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

RadioFan[edit]

Final (6/21/0); ended 19:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW - HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC) (Originally scheduled to end 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nomination[edit]

RadioFan (talk · contribs) – For my first RfA nomination, I am pleased to present RadioFan to the community. I have come across him many times in articles about radio stations, which is an area of the project that I believe has significant room for improvement. As a tireless contributor to that specific area and one of the top 250 most-active Wikipedians overall (appx 43,000 edits as of the preparation of this nomination statement), I am confident that RadioFan has the knowledge and common sense to do well in an administrative role and would very much be a net positive to the project. Strikerforce (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept --RadioFan (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment to the voters, particularly those who are concerned about my potential use of delete privileges. I see nomination for deletion and opening deletion discussions as very different things from actually deleting. These are opportunities to make Wikipedia better, not just paths to deletion. Prod'ing an article gives the creator (and any other editor) an opportunity to address specific problems, it's not deleting the article. AFDs should first and foremost be discussions, they are not just paths to deletion. Consensus isn't instaneous and questioning isn't argumentative. Concensus also is not a majority vote. Not every nominator participates in AFDs, but I like to. It helps me learn more. My mind can and frequently has been changed as the discussion goes forward and especially as articles are improved. If given the mop, it will be used conservatively, because it has to. Prod and CSD can be used far less conservatively, because there is oversight. --RadioFan (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[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'd like to help with the administrative tasks that help make things run more smoothly and keep the vandals at bay. Requests for page protection and blocking vandals in particular. I also would like to help with expired prods.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions have been through Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations and and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Human spaceflight task force. I've been a frequent contributor there, both creating new articles and in determining notability of radio related articles. I've created hundreds of articles for radio stations, primarily in the continental United States, with detail beyond stub level bringing together information from the FCC and Arbitron including some cross referencing with the FAA to prevent overlap with articles on airports (in the US and elsewhere). These scripts were shared with the wikiproject and were used by several members to help improve the article offerings. On the human spaceflight side of things, I've focused on keeping articles on space shuttle missions up to date, and am proud of the template I helped create that standardizes (and makes referencing a breeze) the listing of wake-up calls on each mission. I've also been doing a lot of new page patrolling lately. I try to pitch in on newly patrolled articles where I'm comfortable and make at least minor improvements: adding references sections, fixing refs,
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: When you participate in patroling new pages, you are bound to get some questions, particularly from new editors from time to time. Patience and professionalism is the only way to handle it then, now or in the future. As an example, I recently prod'd a new page on a small sci-fi club I came across while patrolling new pages. That led me to browse similar pages some of which were clearly notable and well referenced, others not so much. I prod'd some of those, some of which were deleted after the prods expired, some were challenge and taken to AFD. One in particularly created some controversy. Several editors Bay Area Science Fiction Association took the discussion rather personally. I responded to each as calmly as possible, pointing to the relavant Wikipedia guidelines. As the conversation got more heated and even spilled off Wikipedia onto a sci-fi fanzine where my motivations were questioned and Wikipedia relevance on the whole were questioned, I stepped back for a while to let some recently arrived neutral editors attempt to calm things down a bit. In the end the article was correctly kept and improvements continue. I plan to let the dust settle a bit more before approaching each of the editors involved and encourage them to continue their conversation about notability particularly of clubs like this. They've raised some interesting questions about reliable sources that require more discussion (outside of that AFD).
Additional question from Orlady
4. You say that you would like to help with expired prods. How do you intend to review and process expired prods?
A: I'm seeing a lot more new page patrollers, which appears to be generating more prods (especially BLP prods), I'd like to help with any backlog there.--RadioFan (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4.1 (follow-up) - Yes, this is one of several areas where there is always a need for more hands, but how do you expect to process expired prods? There's almost always a batch of expired and about-to-expire prods at Template:Admin dashboard and User:Cyde/List of old proposed deletions. What decision processes will you go through as you process them? --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Still not sure I understand such a broad question but I'll take a swing at it. If the nominator's concerns haven't been addressed by any editor, if the article hasn't been improved in the allotted time and if references haven't been added, especially in the case of BLP articles, the article needs to go. If it's not a lost cause, it needs to be de-prodded and left for editors to improve. Obvious improvements can be made at that time to like adding a references section as a gentle reminder.
Additional question from Hokeman
5 What specific improvements have you made since your last RfA in November 2009? Feel free to discuss any mentoring in which you have participated.
A: I've learned a lot about how deletion consensus has come to vary across subject matters. Very strict and well defined in some areas (like academia) and far looser and more open to interpretation (like music). After marking an article for deletion about the first album from a musician who was the bass player for a band that the lead singer went on to win a Grammy for work in a different band, I learned to take a gentler approach to these articles. What at first glace appears to be a case of a non-notable garage band, can be shown to notable but may take more work than the original contributor has put into it. Prior to previous RfA, my view of an article like this was "not much worth keeping there", today it's far less deletionist. A year plus of additional experience plus reading a lot of negative things about Wikipedia and it's inclusion policies (perceived or otherwise) has given me a bit of a different perspective into sorting the vandals and the spammers from the new editors who are trying to contribute but just doing it the wrong way. With that in mind I'm trying to be less bitey, especially in difficult areas such as that. I'm trying to rely on tools less and write personal notes on editors talk pages more, explaining why their contributions have been reverted, linking to relavant guidelines and offering to help. I also pass by more articles in the new page patrol queue, if it's an area I'm unsure in, particularly articles with non-English sources, I leave it for someone with more experience there to handle.
Additional question from TCO
6. Please indicate the article to which you have added the most content, prior to 2011.
A: I helped take Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex from a redirect to a brief section in the main Kennedy Space Center article, to an article worthy of a dedicated article. In addition to the touristy stuff, I've added a lot of information on the history of the facility and whats on display there. I've created hundreds of North American radio station articles (see above) and taken them to at least start quality. --RadioFan (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Don't see anything wrong with candidate. Baseball Watcher 23:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator. Strikerforce (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Great candidate. Gabesta449 edits ♦ chat 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've noticed his work for years. Dedicated, conscientious. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Looks good enough to me. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support - just to counteractSoWhy's insane arcade of articles that should have been deleted are a great example of why we need more level headed editors with the mop. The extreme inclusionist disguised as discretion has to stop, and this looks like a damn good place to start. Regards. Shadowjams (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For your sake, I sure hope you're not considering adminship anytime soon because that snide comment of yours is going to be held against you :| Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 12:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like that only bring down Wikipedia. Also, as Fastily said, they greatly damage the chances of any potential RfA of your own succeeding for quite a long time. You really should know better. Swarm X 18:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. The answer to Q4 doesn't answer anything. Unless I'm reading the question wrong? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial read is that RadioFan misunderstood the call of the question. Strikerforce (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (edit conflict) Oppose. Concerns about judgment. In February alone, I'm seeing a PRODed high school, a BLP-PRODed dead person, another BLP-PRODed dead person (my mistake), several not-so-good declined CSD tags, and some more questionable PRODs. For example, there's probably a dozen different rationales this page could be deleted for (namely WP:NAD, but I don't see how WP:NOTMANUAL applies to a page that consists only of a glossary of words. Another example, the the PROD of Planking with the rationale, "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" when the article clearly links to a news report by Ten News that describes the act as a "craze that's sweeping the nation". Seems like this user would play a little too fast and loose with the delete button for comfort. (Pardon the metaphor, I'm not implying that you would actually play with the delete button, but this is RfA so I feel compelled to clarify.) In addition the incident that 28bytes brought up is concerning. Regards, Swarm X 04:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The prod'd high school was titled "secondary school", not high school as it is today. I've come to learn that "secondary school" has different meanings outside North America. Planking has all the earmarks of something that was made up one day despite the lone reference (which is likely a "bright" or "weird news" type story and nothing more), notability of this subject is questionable something that can play out in the AFD (which is currently gathering delete snow).--RadioFan (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was called 'Muzondo High School', so I would think there would be enough doubt to look at secondary school, just to be sure. Second, you should have nominated it for deletion like that in the first place. The PROD was completely off, and the fact that it's getting delete votes for a totally different reason has nothing to do with that. Swarm X 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I don't think you really understand deletion policy or (more critically) WP:BLP. Courcelles 05:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: Per Swarm and Courcelles above and 28Bytes below. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Concerns with policy knowledge and judgement. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Sorry, but just as last time, I do not feel comfortable giving RadioFan the ability to delete pages. I feel that his policy knowledge, especially concerning speedy deletion, is still problematically insufficient. Here are some examples from the last 30 days:
    That said, I feel that those examples, combined with the concerns raised above, demonstrate that the candidate is not suitable for adminship at this time. Regards SoWhy 07:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seem like appropriate noms to me. Which ones don't you like and why? Shadowjams (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All of them? I would not have listed them if they were correct taggings. You may disagree with my assessment of what should be speedy deleted and what not and I respect your opinions. But can you really claim that an article should be deleted as G12 where no copyright violation exists? Or that A3 should be applied, contrary to it's clear wording, to articles that are valid stubs? Or that being the national team of a country is not a claim of importance? If the policy forbids a certain deletion and one disagrees with that, one should not ignore the policy but strive to change it. If one, like the candidate, does not do so but instead just tags such articles for speedy deletion, then there is a huge possibility that they would delete them as an admin and I don't think it's the best course of action to make someone an admin who already shows signs that they will break policies. Regards SoWhy 12:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I readily admit that I missed the OTRS. They are very very rare however. Do I get any credit in your mind for the cleanup I did on this article since then?--RadioFan (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's great that you cleaned this or other articles up afterwards. I have never and I will not claim that you do a bad job as an editor. Quite the opposite actually. I just don't think adminship is the right path for you. Regards SoWhy 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Based on the above and this discussion, in which the candidate really did demonstrate a lack of policy knowledge concerning BLP's and seemed unable to reconcile their views with several other editors one of whom is a crat. Pol430 talk to me 07:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose regrettably, as Radiofan is clearly a excellent contributor, but there are sufficient questionable decisions above to doubt this candidate's jusdgement with regards to deletion - and since deletion (albeit of prods) is an area he is interested in I cannot support this request. WormTT 09:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Yes, Radiofan is indeed a good contributor, with many strengths. However, I have searched extensively through his editing history and have found very little evidence of experience of admin-related areas, and in the few cases where there is relevant experience it often seems flawed. For example, in this AfD discussion I would have preferred to have seen more readiness to accept that consensus was against him. That is debatable, but more serious is this report to AIV, where the user reported had received no warnings at all. Circumstances where a report without a warning are justified are quite exceptional, and that came nowhere near to being one. One or two mistakes like that among hundreds of good reports would be acceptable, but in this case I see very little experience in the relevant areas, and what experience I do see contains a high proportion of edits which are either questionable or, as in that one, just plain wrong. Radiofan is making very useful contributions, but lacks knowledge in those areas which are relevant to being an administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please dont interpret the science fiction club AFD as pushing for deletion, I was pushing for establishing the notability of this subject. Blogs aren't reliable sources, the article read like a promotional brochure, and the references being discussed didn't do much to help establish notability here. AFD is supposed to be a discussion about notability and adherence to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, not a defense of position. The result was keep, rightfully so and I dont have a problem with that.--RadioFan (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Regrettably, for continued errors in CSD tagging that should not be problematic at this point in time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Per that AIV report and those CSD tags, which were very recent. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll answer the AIV concern here to keep things separated. All but one of the contributions that user had made to that point was speedily deleted after tagging from multiple editors. Thought a block was in order. It can get frustrating as a new page patroller to see the same editors submitting the same articles over and over just to be deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A7 speedies are not vandalism, and thus do not merit a report to AIV unlesws they are borderline vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Concerns over BLP and CSD policy knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. (edit conflict)Oppose. I'm sorry but those CSD nominations lead me to oppose your candidacy at this time. That said, you're a valued contributor and I hope you'll run again in a couple of months; I'll be glad to support you if you improve your CSD tagging. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose for BLP and CSD issues. —mc10 (t/c) 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I've reviewed some of the links above in the Oppose section. Some strike me as no big deal, others strike me as rookie mistakes that an admin shouldn't make. I give more weight to the latter. Townlake (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose for many reasons stated by others but especially for trying to delete an article about someone who is dead using WP:BLP as a rationale, and for reluctance to accept reliable sources that are not readily available online. Paper sources and sources hidden behind paywalls can be reliable and should not be discounted. Cullen328 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Townlake, who put what I was thinking into works better than I could have done. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per CSD noms linked by SoWhy. I appreciate RadioFan's additional notes regarding process, but they don't make up for CSDs which are just plain improper. I think it's entirely logical for reviewers to presume that how one nominates articles would greatly inform how one adjudicates - especially at CSD. Obviously AfD is more of a discussion, but that is most often not so with CSD.  Frank  |  talk  17:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I'm sorry, but it's not the right time to give RadioFan the mop, not yet. Per some opposes above, especially SoWhy. RadioFan does possess a nice edit count, but that's not all about editing. I say, he's a promising user, and in the future, I'd like to see him as an admin some day, but not yet, not today. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I see a lot of speedy deletion tags that are just wrong, and a lot of admins that delete the articles anyway. Admins, I think, need to examine each speedy tag and verify that the criteria has been met. I think it's pretty safe to say I'm a deletionist, but we need to respect the consensus reflected at wp:CSD. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. JamesBWatson has said most of everything I was going to say. Question 4 was quite easy, but even a helpful prompt still didn't bring forth an answer that inspires confidence in your knowledge of deletion policy. I'm sorry RadioFan, but I don't feel happy with the idea of you having the tools just yet. Kudpung (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral, for now. I see a lot of good contributions but I'm a little concerned about the candidate's views on the WP:BLP policy given this edit and this related noticeboard discussion. "Blogs and news sources called the host 'pervy'" is not something I like to see in a BLP. 28bytes (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to oppose. 28bytes (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per 28, that's kind of concerning. Of course, we all have blunders, so I'd like a deeper look. Swarm X 03:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC) moved to oppose[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