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

Snottywong[edit]

Final: (43/42/11); Withdrawn by candidate[1]. Closed by Courcelles at 21:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Snottywong (talk · contribs) – I've been on Wikipedia since 2007, but the majority of my activity has been in the last 1.5 years. I've learned a lot in that time, and I believe I have accumulated a sufficient amount of clue, and have the appropriate level of maturity required to use the tools responsibly. As article space grows larger and larger, it requires a higher level of maintenance. This is where I excel, and the mop would allow me to contribute more to that end. SnottyWong gossip 21:52, 21 February 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 would start working in areas with which I am most familiar, and then gradually and carefully branch out to other areas with backlogs. I am very familiar with the deletion processes and would be comfortable jumping right in to XfD's, speedies and prods. I'm also well-versed in complex template syntax and would be capable of responding to ((editrequested)) requests on protected high-use templates. I don't have extensive anti-vandalism experience (the Huggle folks always beat me to it), but I'm familiar enough with the policies that I could cautiously begin responding to non-controversial requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The reason why I first registered an account was because there was no article on CobraNet, which is a pretty important protocol in the industry in which I work. Over the course of a few months, I created the article and brought it succesfully to GA. After that accomplishment, I stopped editing for quite awhile since there was nothing else I felt compelled to write about, and I didn't have much time to write at that point in my life. Later, CobraNet was delisted and I came back to work on restoring its GA status. This is when I started to notice the vast underworld of Wikipedia beneath the articles. Since then, I've done a lot of new page patrolling, a handful of GA reviews, and took a stab at resolving some conflicts at WP:3O. I eventually wrote some more audio-related articles, like Constant voltage speaker system and Dante (networking), as well as some other unrelated stubs. More recently, I spearheaded the (rather time-consuming) effort to convert List of fighter aircraft from a poorly organized list into a sortable table. Finally (and most recently), I am the creator and operator of a bot (Snotbot!) which tracks unpatrolled new articles, and has also done some other requested one-time tasks.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Like most editors, I have had my fair share of conflicts. When I first started editing here, I responded negatively and sometimes uncivilly to these conflicts. I soon learned that such responses to conflict not only stress me out, but also substantially diminish the strength of my argument. I think that in the last 6-12 months, my efforts to remain level-headed and suggest reasonable compromises have been largely successful. One of the areas where some of my conflicts have arisen is with the Article Rescue Squadron, as I have been an outspoken critic of some of their members' actions (but I have come to regard the overall concept of ARS as noble and useful). I always make a point to remain civil, and I contribute often to discussions on WT:ARS without incident. However, since this request for adminship could be a concern for some ARS members, I would be happy to automatically consider myself involved with regard to rescue-tagged AfD's should there be a consensus among ARS members that such a restriction was necessary or desired. Even if it is not necessary or desired, I already !vote on most rescue-tagged AfD's and I don't intend to stop doing that as an admin, and therefore I don't foresee myself closing many rescue-tagged AfD's either way. All in all, I think the conflicts that I've had here have taught me that Wikipedia works a lot better when you focus less on your personal opinions and more on cooperation, consensus, and collaboration.
Additional optional question from RJaguar3
4. You expressed an interest in working in deletion debates. Could you describe how Wikipedia's notability policy interacts with subject-specific policies, like the guidelines found in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines?
A: WP:V and WP:NOT are the overarching policies, and the secondary guidelines are simply guidelines which attempt to help explicate those policies. The secondary notability guidelines have a few primary uses. Firstly, they provide a "rule of thumb" to use when gauging the notability of a subject. In other words, if the subject of the article meets one or more of the criteria in the appropriate secondary guideline, then we can assume that it is most likely notable. Secondly, they provide a point of reference which is helpful in determining what is and is not a notable event (i.e. an event which, if documented in reliable sources, would establish notability). For example, if a amateur high school baseball player gets some coverage in reliable sources about a particularly good season they just finished, is that enough to satisfy WP:GNG? Probably not, since being a good baseball player at the high school level is not one of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Baseball, and therefore it is probably not a notable event despite it being covered by local sources. The bottom line is that WP:GNG trumps the secondary guidelines every time. If, however, there is a question as to whether an event which is covered in reliable sources is notable, we can consult the secondary guidelines for help. (Note that my answer is geared towards the typical subject-specific guidelines without commenting on the exceptions, like WP:PROF).
Additional optional question from Balloonman
5. I'll be honest with you, your user name causes me some problems. I know that Wong might be a Surname, but when combined with snotty, it evokes a slang term which making it sound like its referencing a body part. Thus, I just have a hard time seeing somebody with your name intervening in a conflict in the role of admin. Could you A) explain your name and B) would you be willing to change it should you be entrusted with the tools?
A: I appreciate the honesty, and understand the concern. Without getting too far into personal details, I can reveal that Wong is not my surname (I'm not even Asian). Snottywong is actually a nickname given to me a long time ago, for no apparent reason and with no particular meaning. It caught on and this is what many of my close friends refer to me as. It is in no way intended to reference a body part or be offensive in any way. This has been my user name for quite awhile, and I haven't heard very many objections until now. I'm a bit hesitant to change my user name, but I suppose that if there was support from multiple users that my username would deter me from performing as an effective admin, then I would agree to change it.

Moved discussion RE name to talk page

No, keep it. Unusual nickname. Mistaken for 'botty'? shome mishtake shurely [sic]. There's little to cause offence of in 'snot', IMHO. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Keepscases
6. You are given the option to have three of your fingers surgically, painlessly, permanently removed. You may pick any three fingers you like. Should you have the operation, Wikipedia will go on normally. However, should you elect not to have the operation, a massive hardware failure will cause every bit of Wikipedia and its data to be permanently destroyed, and Conservapedia will likely become the de facto free online encyclopedia. Note: If you choose not to have the operation, no one will ever know that you are "responsible" for the total destruction of Wikipedia. What do you do?
A: Naturally, I think anyone would agreeable to sparing a couple of fingers for the sake of Wikipedia. I would choose White Chocolate, Dark Chocolate Mint, and Toffee Crunch.
Comment: The candidate seems to have lived up to the challenge of treating this question as non-serious and responding accordingly. Nonetheless, this question was stunningly inappropriate. We all know that there has been increasing concern recently about experienced editors' not wanted to go through the RfA process. In that regard, I can't help considering questions of this type to be disruptive and potentially damaging, and if the candidate had not already answered the question, I would have removed it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A grossly inappropriate question. Keepscases questions are now beyond a joke. Kudpung (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, did I misunderstand this question? I assumed the "correct" answer would be, "I'd keep my fingers, Wikipedia's only an encyclopaedia". While we may want dedicated crew at the Wikimedia Foundation itself, surely we want admins that keep a sense of perspective? I'm not sure that it's inappropriate to test whether admins are able to engage with the project without letting it get personal. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kudpung. These kind of questions need to stop, they are not helpful, or relevant for that matter, to the RFA at all. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm not at all stunned to see such an inappropriate question in an RfA. Jack Merridew 21:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. Really? Swarm X 23:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's time for my semi-annual defense of Keepscases, who is - as always - entitled to ask questions (which are offbeat but definitely civil and thought-provoking). Keepscases' questions are always interesting, rarely repeated, and generally the answers are exculpatory of the candidate's demeanor. This one is no exception.  Frank  |  talk  23:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never thought I'd defend keepscases but yawl taking this way too seriously. Which, ironically, actually adds a little heft to the question itself :) In the immortal words of Lennon/McCartney, Let it Be. --rgpk (comment) 00:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be taking it so seriously if these questions weren't so frequent. To Echo the words of OneRebublic, I can't just Stop and Stare(Well since we are being musical here) anymore. I've Let it be for a while. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 03:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, folks, chill. It's optional. If it were really a problematic question, I'm sure the closing bcrat would know exactly how much weight to give editors who opposed over it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from OlEnglish
7. Would you consider yourself a deletionist?
A: A relevant question, given the circumstances. When I first started !voting at AfD's, I did consider myself a deletionist, and only later realized that to be a defensive reaction in response to those who consider themselves hardline inclusionists. I then consciously moved more to the center and got rid of the label. I am still firmly in favor of measuring articles against clear standards for inclusion, and deleting those articles which do not measure up to those standards. If that makes me a deletionist, then so be it. I think, however, that I more closely identify with precisionism.
Additional optional question from Lambanog
8. Agree or disagree: Wikipedia is a better reference than either Citizendium or Encyclopedia Britannica. Why?
A: I would say that Wikipedia is definitely a better reference than Citizendium, based solely on completeness. Citizendium lacks articles on many important topics, and only has a bit more than 15,000 articles total. As a point of comparison, Wikipedia has more articles at GA or higher than Citizendium has articles total, and I don't believe that Citizendium's approved articles are any better than Wikipedia's featured articles just because they were written solely by people with college degrees who are willing to identify themselves publicly. As for Encyclopedia Britannica, the choice is a bit tougher and depends more on what type of information you're looking for. The choice hinges on what you mean by a "better reference". If I were writing a business paper or scholarly work, I would feel a lot more comfortable citing Encyclopedia Britannica as a source than I would be citing Wikipedia, even though they are both tertiary sources. That's just the way it is in the real world, unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't fly as a good source of information in a professional context. However, I would be much more likely to start my research on Wikipedia than on Encyclopedia Britannica, just to get an overview of information and to quickly find good sources to cite, since Wikipedia is far more complete and up-to-date than Britannica.
Additional optional question from Armbrust
9. Could you please give examples of some XfD arguments you have made that you are particularly proud of, or which you feel demonstrate your abilities in that area?
A: I don't keep track of these very well, but I found a few recent ones that I thought were pretty typical. Surfer hair was a pretty thorough evaluation of the sources. I also thought that my comments at the subsequent DRV were fair and reasonable. Next, Kob-dhehaad District was an example of an article that I made an effort to "rescue". Finally, while it's still on-going, it seems my comments at Massacre are beginning to convince those with differing opinions.
10. Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose.
A: Oppose rationale: Candidate is an outspoken deletionist who speaks his mind too abrasively at XfD's. I am uncomfortable with granting him adminship because I feel he may be likely try to push his deletionist POV by closing XfD's in a biased way and blocking editors with whom he disagrees.
Rebuttal: I can't fault people for occasionally being turned off by my comments at XfD's. I do speak my mind unabashedly, and I do acknowledge that I could do so more gently and I will make a conscious attempt to do so. However, I'm confident that I have not given any indication that I am incapable of separating my personal opinion from consensus. In some ways, looking at my XfD contributions is not a perfect way of determining how I would close XfD's, because voting on XfD's is much different than closing them. Voting on XfD's involves formulating a personal opinion and expressing it, closing an XfD involves ignoring my personal opinions and evaluating other editors' comments for validity and compliance with policy. I'm confident in my ability to selectively ignore my personal opinions, but I'm not sure how I can effectively demonstrate that. As far as blocking editors with whom I disagree, that is so far from anything I could imagine myself doing that I'm not sure how to respond. Block policy is crystal clear, and I suspect I would not remain an admin for very long if I started blocking editors solely for disagreeing with me.
Additional optional questions from Hydroxonium
11. For the last 5 years, the number of active contributors has been dropping. The Wikimedia foundation, and the larger Wikimedia movement, would like to increase participation and have a proposed goal of 150,000 active contributors by 2015. This is a four-fold increase over the current 35,000 active contributors. What do you feel has been Wikipedia's difficulty in attracting and retaining contributors. What do you think Wikipedia should change in order to reach the 150,000 goal?
A: I think there is a natural cycle that editors go through during their time here. There is an initial bloom of interest when one discovers the depth of experience that Wikipedia offers, and then there is a gradual wane of interest due to various reasons. Many of those reasons revolve around the notion of deletion, whether it is having your edits reverted, having an article you started get deleted (correctly or not), or getting into an edit war. Some of the more discouraging social dysfunctions that occur here are a result of the way that humans naturally interact in this unnatural environment where writing notes back and forth to one another anonymously is the only means of communication possible. Some dysfunctions are correctable, others are not without enacting a paradigm shift in how WP operates. Here are some potential solutions, off the top of my head: Fostering an attitude where violations of WP:BITE are considered much more serious than they typically are today (perhaps even a blockable offense for repeat offenders?) could result in improvement if it is widely adopted. The new page patrol process could use a major reform, as it currently suffers from both editors who tag and delete overzealously and editors who barely read the articles and let a lot of bad articles through. I'd love to see NPP evolve into a place where a lot more editors contribute with a focus on fixing the fixable problems and educating new users, but that would require a lot more participation. Another good way to keep editors' interests is to afford them the opportunity to work in different areas to keep things interesting, and this is probably one of the many reasons that I've made this request.
12. I noticed you've had an interaction with Wikipedia Review in October 2009. Could you describe that interaction and what your feelings are today?
A: That incident took place a long time ago, right around when I started becoming more active. It was before I was aware of Wikipedia's canvassing guidelines, and it was certainly what gave me the opportunity to learn about them. It was also before I really knew what Wikipedia Review was all about, and I haven't posted there since. That AfD in particular is a prime example of the poor reaction that I used to have to conflict (i.e. question 3 above). I regard that incident as well as that entire AfD as a big mistake, although I can't say I didn't learn a lot from it.
Additional optional question from Hobit
13. I'm seeing two recent views on the Article Rescue Squadron that seem contradictory. "...I have been an outspoken critic of some of their members' actions (but I have come to regard the overall concept of ARS as noble and useful)" (from a question above) with "...the organization itself exists only as a way for like-minded individuals to organize themselves and push their POV about how WP should be." [2]. Could you clarify?
A: The discussion linked in the diff was in the context of a larger discussion on whether it is necessary to have an organization or a "squadron" which rescues articles, when it can be shown that the act of rescuing is an individual effort, not a group effort. So, when I say that I view the overall concept of ARS as useful, I mean that the concept of individual editors going out and improving article that are facing deletion is noble and useful. However, I view the organization as a place where more than just rescuing happens, and more details on those thoughts are in that linked discussion. In particular, the ((rescue)) template is not a necessary tool to improve articles facing deletion. It can serve as a loophole for "legal" canvassing for those who choose to use it in that manner. While the majority of ARS members don't use it in that manner; if a loophole exists, someone will use it. And if it serves little or no purpose in the context of rescuing, then my opinion is that it (i.e. the template) should go away.
Additional optional questions from Casliber
14. Have you voted keep at an AfD? have you sourced and improved an article that was being discussed at AfD?
A: I would estimate that I vote to Keep 30-40% of the AfD's I comment on. As for sourcing and improving articles being discussed at AfD, I have done that a few times in the past but not with any regularity. The most recent would probably be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kob-dhehaad District, although the sources I added to the article and mentioned in the AfD were admittedly pretty terrible. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighter aircraft wasn't a discussion about notability and therefore sources didn't enter into it, but I did spearhead the effort to dramatically improve the article by addressing the concerns in the AfD. I'm sure there are a few others but I can't recall them at the moment.
Additional optional questions from DGG
15. When you nominate an article for deletion, do you notify the original author?
A: Yes. I typically use twinkle when nominating articles for deletion, which automatically notifies the original author. In my opinion, notifying the original author of an AfD should be required, not simply recommended as it currently is.
16. What is your opinion of the importance of courtesy of one editor to another; and do you think there are any special obligations upon administrators in that regard? DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Since Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative environment, courtesy and civility do make a significant impact. Courtesy helps to facilitate the resolution of the inevitable disagreements that will arise. In the absence of civility, disagreements take much longer to resolve as they must often be escalated to more formal disput resolution forums. Administrators are not different from editors, so I would expect experienced non-admin editors to be as civil as admin editors. However, since admins are often trusted to resolve heated disputes, having the ability to remain courteous even when dealing with an irate editor (which is harder than it would seem) can be an asset for an admin. It's a lot easier to emotionally accept a block from someone who appears to be blocking you for your own good, rather than someone who appears to be blocking you to teach you a lesson.
Additional optional questions from Alansohn
17. Can you point to two or three pages that would provide the best examples of articles that you have created or substantially expanded? Alansohn (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Let me preface my answer with the statement that I consider myself better suited for maintenance tasks than writing prose. With that said, I think I've done my fair share of article creation. I think the best example would be CobraNet. I wrote about 90-95% of the content of that article, and it is currently a solid GA. I also started and wrote more than half of Constant voltage speaker system, which is in decent shape but not quite up to GA yet. Also, I lead the transformation of List of fighter aircraft from a poorly organized list which was facing deletion to an attractive sortable table with a lot more information, and it probably wouldn't take much more work to get it to FL status. The transformation of that list took several weeks, and probably involved 40+ hours of work between myself and User:Marcus Qwertyus, and was staged at User:Snottywong/List of fighter aircraft. I even developed a custom script to facilitate the gathering of information from the individual aircraft articles.

; Additional optional questions from Loosemarkers

18. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under the influence?
A: No.
19. Do you think the world will end in 2012?
A: No, I generally require some minimal amount of scientific evidence before I will believe predictions of what the future holds. I would put much more faith in Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil.

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]

Ha! Nice find. I think I've seen that movie before (decades ago) but never picked up on the reference. Not the type of movie you really pay attention to. SnottyWong confer 23:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support - I see no problems. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have interacted with this editor before, particularly during his disagreements as outlined in answer 3. In dealing with disruptive editors, as far as I have seen he has always been civil and fair, so see only positives. AD 22:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Snotty's work at UAA and I can support on that basis, though it's early, and RFA is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the XfD issue, I think User:Mkativerata gives some excellent links. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shifting to a neutral gear. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I've seen Snottywong around for quite some time, and I see someone who cares greatly about the project and is very knowledgeable. I think it's fair to say he has, on occasions, expressed himself perhaps a little more forthrightly than is ideal, but I do see some mellowing with experience and I trust him to use the tools dispassionately. I think the honest self-appraisal in Q3 is highly commendable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I may not agree with him all the time, but overall I think granting him the tools would be a net positive to the project. Based on what I've seen, I trust that he'll follow policy. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support This candidate I think would be useful with the mop. Baseball Watcher 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support in light of answer to question 4; could not find any significant issues. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support He'll be fine. Wayne Slam 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Skinwalker (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — an appropriate candidate for the tools. I've no concerns about misuse of them, and trust that they will only be used appropriately. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    && author of User:Snottywong/diffconverter, which is pretty useful ;) Jack Merridew 21:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Cerebral, level-headed answers. A quick review of his contributions reveals a high level of technical expertise. I suspect that the candidate will be a tough but fair sysop, just like on RfA--Hokeman (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. From recent interactions, I know that this is a quality candidate. Overall, this candidate would be a net positive for the project as an admin. Caveat - I'm unclear why being a native English speaker is a problem - it's never been an issue for me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 02:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Context = win. Also, in re: Question six - Well done. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I have collaborated a great deal with Snotty and I know his work well. I most strongly support this nomination in every way possible. Kudpung (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support—I share Boing! said Zebedee's sentiments exactly. Barring some occasional mild abrasiveness (if you could even call it that), Snottywong knows what he is doing and is more than ready to wield the mop. Airplaneman ✈ 03:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - no problems here & should be just fine :) - Alison ❤ 05:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per nom and demonstrated understanding that personal opinions have no place in AfD closures (QQ 3 and 10). The userbox in its first version is troubling, also that the wording remained that way for several months. But the other concerns in the oppose section I do not share—actually I would submit that he !voted along policies and guidelines in every one of them, albeit in an enthusiastic manner. Prospective and sitting admins should be allowed to take sides in the inclusionist / deletionist debate, as long as their admin actions follow policy. --Pgallert (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. It bemuses me that editors raise speculative concerns about the candidate's intention to close AfDs given his confessed deletionist tendencies. It bemuses me because there is a clear track record we can look at: the candidate's extensive DRV contributions. It is easy to work out how a candidate will approach closing an AfD based on their views on closes at DRVs. Excellent contributions like 1, 2 and 3 indicate that the candidate will do a very good job of closing AfDs and can separate his own views from the task of closing a discussion. But I would add that as an admin, SW would do well to tone some of his statements down a little. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support That small thud offstage was the sound of Snotty falling off his chair. I have a long and acrimonious history with this editor, and some heated rebuttal of his past deletionist stance. However he seems to have shifted his position: he'd still delete things I'd probably keep, but he's doing it from a balanced position now, not just as a reflex. I might not agree with his judgements any more as an admin that I would as an editor, but I trust him not to abuse mop powers and to recognise that on subjective content judgements, admins remain as just another voice amongst editors. I wouldn't support any admin with that userbox, but that's a past issue now and I don't think we're talking about the same person. His technical skills also appear to be at a rather higher level than most editors can offer, and I'm sure that would be of benefit to the project. I'd like to see him tone down the opposition to ARS though - that sort of confrontation is never productive long term. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per excellent answer to questions 6 and (more seriously) 10. Also, answer to Q3 indicates that SW is unlikely to be closing many AfD discussions involving the ARS. SW seems clear on the difference between voicing an opinion in an AFD !vote and trying to rise above personal opinion when performing an AfD closure. A safe pair of hands, IMHO. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Answers to questions 3, 7, and 10 have allayed any temperament-related concerns. Candidate has his wits about him, as the answer to Q6 indicates, and I can see no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. Would make a strong admin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Moral Support Barring a significant turn around, which I don't see coming, this RfA looks likely to fail---the opposes have legitimate concerns (which if I looked closer at SW might have me go the other way.) That being said, I've decided to cast a supporting vote for two principle reasons 1) He has given excellent answers to all of the questions and 2) even though his opposers seem to think he'd be a lousy admin, most acknowledge that he is either a good or improving editor. (Which indicates a level of respect from those who disagree with him, which in my book counts for something.) I would, however, suggest a name change... Snottywong just strikes a negative chord, which is not the first impression (and IMO, that impacts future interactions.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC) This RfA is still not going to pass, but I'm going to go ahead and move to a normal support based upon Jclemens statement below.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per above. --Perseus 8235 15:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Just because the candidate has voted "delete" many times doesn't mean that he will misclose AFDs. Also, as regards the Porch sitting AFD, remember that Snottywong saw it as this, a collection of original research with no evidence of notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I feel compelled to support SW. Too many of the "tone" issues raised in the opposes are quite simply non-issues, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - SW is an asset to the project and understands the big picture. Wikipedia needs users that are decicated and SW is certainly dedicated. However, I would encourage SW to work on areas that others have mentioned. Personnaly, I think SW would be highly valuable at teaching new users how to create proper articles, but I will leave that up to him if he wants to participate in that area. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 19:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Having read the opposition comments, I've just spent a couple of hours checking SWs history of contributions in quite some detail, looking at the specific discussions and context; and whilst I sometimes saw brusque comments, I saw nothing that crossed the line into incivility. Close, but not quite. I also saw a lot of polite, courteous interactions. In the cases of AfD, I saw reasoned, rational debate. I don't agree with some of it, but I accept the viewpoints expressed are valid. I think SW is perfectly aware that some of xis views are toward the deletion-side of the equation, but I think that awareness means xe will be able to remain neutral in judgements. I see good knowledge of policy, and - despite working in a contentious area - no major blow-ups. Chzz   ►  20:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, my support is now hovering, due to the "a stupid asshole such as yourself"[3] clear personal-attack which someone found below. That alone does not change my vote yet - it was June 2010, and despite various points made in opposition, I've seen little other evidence (than that specific diff). Maybe Snottywong can comment on that. But my support is a bit wobbly at this time, pending some further input from the candidate. If SW can't be bothered to get into a discussion about that, because of how horrible RfA can get, then that's fine too, and I'd quite understand. (not sarcasm; I mean it)  Chzz  ►  17:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Why is it that whenever I find my way in here I find people that I had previously thought to be already mop-holders? Snotty and I cross paths (but not swords) fairly often at AfD and I've always found his (can't be a girl - but Robert Silverberg made a mistake like that over James Tiptree, Jr) contributions to be of value - and for some time thought him (OK: /her) to be an admin. Peridon (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Good answers to the questions, and in particular Keepscases which was a grossly inappropriate question. You handled it well. Hugahoody (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a question that helped you evaluate the candidate is most appropriate indeed. Keepscases (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That one wasn't one of them. Hugahoody (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Hugahoody, your support suggests otherwise. Anyways, Support Keepscases (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't what made my mind up. Besides, there are hypothetical situations, and then there's one where you'd need to cut fingers off to keep Wikipedia running. Just what do those electricity companies charge nowadays? Hugahoody (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Completely suitable candidate for adminship. Well versed in policy. "Tells it like it is." Just by reading through the opposes, it's obvious the vast majority emanate from content disputes with Snottywong, not from any "fear" of him abusing power. Bulldog123 02:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest it be unclear, my Oppose is based not on content disputes, but on the manner the candidate approaches those disputes and the actions he takes resulting from them. Having high content standards and/or thinking that the format and policies of the ARS are wholly or partly broken are reasonable, defensible and arguably constructive viewpoints (and even were they not, it's okay to hold nonsense views). Counter-canvassing, advocating reactive delete voting, and engaging in personal disputes with ARS members is not. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any diffs of this counter-canvassing? Bulldog123 03:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the creation of the ARSBackfire userbox per my Oppose below, which was designed to be used by other users and advocated voting delete at AfDs entirely on the basis of ARS involvement in reaction to their perceived canvassing, and to his edits to the ARSnote template, discussion of which (including the candidate's response) is below. Counter-canvassing is possibly not the best word as it's certainly not canvassing in the prohibited sense, but it goes beyond merely the counteracting of the canvassing of others. In any case it's a series of conflicts he's gotten into where I feel that, if he'd had the tools, he was likely to have used them to support his position and actions. None of it's recent and it's a perfectly reasonable position to hold that it didn't constitute a serious issue at the time, or that he's reformed now - it's just not one that I personally hold yet. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I had the userbox deleted over 6 months ago (not long after creating it), having realized that despite it being kept at MfD, it was counter-productive and was not helping the situation. It only existed for 2 months before I had it deleted from my userspace, and the only reason it still exists is because User:Verbal (an ARS member) requested that it be restored to their userspace for an unknown reason. SnottyWong confabulate 04:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to me like an inclusionist vs deletionist thing and I'm not seeing the "risk factor." Let's be honest... it's way easier to keep an article than it is to delete it so there tends to be a bias that bothers self-confessed deletionists... but I don't see how that alone could somehow affect Snottywong's ability to close an XfD fairly. If he chooses to participate in an XfD, he's not going to close it. And if he abstains and chooses to close it... he's not going to delete it just 'cause he can now. He's not a 6-year-old with a BB gun. Bulldog123 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, although my person feelings are neutral, to counteract some rather odd opposition rationales. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one certainly can't quibble with that rationale for making the candidate a sysop. I just hope that no other editors--who are in fact neutral--will !vote oppose, if they find your support rationale to be "rather odd". That would create quite a mess for the closer to untangle.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support - Way too late... an editor who's opinions haven't been hidden and yet still remain some of the most honest RfA opinions I've seen in a long time. No question there's the experience and knowledge base here. Certainly trustworthy. The rest is just window dressing. Easy support. Shadowjams (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - oh yes. Knowledge, experience, not afraid to voice his opinion and therefore trustworthy. Orphan Wiki 11:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. support+clue. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Sure Opposers make some good points but I like the trajectory described by balloonman and handily evidenced by a number of !votes here. I think he'll do just fine. --rgpk (comment) 17:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  36. Writing this input into SnottyWong's RfA is a lot less problematic than deciding which section to put it in: I could easily legitimately oppose, because of our mutually acrimonious history. On the other hand, I can legitimately support, because SnottyWong has gotten so much better (from my perspective) since our first interactions. For those of you not familiar with the history, suffice it to say that in mid-2010, SnottyWong and I had an altercation surrounding a number of rescue-tagged AfDs which ended up with an MfD for one of his userboxes and RfC filed against me, both of which were inconclusive. We've since put those differences behind us and been collaborating on a number of issues, including discussions about the possibilities of SnottyWong serving as an administrator.

    I continue to have some concerns about his views on deletionism, most recently with the AfD for Surfer hair, where I think his !vote tended to focus on the trees—notability contribution of individual sources—instead of the forest—the fact that the article, as improved, read as well or better than many other Wikipedia articles and covered a topic whose inclusion a man-on-the-street would find comprehensible.

    Still, taking a forest vs. trees view myself, I see a marked improvement over the past year, and have solidly changed my mind, being now solidly convinced that SnottyWong is here to build the encyclopedia. He has done some bang-up content work, participated more broadly in various areas including WP:3O and GA reviews, and has moderated his participation in AfDs.

    Ultimately, I am not particularly surprised by the results here. I grant that others may not see the evolution I have seen, and given the battlefield history, I can no more fault them for opposing SnottyWong than I can for folks opposing my own ArbCom election. In each case, good editors need to make decisions about whether the editor in question has learned from past mistakes. The bottom line for my support is that I believe that such is the case in SnottyWong's Wikipedia career. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My only memorable contact with Snotty--which to my mind reflected a candidate undeserving of the mop--has been quite recent. Also, many of the diffs in the oppose section concern extremely recent edits by Snotty, which are troubling. I'm troubled to hear that his behavior was even worse at one time. If he has improved, that's great. But we don't hand out sysop titles to editors who have improved from "unacceptable with an exclamation point" to "unacceptable". I hope he continues to improve. But the below snapshot of his quite-current contributions, reflected in the Oppose diffs, reveals an editor far less-evolved than one we should trust with the mop. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weak Support: Snottywong is a valuable and experienced editor, but being a self-identified deletionist gave me pause. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Disagreed with at afd's in the past, but have always felt he was judicious and would not misuse his admin tools.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support- clueful and responsible. Reyk YO! 21:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support The editor has always seemed rational to me, and all of the answers to the questions certainly demonstrated that they will have the correct knowledge to perform well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - I had previously voted Oppose below, but (a) I have considered, what's the worst that would happen if Snottywong had had the tools during the periods I was most concerned about? He might have blocked JClemens and Dreamfocus and he might have deleted a few articles, all of which are subject to review and reversal and would have done no lasting harm. On the other hand he'd have been reducing the admin workload every day for six months in almost wholly constructive ways. He's not out to actively sabotage the project; he might, at worst, make some bad calls in highly visible and community monitored places; that's a small price to pay for the services of an otherwise experienced, intelligent and passionate admin. And (b) Snottywong's conduct throughout the RfA has been so excellent that I am prepared to trust that he understands that a higher and better standard of conduct is expected from admins and he intends to elevate himself to that standard. Given this, I can't in all conscience oppose the request for adminship. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. If only to cancel out some of the more ridiculous opposes below. Also per DustFormsWords and in part per Jclemens. T. Canens (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I don't mind supporting someone just because they happen to have an opinion. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose My limited interaction from the editor has not been positive and I am left feeling that he does not understand the guidelines and policies enough to deserve the tools. Unfortunately, it would take some tracking down of discussions to find the diffs so this is an oppose without any evidence backing my thoughts.Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, those diff's are pretty handy. Whilst the lack of them does not, as such, undermine your oppose they would help other editors to research the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a link to at least one deletion debate the candidate participated in that is the basis for my posing question 4; once the candidate answers, I will post a link to the page here. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that question 4 has been answered, I will post the link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merkow. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for posting that AfD. Highly revealing. First, Snotty there harshly and repeatedly attacks an editor's (my) effort to improve an article at AfD (by adding 60+ refs reflecting the article's notability). He does this by belittling the contributions as "bombardment or ref-bombing". The article, btw, did survive the AfD. The chilling effect of behavior such as Snotty's on helpful contributing editors -- the very lifeblood of this Project -- is wholly contrary to the interests of the Project.
    Second, Snotty said he had looked through all the sources. But then dramatically mis-represented the refs. And in his effort to delete the pro golfer's article, starkly misrepresented a primary fact, saying: "He is an amateur golfer ... This is not a professional golfer."
    Third, when the falseness of his statement was pointed out, he failed to admit his error.
    Fourth, he made another misstatement -- he misstated what he had said at the AfD.
    Finally, his aspersions on the many editors who supported the notability of the article are so inappropriate that I will not give them further oxygen here. They do, however, reflect IMHO on the whether Snotty should have the mop. Snotty is entitled to his opinions. But he is not entitled to his own facts, that are at odds with the truth. Or to mislead other editors by stating untruths.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since some people mentioned my opose I thought I would expand a bit. He !voted delete in a request to remove an editor's page that had become problematic for various reasons with the rationale "Just because Wikipedia consensus doesn't always align with your own personal opinion doesn't mean you need to cry about it." A little mean but that typically would only hurt my feelings a little bit (and I agreed with him). However, he then !voted keep when it came up for a second nomination (the offending material had been removed but readded in a gamey way) with the rationale that it was basically a waste of time since the info could still be found.[4]. When asked to provide something based on policy or guidelines he called WP:IAR,[5] which was not applicable since keeping the page did not improve the project in any way. I don't see how any editor who can say "Ignore all rules" when they really mean "This is a waste of time" can be an admin since IAR is a policy that is a pillar of this project and should not be thrown about like it means nothing. But he again tried to say misapply IAR.[6]. If misusing IAR was not bad enough, the fact that he could not reword his reasoning after flip-flopping for no given reason shows a mentality that could misuse the tools depending on the whim. I agree it was a waste of time though which is why the other editor should not have been toying with the system.
    I am also disappointed in his zeal as a deletionist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish heavy metal musicians. Neither seemed like eligible candidates for the mainspace to me but once he !voted "delete" he would not even consider other options ("Jews in rock music" could be an article with the available sources and "Jewish Nobel laureates" is even easier to source). I don't mind that he !voted delete but continuing to only argue for deletion without seeing other options is not something we should be hoping for in admins.Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose due to numerous conversations at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron and especially this reply to me in which SW is aggressively hostile toward a collaborative process. SnottyWong has a problem with concensus (as determined in this TfD discussion) which he unilaterally reversed when an editor got around to implementing the change. In the ensuing discussion SW would not even acknowledge a problem, and sought to maintain their preferred version regardless of the opinions of others. I do not believe that SW can be trusted to determine or follow concensus, collaborate well with others, or decide closes at XfD discussions. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but that is your right. I feel compelled to briefly defend myself: Firstly, my reply on WT:ARS was not meant to be aggressive or hostile, and after re-reading I still don't think it came off that way. Secondly, your description of the ((ARSnote)) situation is somewhat misleading. Here's my quick recap: The TfD happened in July 2010, one editor said they thought it should be reworded, 2 agreed, I disagreed, the discussion ended, and nothing ever came of it. Over 6 months later, an IP reworded the template without discussion (and I can find no indication that the IP was specifically trying to implement the change discussed 6 months prior). I reverted it and asked them to get a consensus first, per WP:BRD. The IP started a discussion on WT:ARS, got a consensus (which differed from my opinion), and then reworded the template. The template remains reworded to this day. If I could have handled the situation better, please let me know how. SnottyWong chat 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was worth it, I would be upgrading to Strong Oppose due to the answer to question 13. SW continues to put forth the unfounded accusations of canvassing regarding the ARS. This has been done before (see all four MfDs), and has not yet been substantiated. Violations of WP:CANVASS are serious enough accusations to not be thrown about casually. If SW would like to present an article that was tagged for rescue and kept as a result of a deluge of !votes without being improved, I would like to see it. If not, all of the accusations should be retracted. Until then, I will continue to read the accusation as being made against the ARS as a whole, each of its individual members, and any editor who chooses to utilize the rescue process. Such hostility toward a WikiProject and process that has repeatedly been supported by the consensus of the community is completely unacceptable in an Administrator. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Vote retracted - moving to Support above. Conversation left for flow purposes.) - Oppose - Snottywong is a valuable and experienced editor, and there's nothing about being a self-identified deletionist that would stop someone in theory from being an excellent admin. However, Snottywong's frequent and provocative clashes with the ARS gives me little confidence that he would not be tempted to use the tools to push an ideological position about content standards through blocks and AfD closures, and his often unnecessarily confrontational arguments at AfD suggest to me he may be sometimes unable to communicate his ideas in a sufficiently calm and detached manner to use the tools effectively, neutrally, and provide clear reasons for his decisions. I'd reiterate that Snottywong is without question an asset to Wikipedia and that as far as I can tell he's getting better, not worse, so I'd welcome another application in, say, six months. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NB. When I talk about clashes with ARS, I'm talking about stuff like this, and this userbox (the subject of an MfD or ANI, I think, but deleted before the discussion resolved), along with regular clashes with the more enthusiastic members of ARS. - 03:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    A copy of that userbox that non-admins can see can be found here: early version; later version. SnottyWong had long ago asked for that copy to be deleted, but since it's being discussed here, I think it's only fair that non-admins get to see what's being discussed. 28bytes (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the one, thank you, and I don't suggest that SnottyWong still thinks that the userbox is a good idea, merely that I'm not convinced that the combination of opinions and poor judgement that led to it being created in the first place have been grown out of enough to give me confidence in granting the tools. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - Just noting that I've had the opportunity of considering the candidate's excellent response to question 10, which significantly swayed my position and caused me to rethink my Oppose. However, after careful thought, my worry is not that the candidate is not normally capable of making clear and reasonable decisions by reference to policy, but rather that the candidate has on several occasions had bursts of poor judgement (often in interactions with the ARS), and during those periods I would have been very uncomfortable with the candidate having access to the admin tools. Again, the candidate is swiftly improving as an editor but those run-ins in the past are not so distant as to leave me confident Supporting today. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think working primarily in XfDs is a good idea for this candidate. Despite the statement that he has moved more to the center, I still get a strong deletionist vibe when reading his AfD comments and am unsure how he would read consensus in such discussions. Two that I looked at today were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porch sitting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagging; other participants noted the existence of relevant reliable sources, but reading comments like "so better to delete until such time that someone has the time and motivation to start from scratch" is distressing, as it shows a "someone else should fix this" mentality. Indeed, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia but I see little content development apart from a GA or so (please correct me if I am missing anything). I cannot support this candidate not because I disagree with his opinions at XfDs, but because I perceive a serious flaw in his mindset that I think will lead to (unintended) bias in closing deletion discussions. Other than echoing DustFormsWords' concerns above, I don't really see any other issues; PROD/CSD work seems fine (mostly endorsing PRODs recently), but I really would like to see a lot more content building. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The mindset which you describe is outlined in WP:Delete the junk. When this essay was nominated for deletion by a staunchly inclusionist editor (who describes deletionists as "snotty elitists"), the nominator tried to canvass Jimbo Wales himself in the hopes of gaining his approval. Jimbo's response was, and I quote, "I actually agree with that essay completely." So you see, our friend Snotty's position is not without high-profile support... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why Jimbo's opinion on some random essay (note, anyone can write an essay on their beliefs) is relevant at this RfA. I am not questioning the candidate's opinion, and I personally tend to agree more with Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, but the attitude of the candidate at XfD is worrying in that this mentality is inherently biased in a deletionist fashion. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also add that the answer to question 10 is a bit unsatisfying (although it could just be word choice on the candidate's part). XfD !votes are not mere opinions, they are interpretations of current policy. I certainly hope, Lothar von Richthofen, that neither Jimbo nor this candidate close an XfD based solely on his interpretation of an essay. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear you have taken my comment too seriously (in a manner which seems a tad hostile, if I may say so). The essay itself is not the focal point of the comment; rather, it is the general sentiment expressed by it, which is more or less endorsed by SW in the comment you quote. I personally see nothing disagreeable in it, as deletion is not permanent and it is always possible to recreate a deleted article in a more robust form. I am also of the opinion that "someone else should fix it" is not necessarily a bad thing; the 'someone else' who 'fixes it' probably has a better knowledge of the topic than the guy who casts his !vote for deletion at the XfD based on policy, and will more likely than not end up creating a better-quality article. As such, the 'someone else' really should be the one to 'fix it', not the delete !voter. One cannot expect every editor to be able to do/know everything. The essay is not directly related to this RfA, this is true, but the ideas expressed in it are not entirely irrelevant, and I think that the rather messy MfD makes it a bit more than "random".
    More to the point, however, are points raised by other editors here regarding how SW's behaviour has changed as of late (e.g. Andy Dingley's rationale in support no. 18); what is your reaction to these? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was a bit hostile. However, I provided two examples where I feel the candidate appeared to have ignored the presence of reliable sources on a subject that could be written about by any user since there are no nagging experts (well, there are wives) or porch sitting experts (except old men). I feel these are just too recent, and I have seen the candidate's deletionist stance turn more moderate in recent months, but I still have concerns. This is, also, ignoring the whole ARS issue, which I have largely ignored because a. I have no desire to get mixed up with a discussion involving ARS and b. I am not familiar with the concerns raised. That said, the diffs are slightly worrying, but I'm not really commenting on that aspect. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I'm sort of deletionist, but the responses to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porch sitting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagging are too much even for me. Would not feel comfortable with this candidate having free rein with the delete button. The answer to Q6 is perfectly in line with policy though. ;) Steven Walling 04:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All he did at the nagging XfD was tag it as having been flagged for rescue by the article rescue squadron, and then politely state: "Delete or redirect to Wiktionary per WP:DICDEF." What's wrong with that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's an obviously notable subject, it just needed expansion and improvement. Saying that an article needs more content than a dictionary definition and saying it is fundamentally unfit for an encyclopedia are two totally different things. If I am going to trust an editor to delete articles, often based solely on their own judgement about the difference between notability problems and simple quality problems, then that kind of response is concerning in my opinion. Steven Walling 04:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Regretfully. Concerns with judgement and maturity. It does not bother me if you're deletionist, but I really wish you wouldn't openly attack the Article Rescue Squadron. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. It looks like you've allowed a strong personal bias to manifest itself on Wikipedia. That's concerning to me. WikiPhilosophies are just like real life philosophies: I wouldn't trust a self-proclaimed Young Earth creationist who clashing with others over at Wikiproject Evolutionary biology to impartially assess the neutrality of evolution. In that same sense, I couldn't trust a self-proclaimed deletionist who clashes with others at the article rescue squadron to impartially assess deletion discussions. An admin has to demonstrate a neutral demeanor to those with different opinions. You've demonstrated the opposite. Swarm X 05:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Editor goes primarily into the deletion area, but occasionally has a tendency to make very poor decisions and make irrelevant comments into a deletion discussion like "Give me a break". I'm afraid he is not mature enough to be given the administrator functions. Minima c (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, not because of the contributions, but primarily because of the user name. Admins are usually the first brush with authority that new users come across, and I don't think it will give a professional impression if that admin is named 'Snottywong'. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    If I recall, the same issue was brought up at my RFA. I had thought then that I would change my username; I later decided not to. But my username has come up as an issue maybe all of three times in the past year and a half. I think that if it is good enough for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, it should be good enough for RFA. NW (Talk) 15:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise these things are largely subjective and that we may well have different opinions :-). Nevertheless, in this case, I think the issue is severe enough to warrant an oppose. As mentioned above, this should not be taken as an indicator of my opinion of Snottywong's actual edits, which I've only looked into very briefly. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  9. Oppose - I can't recall if we've had any past interactions, but I have seen the canditate's name often enough to agree particularly with some of the concerns brought up by Jim Miller, DustFormsWords, Fastily, Swarm, and Minimac. I agree with Lankiveil, but won't oppose based on that reason. I know that my wikiphilosophy is about at the other end of the spectrum as regards inclusionism, and at my RFA the mere suggestion that I might get involved in the deletion process raised some eyebrows, so I quickly recanted and almost two years later I still haven't touched it once. I'll reconsider my oppose if the candidate reconsiders any administrator involvement in the deletion process. BOZ (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - So far, most of my interactions with Snottywong have been negative. From what I've seen, he seems to fail to assume good faith a lot, fails to remain civil when under fire, and fails to understand core Wikipedia policies. That, combined with the username itself, compel me to oppose. (X! · talk)  · @416  ·  08:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose that Snottywong is even considered a serious candidate for adminship shows how combative Wikipedia has become. In my interactions with Snottywong he is quick to pick fights and template the regulars. He would be a disastrous administrator, alienating good faith editors, and causing division and strife. Okip 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my experience too, and a year—six months ago I would have run to the barricades to oppose this. However he definitely seems to have changed. Are your experiences recent? Have you still seen this behaviour in the last few months, because I'm pleased to say that I haven't. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BATTLEGROUND much, Ikip? nb: a 'retired' and disruptive editor who hates this site. Jack Merridew 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care to speak with editors who were indefinitely blocked for stalking (now called harassing) editors with numerous sockpuppets.[7] Okip 16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving some stuff Okip posted in a collapsable box RE ANI issues to the talk page, it messes up formatting here.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Snottywong#Past edit history Thank you Balloonman, sorry all for messing up the numbering. I should have remembered this. Okip 21:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Some things that bother me. Early in the (very recent) Porch sitting AFD, an editor pointed to this NPR story [8] entitled "Sitting on the Porch: Not a Place, But a State of Mind" which a few sentences down reads "This summer, All Things Considered is examining the front porch: its history, its role in American life and literature and its rich symbolism." SW later !voted to delete, saying "not convinced that the activity can be shown to be a notable cultural activity..." It looks to me as though he didn't check the provided link - if so his !vote didn't demonstrate a careful evaluation. Another is that he consistently takes the effort to add the tl-rescue tag at AFDs, but AFAICT seldom or never notifies the associated projects - I strongly disagree with that prioritization; the project people are the most knowledgable. Another - the original answer to the question 'have you ever been in conflicts here' rather understates the issue. Lastly, it seems to me that a fair number of the articles that he wished to delete were kept, but I don't see any withdrawals on his part. Could you, SW, explain why this is so - was the presented evidence of notability wrong, or the closings wrong? Novickas (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't deny that my opinions on AfD's don't always represent the eventual consensus that is formed. If I read an AfD and I believe the nominated article should be deleted, I will vote that way even if there are already 10 keep votes. Same thing goes for if I think it should be kept. If that makes me appear to be frequently wrong, then so be it. Your question seems to seek for evidence that I am able to admit that I am wrong and withdraw. I think some of the DRV examples linked by Mkativerata above show this, but I also did a quick search through my contributions and found these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue's Big Musical Movie and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Canning. SnottyWong verbalize 16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to see that you have made some withdrawals. I still have concerns about the first few points I raised, but that's probably better done at the talk page. Novickas (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the talk page reply - it raises a hope that you can mend the fences. But the 'dishing' on your talk page is really recent and distressing. Easter-egging an editor's name under 'rant and rave' [9] was worse than a direct mention, IMO. So maybe after some months of fence-mending. Regards, Novickas (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose this candidate has temperament issues which concern me. He seems unduly combative in discussions and I do not feel he confident that he would not use the tools inappropriately. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    weak oppose I've had poor interactions with SW in the past ([10] being one example) but in the last few months I've found him to be greatly improved though still rough around the edges. I'm pretty much where I was with Kww's first couple of RfAs: I think he's got a better-than-even wchance of being a good admin, but the risk is too high. In another 6 months I could see easily see moving to neutral or supporting. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking, I've confused two editors. Hobit (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Candidate has recently treated me with incivility bordering on contempt. No thanks. Townlake (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose The few interactions that I have been in with you as well as what I have seen you do on the community are quite worrisome. You are overly combative and seem to lack a whole bunch of other things that administrators need. If it was one or two things, I would support you, but the fact that there are a lot of issues are pushing me towards opposition at this time. Otherwise, I think you are a marvelous editor but a year or two of more experience couldn't hurt you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. those AfD discussions give me some doubt on giving him the delete button. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Evidence of an antagonistic temperament; of using forceful language purely for effect. Possibly an asset in some settings, but not desirable in an admin. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Agree with Cptnono, and with oAlistair Stevenson.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose regretfully, because I know you do very good work. I think you are more deletionist than the overall consensus position at AfD [11] [12] [13] and sometimes even deletionist in the face of policy[14]. In itself that is no problem, but sometimes you seem to be dismissive of consensus when you disagree with it[15] and sometimes overly-aggressive in your comments about keep !voters[16]. Given that, I'm not sure that you would always be able to make a neutral judgement of consensus when closing AfDs. Thparkth (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose After reviewing the last month of SW's user and talk page comments, I've found enough troubling interactions to lead me to oppose. In two cases, he has 'dished' about another editor on user talk, here and here. Regardless of what one thinks of other editors, complaining about them on-wiki is inflammatory and generally not helpful. That's not the sort of behavior I'd like to see in an admin. More disturbing, from the admin specific point of view, is his vote on the move request for Pro-life [17]. He supported a snow close and writes "I'd do it myself but Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure suggests that I shouldn't". The discussion was active with editors arguing on both sides: not an obvious SNOW close at all. To me this suggests that SW may be willing to use the tools inappropriately and ignore consensus in favor of his own opinions. So, no. That said, he does excellent work at NPP and I commend him for that. Danger (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Per this RfA vote, and the fact that I have not seen sufficient changes to the users personality since then to be convince me that such behavior would not be repeated again. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. The diffs in this oppose section don't read -- to me -- like a normal RfA oppose section. They strike me as resembling more what I've seen in RFC/Us, where there is something serious being complained about. Frankly, they would be troubling to me were I to see them at an RFC. Seeing them here, with the editor self-nominating in an effort to put his hands on the mop, I'm even more troubled. Many good reasons discussed above to not give him any more powers than he has at the moment as an editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Cptnono and Epeefleche . The evidence I've seen just doesn't make me comfortable supporting granting Admin rights at this time.. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 05:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Okip, User:Cptnono and others. Niggling point maybe bu I can't help thinking his choice of name does say something about him.--Bukrafil (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I honestly don't trust him to weigh consensus properly in any AFDs he closes, instead of just looking for a reason to delete anything he doesn't like. Dream Focus 08:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We know; it's called assuming bad faith. Jack Merridew 09:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF is a rebuttable presumption. Dream may well have experience with the candidate, or have read the diffs in this section, and considered the presumption rebutted. Having read all the diffs, such a conclusion seems quite sound to me. That is not at all inappropriate; nor should Dream be attacked for applying AgF properly.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have experience with both users. Jack Merridew 09:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't accusing someone of assuming bad faith in someone else, in itself accusing them of bad faith? I don't trust you either Jack, and will oppose you as well should you ever get all those banned sockpuppets off your record allowing you to run for administrator. [18] People often vote on whether they believe a candidate is qualified based on their past dealings with them. And even if someone started playing nice for a few months, most likely with running for administrator in mind, that doesn't mean they have truly changed their nature. Dream Focus 09:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See also: WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jack Merridew 10:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, all "snotty elitist deletionists" should have their RfAs blocked on the grounds that they are just so– deletionists. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called WP:AAGF. (X! · talk)  · @842  ·  19:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add an example to my claim. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design He states that even if an article passes the general notability guidelines WP:GNG then it should still be deleted if he considers it junk. I think he'd be leaning to any excuse he could get away with, to delete things. Dream Focus 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I think I'd develop "temperament concerns" as well if I dealt with people like you for extended periods of time... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak Oppose leaning Neutral. I've seen SnottyWong at a number of AfDs and believe him to be a valuable contributor to the AfD process. That being said his temperment in the AfDs, his tendency towards deletion and his open disagreements with the ARS lead me to oppose this candidate as his stated area of admin interest is XfD. Worm TT 11:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose My main encounter with this editor was at an RFC he filed on another editor. I queried parts of the "evidence" that he presented. Judging from his subsequent responses in that RFC and on its talkpage I don't consider that this candidate has the judgment, temperament or competence needed for adminship. I'm not opposing merely because he is a deletionist, I have no objection to people trying to change policy, but I consider they should do so by proposing policy changes, not by filing RFCs on editors who are operating in accordance with a policy they disagree with. I don't always disagree with what SnottyWong is trying to do, but he sometimes uses tactics that are way too confrontational, and exaggerates his case rather than tries to seek consensus or at least a fair analysis of the situation. I might have supported a change of policy to require editors to give an explanation when they decline a prod, but trying to achieve that change via an RFC on an editor who "declines prods without explanation" struck me as unnecessarily combative almost to the point of bullying. Whilst criticising an editor for removing a Refimprove template without striking that criticism when it was pointed out that there had been two refimprove tags on an article and they'd merely removed a duplicate struck me as both stubborn and inept. As for the username, it may be appropriate for the editor, but would be inappropriate for an admin. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it will sway your vote, but just to clear the air: That RFC was recommended (if not mandated) by the admin who blocked CW a few days prior, once the resultant ANI thread grew out of control. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive651#Unblocked, RFC/U to start. I did not start that RFC unilaterally, nor did I start it because I disagree philosophically with CW. Furthermore, despite many editors and admins asking me to expand the scope of the RFC to cover nearly every aspect of CW's editing that people don't like, I chose to focus it narrowly on the issue at hand: removal of cleanup tags without addressing the problem (not declining prods). I'll agree that the RFC was a mess, and if I could go back and undo it, I would. SnottyWong confess 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was about the case you made in that RFC, and the way you responded to my questioning several parts of it, not the fact that you had initiated the RFC. I queried two examples raised by other editors in their evidence and both promptly struck those parts of their case. If you had responded similarly I would have a very different memory of the episode - and I the RFC might not have been such a mess. In particular if you'd taken my suggestion to strike the parts of your evidence related to the removal of prods, or my later suggestion to rephrase that as "whilst declining a prod" then I believe the RFC would have been less about prods and more focussed on other issues. As it was prods were the first thing covered in the summary. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of editors have said that this editor has improved since the events of last year, so I have looked for more recent examples than the incident of two or three months ago. There are indeed some good edits like this. However Cullen328's example is from less than three weeks ago, and while on that occasion the candidate didn't exhibit the poor temperament that most concerned me ten weeks ago, their understanding of notability and empathy with the building of encyclopaedic content is clearly deficient. I don't have a problem with deletionist admins, I've done over 5,000 deletions myself and I think that building an encyclopaedia is as dependent on skilful pruning as the cultivation of roses, but not that of vines. My concerns at RFA include can I trust this candidate to only delete that which merits deletion? In this case no I don't think I can. There are several good aspects to this candidate - SW has the tenure, contributions, technical skills and clean blocklog that would normally get a support from me. But neither temperament nor judgement are suitable, and these are not easy things to change. I rarely bother about an RFA candidate's editing stats, but in this case I would suggest that if SW wants to run again for admin in 6 months or so, aim to do much more of your editing in the mainspace, perhaps even as high as 50% of your edits, and predominately as article improvements rather than mostly tagging. I think my own record is of resolving and removing more tags than I add, and while you don't need to go that far, it helps to remember that as a community we need to achieve that. ϢereSpielChequers 12:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. weak oppose There are too many concerns raised based on maturity and I share these. I do think the editor can adapt though and run in the future. And hopefully this is the case Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose My first inclination was to remain neutral. However, having reviewed some of his postings at AfD, I don't think that this user has reached the level of maturity required of an administrator. Perhaps sometime in the future but certainly not now.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose SW was accused of behaving in a ”very parochial manner”. This was regarding a requested page name change at Judaism and bus stops which requested a page with a more encompassing subject matter, namely Judaism and transportation. SW simply closed the request with hardly any input from other editors on the premise that the suggestion was disruptive. This in my view put an end to any possibility of hoping to salvage the subject matter at hand. Stifling information that may seem trivial is not in my mind the wikiway. Chesdovi (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Seems a bit argumentative at XfDs, but his handling of the RFC/U on Jclemens really sways this !vote. Note that this question has also not been answered. SnottyWong talk 13:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC) is sufficient enough to bar him from consideration at this time. Collect (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose This is an RfA and I’ll be perfectly candid about why I feel Snottywong would be inappropriate as an admin. I witnessed firsthand, a lengthy interaction over a golfing article I hadn’t contributed to and wasn’t particularly animated over. I was really disappointed with SW’s character there as evidenced by his writings. The most reasonable and fitting interpretation to account for the totality of it was that he wasn’t truthful when he professed to have read through the available evidence, dug his hole deeper by employing a mountain of CYA to explain away the obvious, and managed to exhibit palpable arrogance the whole time. I feel he is prone to being drunk with power and would be a problem if given the opportunity, which I don’t want to give him.

    Some might point out this is flimsy and scant evidence upon which to base an opinion. An RfA is not a criminal jury trial where the allegations must be proven true beyond any reasonable doubt—and be seen as such unanimously among 12 people. Someone’s liberty isn’t at stake here where they can be thrown in jail. The litmus test and burden of proof is far lower when it comes to deciding if the wikipedian community should grant special privileges, powers, and responsibilities to one of its peers. This is particularly true when the procedures and hurdles put in place for the community to revoke those powers are so formidable; it’s double-tough to strip adminship once granted. I’ve been around the block a few times, have a few hard-earned gray hairs, and think I have Snottywong’s number sufficiently well established. Greg L (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  33. Oppose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre is a current discussion - just a few days old. The candidate's comments in this indicates that he does not understand the policies or guidelines which he cites. He also seems to misrepresent basic facts about the article's content, claiming that sentences are "irrelevant" when they are directly relevant to the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose I am rather concerned with the way that the David Merkow AFD was handled, and that, coupled with the user's use of profanity on wiki in a few instances I saw, I am not sure his temperament the type of user I really want as an ambassador of Wikipedia. I say ambassador because so often a new user's first interaction with an administrator is likely to leave a lasting impact. I know Wikipedia is not censored but I ask for a higher standard from administrators. Kansan (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's truly amazing that the David Merkow AfD is somehow being used as a negative example Snottwong's judgment when, really, it's a premium example of his ability to "sift through the bullsh*t" (sorry for the choice of words here) and use a perfectly valid interpretation of policy to gauge whether an article truly meets notability standards. The David Merkow article was created for one reason and one reason only: to advertise that Merkow is a proudly Jewish golfer. Not because Merkow is particularly successful (especially not compared to countless other golfers that have his stats or better and don't have/deserve an article), not because Merkow is renowned in his community or notable for any related achievements, but simply because of his religious/ethnic background - which, in of it self, does not make him a notable golfer - though does endear him to individuals who use wikipedia as a vehicle for ethnic pride. Anyone who disputes this plainly-obvious intention should see that Merkow existed on List of Jews in sports and exclusively on that list a whole three months before an article was made on him (by the same user who edits that list the most often). Then Snottywong's use of the word "WP:REFBOMB" in relation to the flooding of 60-ish links into the article was 1000% appropriate, considering that's precisely what refbombing is defined as - nothing inappropriate/questionable/aggressive about it. Bulldog123 23:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so much concerned with the conclusion he came to (I will readily admit that Merkow does not appear to have the strongest claims of notability) but more about how he came about it (i.e. not admitting he was wrong). However, on reflection, that does seem a little minor, so I'm more than willing to strike that part of my comment because the crux of it is really the second part. Kansan (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually try not to use profanity on-wiki and don't recall any exceptions, but I could be wrong. Could you post a diff or two if you have them? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to make sure that my definition of profanity matches up with yours, so that I'll know if I need to be more careful than I usually am. SnottyWong spill the beans 00:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [19] SilverserenC 00:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to Silver seren's diff, [20] (a whole incident that neither side handled particularly well.) Kansan (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, thanks. SnottyWong converse 02:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting Snottywang from the above link: …how can WIkipedia have any credibility if it becomes censored and child-proofed to the point where we wouldn't have the opportunity to be called pigs by a stupid asshole such as yourself? Seriously? That’s rather amazing to me. I am relieved because relying only upon grey-beard wisdom and intuition based on the scant evidence of one thread over one particular article is a perilous thing. Fortunately, all that is at stake is whether the community wants to grant you, Snottywang, special privileges premised on the notion that you exhibit uncommon judgement and maturity.

    Doubly-fortunately, that little “stupid asshole” jewel removed all doubt I had over my ‘oppose’ vote; it validates that I had your number spot-on after all. You might see my essay, “ "Fuck” is not necessarily uncivil”, to learn about the distinction between coarse language and school-yard-level personal attacks.

    Since on Wikipedia, revoking adminship is about as likely an occurrence as a 1.21‑gigawatt lightning bolt hitting the downtown clock tower, how could you possibly convince the community that you can consistently exercise level-headed judgement? Were I you, Snottywang, I’d withdraw your hat on this one and bow out gracefully. Greg L (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm considering that, and probably will bow out in the next 24 hours. I told myself I'd end it if the support/oppose ratio ever hit 50%, but it never quite got there. Nonetheless, it's becoming clear this will not be successful, but I don't want to close it before everyone has had a chance to have their say. SnottyWong squeal 05:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Per Fastily and fetchcomms. Alpha Quadrant talk 20:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose An unfortunate and single minded interest in besmirching the work of the entire ARS based upon his interactions with only a very few editors with whom he disagrees, shows a willingness to cut down an entire forest to get at the one or two trees with whom he disagrees. WP:BATTLE discourages such actions in any editor... and creating battlegorunds or even a perception of a battleground is unacceptable in a admin. As there are soooooooo many productive things that need doing on Wikipedia that do not need the mop... if this editor were to walk away from continued denigration of the ARS, and come back to RFA in some months, we might then perhaps better evaluate his his need (or not) for the tools. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose per my comment in the neutral section and this diff provided above. I'm unconvinced that Snottywong has the patience and/or tact to deal with typical issues that will arise for an active admin. Mr.Z-man 04:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose because of his confrontational username, his old userbox, his constant bickering with the ARS (I'm not a member), and his long history of failing to follow WP:BEFORE item #4 in deletion debates. Just one example: earlier this month, SnottyWong nominated Robert Harper Clarkson, a 19th century Episcopal bishop, for deletion. I pointed out that the article already had an external link to sources, some of which seemed reliable. He responded that they were primary sources - sermons and obituaries, and that Episcopal bishops weren't necessarily notable. I pointed out that one of the obituaries was actually a fairly lengthy biographical profile written by notable newspaper editor George L. Miller, admittedly right after the bishop's death. I expanded the article, and added three references, which were quite easy to find. I then asked politely, on his talk page, if he would take another look at the article after I had tried to improve it. I received no response. I hope that this editor will mellow and mature, and perhaps be a good candidate for administrator in the future. But not now.Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose The candidate says he "would be comfortable jumping right in to XfD's, speedies and prods" but it seems to me his contributions at XfD show he does not agree with or approve of the deletion policy at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion. At the level of contributing to discussions his approach is coherent and, given sustained support, could lead to policy change. However, closing deletion discussions in an administrative capacity requires an acceptance of policy and I am not confident the candidate has this ability. Thincat (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per Cullen328's comments above. Salih (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Totally unimpressed with the user's on-wiki behavior. No trust at all unfortunately. Juliancolton (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral (old commentary removed but in history)Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying the "en" userbox by itself is a red flag, or is there something else that looks off? - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No Dank - just (unblued) making a point - sorry. I've seen the candidate around but a little more research is needed first. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem ... if you see something that looks off, please let us know, I take your concerns seriously. His userpage doesn't set any bells off for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, I see no reason to oppose at this time but my (admittedly very limited) past interactions with the candidate at AFD has been about average, and nothing really stands out enough for me to support. Str Pby (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral pending further review. I don't recall seeing the candidate outside RfA discussions, but I also don't typically go look through the stated areas of interest. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) On review, positives do not outweigh negatives (see XfD concerns noted by others), but neither do negatives outweigh positives. The !vote stands as called (said the retired umpire). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Not enough edits to the article space, given the amount of time that the candidate has been active on the project, for me to be able to support. Best of luck, however! --Strikerforce (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Although this may yet change, I just don't see myself supporting at this time. I still have concerns about his past interactions, from which I got the general impression that he tends to be a drama magnet. I also find myself disagreeing with his viewpoint on many issues, although I can't exactly say that's relevant to whether he'd make a good admin. With all that said, I'm not in support, but it's not enough for me to oppose either, because I trust he won't break the wiki, and because I realize we need as many competent admins as we can get.. so I guess I'll see how it goes from here.. -- œ ™ 02:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutralmoving to weak oppose I know that the user name to some doesn’t appear to be a huge issue. But it if I’m a new editor needing help from an admin, the name does not send a good first impression. That is easily remedied at the option of Snotty if they choose too seek. Two of the above opposes relate to Snotty and AGF concerns. However no diffs were presented showing this alleged behaviour. Going through my own search (while brief i admit) i have not come accross these. It interests me greatly what these exact allegations of not AGF are. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I have seen this user around and have never had cause for concern; however, some of the opposes above give me food for thought—so neutral for now. Pol430 talk to me 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Downshifting to neutral. There's a lot that I like, and I would be supporting if I felt competent with the XfD issues raised, but I'm just not. Whether this succeeds or not, I hope that the candidate and the opposition can find a way to come to terms. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Many positive aspects, but opposition brings reasonable arguments regarding XfD and apparent abrasiveness. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been wavering between oppose and neutral and may still be swayed toward opposing depending on what other evidence is presented. I haven't had many interactions with Snottywong, but one stuck out in my mind here where someone complained about his bot's operation. His first 3 comments on the discussion were fine, but then, a few days later he made a (IMO) rather rude comment - "to sum up, it appears we have one somewhat cantankerous editor who doesn't appreciate our efforts" - and then later a rather condescending - "Your humble opinion is duly noted." This raises some questions about whether or not Snottywong has sufficient patience to deal with administrative issues or complaints about his admin actions. That said, this was only one issue, so unless I see evidence of a pattern, I'll AGF that he was just having a bad day. Mr.Z-man 04:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Moved to oppose. Mr.Z-man 04:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. neutral leaning toward oppose Honestly he does a lot of good work, but some of his interactions with others need improvement. I'm largely seeing a very good communicator who occasionally gets biting. Hobit (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral, at least for now. Like jclemens, I have a better idea of what I want to say than of how I want to !vote. Snottywong did a nice job addressing the questions on this page. If those answers were all I had to go on, I'd be heartily in favor of making him an admin -- he's clearly smart, he's familiar with policies and processes, he's willing to help out, and we need more admins to pick up the workload. In my past interactions with him, which I remember him because of that username of his, I've found him at different times to be an annoyingly doctrinaire deletionist, a reasonable guy who admits his errors and goes out of his way to be civil, and even an inexplicably impassioned defender of inclusion (this was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masonic buildings). Although my personal interactions with him have been civil, it's clear that this is not everyone's experience – it seems that Snottywong has a temper. I'm concerned by his expressed hostility to the ARS and his filing of that RfC for Colonel Warden. As others have said, that behavior suggests a lack of maturity. I have experienced some hard-nosed deletionism on his part (for example, when we interacted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartland Baptist Bible College, he declared that the article should be deleted as an "unaccredited school which cannot grant academic degrees", leading me to wonder if he thinks that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be certificates of legitimacy, kind of like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval). Seeing his deletionism, I looked at his article-edit count, because I think that people who delete articles ought to have sufficient article-building experience to give them empathy with the people who have put their hearts into article development. His low article-space edit count doesn't give me confidence that he has that empathy. I want to say that he'll do fine if he's handed the mop, but I can't, because there are too many things that make me think that this could be a big mistake. --Orlady (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral - I was actually contemplating a weak support as per Jclemens, but cullen's experience really put a dampener on that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[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