what normally takes for a subject to meet the GNG. But looking at PROF, it states that those who meet one of the following are notable, so I guess that I was mistaken in that case – GNG doesn't have to be passed for an article to pass WP:PROF. However, PROF also states that it is possible to ”be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject”, but that isn’t the same as passing GNG.
13. For some other SNG guidelines the situation is essentially similar. What are they? For some, if is different, and the SNG just an assumption of notability . For some, both requirements must be met. And for one common case, the actual practice isn't in a guideline at all. Which ones am I referring to?
A: WP:MUSIC, WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO are similar to PROF, as these guidelines have additional criteria where the article can be kept even if the subject doesn't technically pass GNG. WP:NSPORT is more an assumption of notability. I guess the common case would be something that has already been discussed, that high schools are normally kept, while elementary schools are merged or redirect.
14. What is the relative role of written guideline and our usual practices ?
A: Consensus can change, and even though we have written something in a guideline, editors can agree to do it in an other way. Sometimes our usual practice evolves into making changes to the relevant policies.
15. How are changes in guidelines and policies developed at WP?
A: While some editors are bold and do minor adjustment to these pages, bigger changes are normally discussed on the talk pages of the relevant guidelines or policies. When prososing major changes to a guideline and policy, relevant WikiProjects could be notified and/or a WP:RFC are opened.
16. What is the tole of IAR with respect to some of the guideline or policies ( just pick ome or two examples, don;t try to discuss all the possible cases.)
A: In a discussion, like an AfD, there can be a consensus to ignore the rules, and instead use common sense. If there exists a consensus to do things contrary to the written guideline, this is often cited in later discussion on related subjects. One example, not related to AfD, would be that the Footy-projects ignores the WP:MOSNUM when it comes to WP:YEAR, as they write the years in the infoboxes of footballers e.g 2010–2012.
Additional question from Trevj
17. The majority of your contributions to AfD appear to be linked to footy topics. Is any specialist knowledge/research required in order to close AfDs etc. in other topic areas? What would your approach be to making such closes? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I’ve also tried to monitor Norwegian and Swedish AfD’s through WP:DELSORT, as those are languages I understand. The same would apply to Danish AfD’s, but some reason I don’t have the Danish DELSORT on my watchlist. In most cases I don’t think you need any specialist knowledge or research to close AfD’s, but you need to know the relevant policies and examine the comments in the discussion to find out what the consensus is. But I wouldn’t close an AfD on a subject in which I have no knowledge of whatsoever. Sometimes it can also be useful to understand the language of which the sources presented in the AfD are written in.
Additional question from Leaky Caldron
18. What authority do Wikiprojects have to make rules or editorial decisions?
A: The WikiProjects have authoriy to decide what they want they articles to look like, and what should be included in the articles, to have the articles be consistent to eachother, as long as it doesn’t go against any relevant policy or guideline. On the other hand, a WikiProject cannot decide to have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, that other WikiProjects would disagree to.
Additional question from Thingg
19. You said that one of the admin areas you intend to work on is moving DYK noms to the queue since you have already been moving them to the prep area(s) occasionally. Can you briefly describe the process that you go through before promoting a nomination to a prep area now?
A: Simply said: I do the review over again, checking that the article meet the DYK-criteria; that the hook is correct and that it is an inline citation that support the hook-fact. The article should also be written from a neutral POV, but the most important is to look for copyvio or close paraphrasing. The DYK-system is build up with three different people (the reviewer, the one who promotes it into the prep-area and the admin that moves it into the queue) checking the article, to prevent articles with close paraphrasing, an incorrect hook or other bad articles hit the main page.
Additional question from User:Spicemix
20. Per 18. above, how specifically do you feel about naming at WikiProject Birds ?
A: MOS:ORGANISMS is only a proposed guideline, so the editors at WikiProject Birds doesn't have to take that one into account, but WP:NAME has five characteristics that an article title should follow and WP:CONSISTENCY is one of them. I believe it looks strange to have birds being named King Penguin with two uppercases while other animals like Gray wolf have one uppercase, but it could be defended per WP:COMMONNAME if the common name of birds are written with uppercases while other animals are written without the uppercases. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support Capable, competent, knowledgeable about policy issues. Small patches of language issues notwithstanding, will learn from experience. Wifione Message 10:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Very happy to support my co-patriot Mentoz. Mentoz is one of those valuable users who help Wikipedia go round, very focused on actually building the encyclopedia, both content and general maintenance and not distracted by meta-dramas etc. While we don’t typically edit the same articles – he`s a sport/soccer guy and I am not – I have come across him when he helps out with other tasks in Norway related articles, and I have always found him reasonable, trustworthy, helpful and sympathetic. My interaction with him on these tasks (AfDs, DYKs, WP:Norway’s noticeboard, occasional article discussions etc.) has shown me that he clearly able to make good reasoning about other topics than soccer; although the latter his main focus. He is not inclined to get into needless conflict, and very easy to co-operate with. If he should make any mistakes, like most of us sometimes do, I am confident he will help to sort it out nicely and willingly listen to constructive criticism. But I absolutely think he has more than enough experience and knowledge to make a fine and useful admin at the present stage. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support - I have known Mentoz for a long time; we are both active at WT:FOOTY. While we have disagreed at some AFDs - that means he was wrong, of course ;) - his combination of knowledge and common sense means he will be an able admin. GiantSnowman 13:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support what I've seen from him in AFD is positive. Secret account 13:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support I was a bit concerned reading Trevj's linked AFD where this candidate appeared to be continuing to press for deletion simply because the subject didn't meet some SNG even though it appeared to pass the GNG. However, the candidate's answer to Hobit's question has reassured me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Level-headed, good grasp of policy; can be trusted with the mop. Miniapolis 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support per ErikHaugen. --John (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support level-headed candidate with a range of solid content experience as well as good AFD work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support - I don't really see a problem with his answer to Q7. WP:PROF specifically says in the section under the list of criteria, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.". Asking a question, then opposing when he answers correctly based on the intent and wording of the relevant guideline seems kind of like the definition of a trick question. Mr.Z-man 20:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, certainly not indented as a trick question. I looked over his contributions at AfD and noted that he seemed to feel that meeting an SNG isn't enough to have an article. I asked a question using the most standard example where meeting the SNG but not the GNG is generally found to be enough. He got it wrong, which is IMO highly problematic. In retrospect I probably should have asked a follow-up question (DGG's is pretty good) asking him to look more closely at how the GNG and SNG interact. If was worried that doing so would be badgering and was hopeful that further comments from him would address the issue. I don't want an admin who views the interaction of the SNG and GNG as a black-and-white thing. And for the record, yes it is possible to be notable by the standard but not be appropriate for an article, but that's also true of a topic that meets the GNG. That sentence does not mean that not meeting the GNG means we shouldn't have an article and I think that's pretty obvious from both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SNGs are not meant to supersede the GNG. They are meant to provide cases where the GNG is highly likely to be met, to save editors the trouble of finding sources just to establish notability especially when the sources may not be online or in English. If it can be established that the presumed sources don't actually exist, then the topic is not notable. GNG is not an arbitrary bar. If there are no reliable secondary sources, then making an article that is verifiable, not original research, and written from an NPOV is effectively impossible. If the only source for an academic is their faculty bio, I don't see how we could possibly write an article that actually meets all the core content policies. The fact that other people at AFD are willing to set aside core content policies in favor of an SNG doesn't mean that's really the correct way to go. Mr.Z-man 20:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I understand it the SNGs existed before the GNG, so the claim that the SNGs are meant to defer to the GNG is probably a stretch. Further, WP:BIO and WP:PROF both make it plain that we can have articles on people. For example "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources" is part of WP:BIO. It's fine to disagree with that, but to claim that it isn't part of our notability guidelines that sometimes we can have article that don't meet the GNG is mistaken. Hobit (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regardless of when they were created, using an SNG to justify keeping an article that could never meet VP:V or NPOV is obviously wrong. If someone's biography is not discussed in secondary sources or even independent primary sources, then we shouldn't have a biography on them. As no one would ever include negative material in their faculty bio, an article where that is the only source will never be anything but a summary of the subject's CV. If there is consensus to do so, we can keep an article on a subject that might not pass a notability guideline. But NPOV and verifiability are pretty much non-negotiable. And I would expect any admin to discount arguments on an AFD that argue otherwise. Mr.Z-man 18:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support - although I think Hobit raises a valid concern in regard to the answer to Q7, overall I think the candidate will make a fine admin. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support -- I'd be happy to see him end up with the mop. Sportsguy17 (happy holidays!) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support -- Mentoz86 has very good content creation experience and significant experience interacting with other editors. He also has a history of working in areas like DYK and AfD where they could be of further service if they had Admin tools. Mentoz86 has a clean block log and shows a willingness to examine his/her behavior in hindsight and recognize mistakes. I am not overly concerned regarding their slight misunderstandings of the fine points of some guidelines and procedures as indicated in the Q&A. No one is fully prepared for Adminship until they get the mop and experience it first hand. There is some learning curve there. So I think their past experience and good judgement will allow them to keep the learning curve to a minimum and avoid any significant or harmful errors in the process. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support — ΛΧΣ21 04:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support User is a good content creator and has been editing since regularly since July 2011.See no concerns.Feel the project only gains with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support. I agree with several above that Q7 is a bit of a trick question, particularly with the "just a bio from their employer" bit. The official website of an accredited university often would be considered a reliable source, particularly if it was only being used to establish the pattern of publication in peer-reviewed journals (which would of course be both reliable and independent. So the likelihood of a person who meets the SNG and not the GNG in the precise way that Hobit describes is very small. I would suggest that the candidate not close borderline articles on football-related topics at least for several months, as past involvement is likely to lead to greater scrutiny there. Chick Bowen 05:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support I am impressed by the general reasonable good sense shown in the answers to the above questions. --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support His tone in an ANI discussion linked above is a little concerning, but overall he seems like a good candidate. I admire someone who takes initiative and responsibility in a specific area, as he's done at AfD, and earns respect for his judgment. TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support His contribs in Wikipedia are appreciated and hence a deserving candidate... Herald talk with me 14:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support - Per his thoughtful answer to my question and otherwise general trustworthiness to not abuse the tools. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support Rzuwig► 18:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Nice job at AfD. buffbills7701 02:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support. Trustworthy editor. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Nice work. Alex discussion ★ 14:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Weak support because it doesn't seem like you've got a lot planned out to work on other than what you're already doing. That said, that's not a reason to oppose. I want to see you answer the more difficult questions added in the last few days before I'll make a firm commitment to this RFA. —Soap— 16:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. No admin is entirely impartial when it comes to the application of policy. Candidate seems knowledgeable and competent enough to know when injecting his own values is a bad idea. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Weak Support - Most things look good to me, and while the issues raised by the opposes raise some concern, I do not think they are significant enough to oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Inks.LWC (talk • contribs) 07:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Weak support While the answers to various questions still leave something to be desired, the candidate seems able to learn and take advice. If provided with the tools, I believe he will exercise their usage with caution. Many potential errors in policy interpretation could easily occur even without using the tools. In such cases, I'm sure others will put him back on track. Good luck! -- Trevj (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support. Generally good contributions. Sensible comments at AfD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support - yep, needs more support, training and guidance but there's nothing I've seen to suggest that new admins should know everything and be unwilling to learn... quite the opposite in fact. Everything I've seen suggests he has the right attitude. That's the key. Stalwart111 13:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support despite the issues discussed in the oppose section, I still think sysoping Mentoz86 will be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support I was leaning oppose because of DGG's oppose comments, but the answers to DGG's questions and subsequent answers greatly reduce my concern for an otherwise clearly qualified candidate.I am One of Many (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support Many people seem to have the conception that adminship on Wikipedia should be the ultimate larger than life thing for which one must possess every possible detail on all Wikipedia policies. I myself think that adminship is just part of the general learning process, not only on Wiki but in life in general. I definitely see positive aspects overcoming the negatives here. Widr (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support with caveat per User:Josh_Parris/RfA criteria: Dosen't trip any negative criteria - High 90s edit count, with 100% recently, uses meaningful edit summaries. Acceptable AFD showing, 8.4% of AfD's where vote didn't match result. No censorous talk page removals, no signs of incivility. Not a drama magnet, also no blocks. More than two years activity, constant. Plenty of edits. Trips positive criteria - High edit count, spread over many pages and namespaces, admin practice. Of concern: Ratio of surviving speedy requests to speedy requests is about 17%; I strongly advise the candidate to be wary and take advice and mentoring if undertaking CSD work as an admin. As the candidate has not listed CSD to be an area they're planning on working in, I will support because on the balance of measures they are a good admin candidate. Josh Parris 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support - Have seen nothing in my encounters with him that would lead me to believe they would be a bad admin. Question answers also seem mostly well thought out. I agree though probably needs to look into CSD a bit more.Blethering Scot 22:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support. I think that AfD has become the third rail of RfA, and we need to differentiate between candidates who should be rejected because they are firmly committed to closing AfDs contrary to consensus (or are incapable of understanding consensus), and candidates who can learn from the feedback of an RfA. The answer to Q12A probably won't satisfy everyone, but for me, it's good enough to make me trust that this is a candidate who is willing and able to learn. Really folks, I fully understand how emotionally fraught article deletion decisions are, but we need to lighten up on the mindset that RfA candidates who trip up over a notability question should be called out on a "gotcha" because otherwise they will wreck the project. (Mea culpa. I opposed the first WP:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman, and in hindsight, I was wrong, wrong, wrong.) I would still oppose if I thought a candidate were pushing an agenda that went contrary to consensus or were too clueless to understand consensus, but that is not what I am seeing here. I have a lot of respect for the nominator, and I'm ready to trust the candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support. I think the candidate is being treated harshly for a lack of nuanced understanding regarding the WP:PROF exception to the relationship between SNGs and the GNG. "if a subject pass the SNG, but fails the GNG the article should be deleted" is generally true. It is routinely upheld this was at DRV. However, WP:PROF is a unique exception, pre-dating the GNG as a respected guideline informing WP:DEL#REASON, and being more generous than the GNG. (cf WP:CORP, which is more restrictive than the GNG). Wikipedia-Notability has always been contentious. Fortunately, decisions of Wikipedia-notability are not in the hands of admins, but in the hands of XfD participants. In any case, if an admin is at error in closing XfDs, they are quickly reliably re-educated. Admins can be forgiven for mistakes. This candidate is knowledgeable enough, and seems very unlikely to break the project with an admin mistake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support. Good candidate. INeverCry 04:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Candidate has been here a while, has a clean block log and seems ready for adminship. STFG's oppose concerned me but an isolated example from 8 months ago, whilst not good, does seem like a rare exception. DGG's oppose is also important, but I do not fully share DGG's concern. DGG is opposing because the candidate has an imperfect knowledge of policy outside an area where he is already active. I would seek reassurance from the candidate that he will check policy first before using the tools in an unfamiliar area. But I will not oppose over that, though I probably would have if he had shown signs of being overly deletionist in his actual edits. ϢereSpielChequers 07:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Per Were, a good analysis. NativeForeigner Talk 09:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support - GNG, SNG, PNG? Whilst there are some concerns raised about an abrasive manner, his recent talk pages look fine to me. He has been very active for over 2 years, and would be a useful addition to the admin corps. Jamesx12345 13:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. I think Mentoz will do a good job overall. I think he may have gotten GNG and SNG mixed up, but that's an easy mistake to rectify. Kurtis (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support. Great veteran editor. --Carioca (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. I get that the opposes make good points in theory, but I would need more evidence of the points made to oppose, personally. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support I have been going back and forth for a few days on this and while I do admit that Allen3's oppose made me pause (a lot), after the candidate's answer to my question demonstrates that he does understand how the DYK promotion procedure is supposed to work (even though evidently he has made some mistakes), I feel that granting him admin rights will be a net positive to the project. Although I would like to request that if you do promote items to the queue, please be careful. We've had waay too many problems at DYK recently and we really don't need any more. Also the question about notability does not concern me too much because honestly in most cases the question of whether something is notable or not is almost always a judgement call to some extent and, as WereSpielChequers mentioned in his comment above, I see no evidence that the candidate is likely to start deleting stuff randomly for no reason. The main thing though that I've seen that pushed me to support is a clear demonstration that the candidate is willing and able to learn from his mistakes and to listen when he is given guidance and advice. There are definitely a lot of ways that an admin can make mistakes here (I know this very well), but I really can't see any evidence that if he (almost inevitably) makes a mistake that he will not learn from it. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support This seems a very reasonable nomination, and they seem to be a great editor. I don't have reason to doubt that they would be a good admin too. I read the oppose section but didn't see anything particularly compelling there. Best of luck to you, whatever the outcome. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support - The candidate shows a good attitude, a decent knowledge base, and a clean block log. I also respect the nominator highly, and am impressed by the patience shown with the questioning. The concentration on sports, per Leaky's oppose, gives me a bit of pause but in the end the net positive of seeing this guy with a mop is what impresses me enough to support. If given the extra buttons, allow me to suggest study and reflection when working in areas not fully understood, as well as a willingness to ask advice. My thanks to the candidate for the offer of service, and best wishes. Jusdafax 02:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support. In particular, the candidate's clearly stated action plan for developing skills in areas where he does not usually participate is excellent. It's unreasonable to expect total familiarity with every possible admin area; almost every administrator finds a particular niche and/or works with others to develop a new skill. (To this day, I ensure I have someone more knowledgeable walking me through any edits I make to MediaWiki space, and I've been an admin for 5 years.) Risker (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support per Jusdafax, Keithbob and WSC. Good luck! Minima© (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support per ϢereSpielChequers' strong analysis. However, I respect the points made by DGG — hopefully Mentoz86 will spend time to more completely understand the notability guidelines. - tucoxn\talk 03:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support. I especially agree with Tryptofish, Risker and Thingg. The opposers' concerns are not frivolous but I think they are exaggerated with respect to this candidate. He has made a few mistakes and misstatements and may need to have a little sharper understanding of a few matters, but almost everyone does. I see no persistently wrong or uncivil behavior. I see a willingness to learn and be careful and considerable good experience. The supporters who have given a careful analysis are persuasive. Donner60 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support. Has a good variety of contributions and has demonstrated a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. Per Donner60, whatever mistakes that are pointed in the opposing section are not of sufficient magnitude to deny adminship. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support Whilst the comment about SNGs and GNGs does concern me, I think the candidate has done a really good job explaining and justifying their position. Especially that they stuck by their position when faced with opposition explained why they thought that. This was the only concern I had about the candidate having the mop, so I am very happy to support now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support Not perfect, but any negatives are far exceeded by superior contributions. If "NOTYET", then when? None of us can un-do the mistakes we made 8 months ago, we can only learn, and do better. If we need to wait for editors to have perfect knowledge of all wikipedia policies, in all areas, we will not have enough interested editors to help facilitate running this project. I think NOW is good. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!)
  57. Wizardman 02:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support - I don't expect an admin to be perfect, especially before holding a mop. Overall trustworthy and a benefit to the encyclopedia, I judge he will be a net positive, make mistakes, admit them, correct them, learn from them and continue to improve WP. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 05:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose My interactions with him through the DYK project indicate a user with a flippant attitude, minimal knowledge of the processes and procedures, and an unwillingness to help others. --Allen3 talk 10:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Allen3: Would you be willing to give us some examples? With the information in your comment it is hard to know what behaviour of Mentoz's you thought was flippant, what knowledge of processes and procedures you think he is lacking, etc. Seeing some examples would help other editors to understand what you mean, and to judge the situation for themselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My first direct interaction with Mentoz86 is available at User talk:Mentoz86/Archive 2#Promotion of Marcus A. Smith. Please note the his use of an emoticon to indicate that he considered the issue a joke followed by a decision to pounce on my willingness to admit to personal bias while he completely ignored his own biases. As anyone who has been an admin for any length of time is aware, part of the task is being able to deal with upset individuals from time to time. Considering how poorly he handled my rather restrained remarks, I cringe to think how Mentoz would react to the type of hostility that is common to forums like WP:ANI. As to other issues, take a look at some of his recent work at DYK. At Template:Did you know nominations/Andreas Landgren he failed to detect that the article he was nominating was well below DYK's minimum size requirement while at Template:Did you know nominations/Picasso's Regjeringskvartalet murals he missed fairly obvious instances of close paraphrasing. This implies an individual that is either unfamiliar with these fundamental DYK rules or who does not pay attention to his work. He is also displaying a habit of delaying his quid-pro-quo review responsibility (the old ""I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" dodge) as demonstrated at Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Tippeligaen. --Allen3 talk 18:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry that you feel that way about our first interaction. What I meant to say was, "Yes, I'd be happy to explain", and I will probably be more cautious in the future about using emoticons when communicating with editors I don't know. I even tried to thank you for your constructive feedback, but if you thought that I was joking about it, that sentence might have made it worse. While I might have done some errors, I disagree with that I have a habit of delaying QPQ reviews – I have for a long time done the QPQ-reviews in advance, and stored them in my userspace. If I write TBD in the reviewed field, it's simply to remind myself that I need to copy one of those QPQ's into that nomination. I don't have as many "spare QPQ" as of now, but the QPQ I added to 2013 Tippeligaen was done before I nominated the article for DYK. Thank you for making me aware of that I've forgotten to add the QPQ. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • So, your oppose is based on the use of an emoticon and some unsympathetic comments made well over a year ago? What happened to AGF? Anyways, thank you for your comments. Technical 13 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose I feel that "though if a subject pass the SNG, but fails the GNG the article should be deleted" is a pretty large misunderstanding of how we actually do things. 90% of academic articles would need to be deleted as coverage in independent reliable sources is quite rare. I don't object to someone holding an opinion that things should be that way (though I'd disagree), but the candidate seems to believe that they are that way which is troubling in an admin. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Hobit: - there is plenty of consensus at AFD whereby articles which technically pass the SNG but fail the GNG have been deleted, especially in the field of soccerball where Mentoz edits most frequently. GiantSnowman 14:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: - that explains perhaps his answer, but the example given was WP:PROF. There, as Hobit says, if a subject passes the SNG, articles are commonly kept and that seems to reflect a large consensus of editors in that area. --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As Randykitty notes, WP:PROF is the best example where the SNG regularly is applied without passing the GNG. But even in sports articles I'd say that it is well less than half the time that an article will be deleted when the SNG is clearly passed and folks can't find enough sources to meet the GNG. I'd say that his view of how the SNGs and GNG generally interact is mistaken. Again, I don't mind if that's his opinion about how they should interact--that's a reasonable opinion. But stating it as fact is troubling. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All articles on footballers are given a period of grace in order to be brought up to meet GNG, or for the case to be made that we should simply assume they meet GNG (e.g. a player from 100 years ago but who made a significant contribution to his club; it may not meet GNG per online sources but it is sensible to assume they do if we were to trawl offline sources). However, if GNG cannot be met, or cannot be assumed to be met, then the article should be deleted - and that applies whether they are a footballer or an academic or anything else. There is no such thing as 'automatic' notability. GiantSnowman 15:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hobit, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a very important policy. If a subject meets some SNG, what good is that if we can't verify anything about the subject in the article? As Jimmy says, "it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources." Really I think that is the basis of the GNG: how can we write a verifiable article about something when there isn't significant coverage on it in reliable independent sources with which to verify the information? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, I'm not disputing WP:V is required. I'm noting that WP:PROF generally leads us to have articles on folks that meet that SNG even if the only significant sources on the subject are from their institution. Such sources couldn't generally be used to meet the GNG. I'll note that WP:BIO makes it pretty darn clear that articles can meet our notability requirements either through the GNG or by meeting WP:BIO (though not all that meet WP:BIO are guaranteed an article, just as not all that meet the GNG are). Hobit (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose I don't see how someone can argue that 'I've figured out how DYK submissions work so I'd like to be an admin to process DYK submissions.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I read it, the idea is to be able to move DYKs from the prep areas to the queues. The candidate is currently involved in moving to the prep areas, in advance of them being moved to the queues by others. -- Trevj (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose He does not understand the notability guidelines. He was unfortunate in having picked a field unfamiliar to him where the consensus is very different from what it is in fields with which he is more familiar. This is not a quibble--thou there is almost total agreement about WP:PROF, the relationships in the other cases are much more often disputed. This is a key part of the admin role, and lack of depth in his knowledge here implies to me that there might be other areas with similarly insufficient knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I appreciate his subsequent responses to my question of this, which shows he is willing to learn--but perhaps an application for RfA would be more appropriate once he has already learned. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose rather regretfully. On seeing this thread, in which Mentoz86 intervened in what looks like a personality clash and brought the whole thing to a swift end by helping to find a compromise, I nearly supported on the spot. Mentoz86 knows his way around, is polite, and handles himself well in tense situations -- usually. But there is this unfortunate case, where he describes an editor in good standing as "skilled in using irrelevant policies in favour of his own opinion" -- an unambiguous personal attack. Why not just get on with stating the counter-argument, instead of saying things like that? I'm especially puzzled by the situation regarding women footballers. A4 claims that he has learned from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Appelqvist (which closed on 2 July) "that WP:NFOOTY is inapplicable for women's footballers", and cites Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgia Simonato as evidence of this. Yet that AFD adduces WP:NFOOTY. And he's all over User talk:Pakhtakorienne with PROD and AFD notifications. In particular, User talk:Pakhtakorienne#Proposed deletion of Marina Kiskonen lists not only Marina Kiskonen but also 9 other PRODs of Russian women footballers, citing NFOOTY, on 3 October. (None of them have ((Old prod full)) on the talk page, by the way. I realise that's optional, but it would have been helpful.) And in the same thread he tells user Pakhtakorienne she needs to change that "inapplicable" guideline. I'm sorry not to support such a competent user, but I can't feel sure that Mendoz86 would be able to wield the mop with enough disregard for his own views of how things should be done. --Stfg (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose. I'm always worried with essentially single-topic editors whether they have sufficient knowledge of how the encyclopedia works outside their specialist sphere. Mentoz86's understanding of how the notability/verifiability requirements can be satisfied outside the football field appears limited, overly black and white, or even faulty, which concerns me in someone who wishes to work in deletion. I'm also concerned with the DYK errors that Allen3 brought up, especially as the editor wishes to work in that field in an admin capacity. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not to argue about your vote or reasoning, but just a little note: Mentoz does vote in many non-football AfDs related to Norway, that’s where I have come across him and my impression of him there has been very good. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's useful to know: I didn't know if all those names in AfDs were related to footy or not. The project certainly benefits greatly from the input of non-native English speakers, and the candidate would probably use the tools (if provided with them) wisely and carefully. -- Trevj (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Provisional oppose per Soap. -- Trevj (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moved to support. -- Trevj (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose Looking over Allen3's evidence, plus what DGG said, leaves me quite certain that this candidate is unsuitable. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose - I think you'll make a good administrator, but this is a WP:NOTYET situation for me. Spend some more time at AfD. See ya in six months for your 103-5 passage... Carrite (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Carrite: If the AfD stats tool is correct, Mentoz has participated in 773 AfD discussions stretching back to September 2011. It's hard to find people who spend more time at AfD than him. I'm not quite sure why you think he would pass with an extra six months' experience, when he has a solid two years' experience at AfD already. Could you clarify? (Also, have you read WP:NOTNOTNOW? Saying "I don't think the candidate is ready yet" is not the same as saying "this is a WP:NOTYET situation"...) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose I would prefer to see the candidate working more extensively in non-football areas. Working almost exclusively in a single area will almost inevitably lead to a view of content policy that is slanted towards the topic area concerned. I have encountered some serious issues of policy wonkery in football over the years involving negligible consensus and worse still, these practices being vigorously enforced by current, practising Admins. Despite Q18 I am not convinced that the candidate has a sufficiently broad enough grasp on the wider implementation of policy. Force yourself away from football for a few months and come back more rounded and effective. Leaky Caldron 11:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He can speak for himself, but I don’t get the impression that being an admin is an important goal per se for Mentoz. It was partly me who talked him into running; and my experience with Mentoz has mostly been non-football AfDs and some other non-football stuff at Wikiproject Norway. I am not sure it is a good idea to “force” yourself away from where your heart and interest is in order to become an admin. Should he not get the mop, he might rather continue the very valuable work he already does for the encyclopedia (the problem with failed RfAs is of course that candidates sometimes – in many ways understandably – get a bit discouraged; sometimes leading to less commitment to the encyclopedia). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am pleased it is not a goal, I much prefer selection rather than promotion. Even so, editors are not granted access to the Admin tools to avoid being discouraged and less committed should there be a risk that they fail RfA. That would be perverse. I am concerned that extensive experience in football, an area with its own interpretation on policy and consensus building, is not an adequate background for me to support at this time. Leaky Caldron 12:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Absolutely. RfA is a scrutiny process, and I fully respect users who voice sincere concerns. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose The response with respect to GNG/SNG indicates in my mind that this user is not yet ready to be entrusted with the janitor's closet key. We need Admins to be conversant in many different spaces and not just one admin area and for one topic. Perhaps when the candidate has demonstrated a broader understanding/project experience. Hasteur (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose I just can't get past the problems with knowing the notability guidelines. Additionally, the diff provided by Stfg raises a big red flag with me. You can't take that kind of flippant, sarcastic attitude when you're dealing with a heated discussion, and you definitely can't do it when you're an admin. (Well, you can, but it almost always ends in an expensive trip to ANI.) If that diff were well in the past, maybe I'd feel differently, but it was three weeks ago. He's not ready now. KrakatoaKatie 21:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @KrakatoaKatie: Just checking: I think I only linked one diff, and it dates from 9 March 2013. --Stfg (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Per DGG and Stfg. I am sorry, but I think you're not ready for the mop just yet. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose Per DGG and Stfg. - I think you'll make a fine administrator someday, but this is a NOTYET situation for me. Spend some more time at areas other than AfD and Norway/Football to get a better general overview of how the wiki works. Perhaps some time as a NPP or an AfC reviewer may open your mind to a broader spectrum that is important for administrator? Technical 13 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral - I have misgivings about the desire to work as a closer at AfD. I'm not opposed to the candidate, but so far leery. Carrite (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Specifically, this — "Though if a subject pass the SNG, but fails the GNG the article should be deleted." — is just plain wrong. Either that should be struck and corrected or expression of the desire to work as a closer at AfD (until the nominee has substantially more experience there) should be struck. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a subject doesn't meet the GNG, can an article about that subject satisfy WP:V? "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Erik, the view of Carrite is perfectly valid. Even the term "passing SNG, but failing GNG" cannot be seen in a general and wide context but has to be seen with respect to each article in question separately. Over the years, I've closed AfDs where articles have been repeatedly nominated for deletion, with the logic that after years of the article qualifying on SNG (and therefore there being a strong probability of reliable sources existing), no such sources have come up and the article has still not met GNG. There is no standard rule that can be followed in these cases. Each AfD has to be seen on a case by case basis and it purely depends on the consensus that develops within the community discussing at the AfD. An individual's response to a general question may be based on his/her experiences of commenting in AfDs. But the work of closing AfDs is almost another new world, and one cannot have an iron clad rule set. The various nuances in closing AfDs can only be grasped with experience, which I am sure Mentoz would gain over the coming months in case the community decides to give the editor access to the tools. Wifione Message 01:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has a right and a wrong answer. Special Notability Guidelines are "low bars" for fields of endeavor in which there is inherent difficultly for subjects to validly meet GNG. For example, scholars. They might not be written up in the local or national newspapers at all but still be influential in their field, and are thus considered for inclusion via the alternative standard of SNG. Similarly porn stars. I fucking hate the fact that there is a SNG for pornstars myself but that's neither here nor there, I'll use it for the example. Because they are never written up in the mainstream press, there is an alternative inclusion standard (idiotic though it may be). There needs to be a SNG for journalists, incidentally, but this isn't the time or place for me to make that argument. In any event, a pass of GNG trumps a failure of any and all forms of SNG; but a failure of GNG can be trumped by a passage of a SNG "low bar." Clip and save for future reference, this is accurate. Carrite (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moving to oppose, based on an inadequate answer to a really simple but tricky question on notability of schools. Carrite (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erik. Verifiability and notability are related but not synonymous. Sources are counted very strictly in notability challenges. An official university biography from its website about Professor Jane Smith would not count towards GNG in a notability challenge, but that information would be perfectly acceptable to use in a WP biography of the professor. Verifiabiity can thus be achieved even if GNG is never met. The SNG "low bar" for professors takes care of this rather illogical situation. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Neutral for now I quite like some answers, especially the attempt at responding to the impossible Q9. I would have refused to answer that, as to close an AfD one needs to have seen the article and to have carefully read the discussion. To ask for a close decision based on the info given above is like asking for a guilty or innocent verdict based on the accused's name and haircut (and nothing else). The nomination could be notability, veiled attack, close copyvio or even hoax, and there could be a near 50-50 !vote or a snowfall. I'm just not sure otherwise yet. Peridon (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why is Q9 impossible? did or did not his answer reflect our usual practice? DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's no discussion given to assess, only subject titles. The article about the elementary school might show great notability for some reason, and the article about the high school might be spam (and probable but not proved copyvio too). An AfD closer must not decide by the title alone. They have to assess the consensus if there is one, and relist or leave for longer if things are too close to call. Or if it's still 50-50 after two or three relists, close as no consensus. You can't decide any of this merely on a title. If the question had been comparing closing the AfD for BloggsCo with closing the Afd for Julian's Ducklings, what answer would you give then? Peridon (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral On the pro side, I like the candidate's humility, that he/she knows that he/she doesn't know everything and before acting in an unfamiliar area, he/she would read the relevant guidelines and observe actions first. But the statement that he/she would work in RM, CfD and TfD, as well as AfD because he/she "is confident in how the process works, and wouldn't have any problems with closing discussions" worries me a bit. I have experience in CfD (and a bit in AfD and MfD) and the criteria for keeping, deleting, merging, renaming, moving, etc. varies in different deletion areas. I can't fault the candidate for not having experience in every area of adminship when they are not an admin but I think it's a mistake to think closing an AfD about football would be similar to closing, say, a CfD on a category involving ethnicity (see WP:EGRS). Hopefully, these are also areas where the candidate would also do some observation before plunging in and closing discussions and if I see this reassurance, I would change this to a Support. Liz Read! Talk! 13:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Moved to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)) I'm going to put a comment here for the time being, because I'm waiting for an answer to Q12. I'm really interested in that answer. But, unless the answer ends up being awful, I'm going to end up supporting, because I think that AfD has become the third rail of RfA, and we need to differentiate between candidates who should be rejected because they are firmly committed to closing AfDs contrary to consensus (or are incapable of understanding consensus), and candidates who can learn from the feedback of an RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I generally want to support candidates, at least partly because — with the amount of admins consistently decreasing — this community can't be too picky in promoting new ones. However, the red flags here regarding the candidate's understanding of notability were a bit too much to overcome. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 20:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Category