Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Favonian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Favonian

Final (128/3/1); Closed by ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! at 15:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Favonian (talk · contribs) – I have been an editor for more than two years, though my level of activity really picked up a year ago when I became active in anti-vandalism work. Since then I have accumulated more than 64,000 edits, mostly vandal fighting but also a fair bit of new pages patrolling, where I have nominated several pages for speedy deletion, but also done some gnomish work on linking, referencing and categorization. My contributions as far as new articles are concerned are modest, mostly short Denmark-related articles. Favonian (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, I plan to take the logical step based on my activities so far, i.e. to process reports to WP:AIV and evaluate nominations for speedy deletion. I would also like to become active in page protection, as that noticeboard seems to require frequent attention. Regarding WP:AFD, I have previously nominated a fair number of articles, but not contributed as much to discussions as I would like to. This is an area I intend to become more involved in before I'll trust myself to close any discussions. A long-term goal would be sockpuppet investigations.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Vandal fighting is dark and lonely work, but someone has to do it. My "batting average" (sorry for the sports metaphor, which may be taken as an indication of improper, competitive mentality) is quite good: I rarely get reverted (except by the culprits), and the ones I send to AIV are almost always blocked. The same goes for speedy deletions. Though the articles I have created are few and small, I rather like them, and at least none of them have been deleted thus far—hope this remark doesn't prove to be hubris.
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: A year ago, when I was young and foolish, I renamed an article about a long-dead Danish king to what I thought would be the proper, systematic name. My whiskers were thoroughly singed, as I was made aware of WP:COMMONNAME as the proper guideline, trumping by geekish tendency to put everything into schemas. I think I have learned from that experience and there has been ample opportunity to get back at the stupid world inform other users about this particular principle. A good deal more embarrassing was this incident where I crossed the WP:3RR line. That was really stupid of me. Other than that, the vandals do tend to say mean things about my mother, but I don't loose any sleep because of that.
Additional optional questions from MC10
4. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user reported at WP:AIV whom has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?
A: Sometimes, in case of very "focused" vandals, I have progressed to level 4 warning in less than four steps, but if I may rephrase the question as "who has not yet received a final warning", my answer would be: only in case of a sockpuppet quacking loudly, or a really hideous BLP violation or personal attack on an editor. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another case are of course editors, who have just been unblocked and immediately resume their evil ways. Favonian (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. When, if ever, is it appropriate to indefinitely block a vandalizing IP editor?
A: Hardly ever. Open proxies could be candidates, depending on the technical circumstances. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on this? Would you seek a second opinion before or after an indef block and/or note it someplace (other then the automatic block log)? Thanks. RN 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would ask a second opinion. A block of this nature would in its nature be controversial, and I have no special insight in the arcana of proxies, Tor nodes, etc. An editor like Jayron32 (talk · contribs), with whom I have worked before, would be a possibility, and there is always the list at WP:AMDB. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from user:zzuuzz
6. A number of different IPs repeatedly blank a biography saying "This is libellous. I'm going to sue you". If you block the IPs, what settings would you use? What else would you do?
A: It sounds like an IP jumper, so I would probably semi-protect the article for a short period of time. Legal threats are a mortal sin around here, but I would check if WP:DOLT applies and let that decide which version of the article to revert to, if necessary. Unless the same IP is used frequently, it's probably not constructive to block it, but if I decide to block, it would be for several days with a reference to WP:LEGAL. Favonian (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from MuZemike
7. User:Bazuzu has been indefinitely blocked for blatant disruption. About 1 week later, User:Zarlox appears and exhibits the very similar patterns of disruption as Bazuzu. In a CheckUser request, the results come back  Possible between the two accounts. Would you still issue a block to Zarlox and for what reason?
A: The way you describe it, it sounds like WP:DUCK applies. I know this is not a policy, but it is followed frequently when dealing with sock/meat puppets. If I think it quacks convincingly, I will block and then proceed as in my answer to Q8 below. Favonian (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from User:Climie.ca
8. I'm going to pose to you a hypothetical scenario, one which is sadly becoming much more commonplace on Wikipedia than it used to be. In the event that you are forced to choose between established Wikipedia Policy and sheer common sense, which would you side with?
A: Fortunately, there is a policy(!) to deal with this, namely WP:IGNORE. If my gut feeling is sufficiently strong, I will follow it and then make a note at WP:ANI, explaining what I did and why, indicating that I won't throw a tantrum if another admin reverts me. Favonian (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from StephenBuxton
9. I saw your speedy deletion nomination of Lynn Briggs. Whilst I agree that the article was a candidate for speedy deletion for G12 (Copy Vio), I am curious as to why you nominated it for A7 (Notability), when it included the line: ..have earned her numerous industry honors, including the coveted title, “Billboard Magazine Air Personality of the Year” and nominated “Radio & Records Music Director of the Year” 2007 and 2008.
A: That doesn't look too good on the face of it, as it goes against chapter and verse of WP:CSD#A7, making a claim for notability. I would, however, like to see the relevant version of the article, which was deleted five days ago (and subsequently two more times). The copyright violation was of the person's LinkedIn profile, but in its present form there is hardly anything worth copying, so something must have changed in the meantime. Favonian (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I restored the relevant revision to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Favonian/Lynn Briggs for purposes of this RFA. Regards SoWhy 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cheers, SoWhy. For anyone reviewing Favonian's edit if the page, his edit was the third in the history of that page. The first was by the original author, the second was the tagging by CorenBot. Favonian's edit added the CSD tag. Stephen! Coming... 18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rats! That's a classic example of an article not meeting the A7 requirement and which should therefore (if it hadn't been for the obvious copyvio) been sent off to PROD/AfD if reliable sources for the claims can't be found. {{contrition}} Favonian (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support – Looks good to me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Seen good stuff from Favonian. Polargeo (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - One of the first editors I came across, and in that category of "I thought they already had the mop" and absolutely no hesitation to support. Codf1977 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strongest support (more later) – B.hotep •talk• 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, OK. I've seen Favonian around for a long time now and often wondered when he would run for adminship... so I asked on his talk page the other night, and to my delight, he's decided to run... at last! So I will repeat what I said to him there: Favonian spends a lot of time reverting vandals, a sign of commitment to maintaining the project, never something to be knocked, and his AIV reports are always accurate (to the point where I don't have to check them, but, rest assured, I always do!); CSD tagging isn't an issue; talk page interaction is professional, courteous, and, I always feel, extremely knowledgeable. Above all, Favonian has not been in a hurry to gain adminship (been here over 2 years and been asked on numerous occassions in the last year from what I remember), but always taking his time: this shows a cautious streak, but also a thoughtful trait and all the while acknowledging that experience is required. Also, he doesn't subscribe to dramas. So, if we're looking for an ableminded (he has his head screwed on so tight, you can't even see the hinges!), competent, maintenance admin, Favonian's the one for sure. – B.hotep •talk• 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - have also come across this editor many times ...has always conducted himself in the best manner and is one of the most pleasant to work with. Moxy (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yep, no worries here. Clueful and collegial, the latter not being especially easy when one does so much work around new editors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I've seen your vandal fighting many, many times, and I'm very happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Great contributions, knows what he's doing. Brambleclawx 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support – yes. Airplaneman ✈ 17:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Delighted to see Favonian here. Great vandal fighter who has done outstanding work, and Favonian with extra buttons will be a good thing for the project. Trustworthy to the core. My best wishes now and always. Jusdafax 18:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Seen him in action. -- Mentifisto 17:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I have not seen any reason why they shouldn't be granted adminship (I even had this RFA pre-watchlisted). Regards SoWhy 17:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support User has shown exemplary experience; I can only assume that they care deeply about improving and maintaining the quality of Wikipedia. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Respected user who will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 18:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support for a user who would make an outstanding sysop. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support I like the response to my request for elaboration, and he has great contributions. RN 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Favonian is an experienced and unfussy editor, and I have no doubts that he would make good use of the tools. Seems like an ideal candidate. Rje (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No worries here. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Definitely seems to me like the kind of editor who will make good, responsible use of a mop. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 19:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. From what I've seen, Favonian does very good work in new page patrol and pages needing translation, and seems generally trustworthy and level-headed. decltype (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, experienced, good potential, 'nuff nous. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A good all-round user. Good with the rollback, good english and has no evidence of incivility. Minimac (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support – A trusted user doing a great job. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: I thought s/he already was an admin. This is overdue. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - I've only seen good things from Favonian so I support this. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Answers make me think that Favonian would do a good job. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 20:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Shimeru 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support TNXMan 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I don't see any problems, and IMO, wikigonmes are especially well suited to adminship. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I've seen much good work, and see no negatives. Good answers to questions reinforce this.  Begoontalk 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! Pilif12p :  Yo  21:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support; me likey! Ironholds (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I've seen him around and trust his judgement. -- Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - looks good here Mlpearc powwow 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. AIV and RPP reports have been spot on s far as I've seen and both areas would greatly benefit from more willing admins. He's a clueful and experienced editor and I've no reason to think he wouldn't do a good job with a few extra buttons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. STRONG support God yes. And the answers were spot on, on all of them. This made my day. Best of luck, sincerely -Tommy! [message] 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, looking forward to having you join the team. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I believe we can trust this editor with the tools.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I've crossed paths with Favonian several times while patrolling new pages and have found his contributions solid and worthwhile. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Definitely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support No problem here. Good admin material :-) Marek.69 talk 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support – Looks good to me. --Leyo 22:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support One of the most regular contributors to WP:PNT, can deal with Scandinavian languages, good knowledge of policy. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support- I don't think I've ever had much interaction with this user, but I see their name pop up every now and then and I've always had a vague good feeling about them. And Favonian's answers to the questions are very, very impressive to me, so I have no hesitation in offering my support. Reyk YO! 23:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Solid maintenance work and clueful editor. I am not familiar with their content contribution, but my standing to judge from that perspective is not strong. Tiderolls 23:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Seen him around, and he often gets to vandals before I do, which is commendable. No qualms about him having the mop. Content creation is not the be-all and end-all of participation here. Rodhullandemu 23:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I am confident that you will do a fine job...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No issues at all. Aiken ♫ 00:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Favonian is a good all-around editor who is level-headed and diplomatic. I have the utmost confidence in them. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - i thought he was already an admin. Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Sure. ThemFromSpace 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Candidate clearly knows the ins-and-outs of vandal fighting, and the answer to #6 is, in my opinion, pretty much right on target. —DoRD (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong support Oh, yes. BejinhanTalk 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Seen some good work - and I look forward to more. ceranthor 03:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support based largely on previous observations and experiences. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I thought you already were an admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support A quick exam makes this pretty obvious. Jmlk17 07:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I've seen you around the site before and your work is commendable. This adminship is long overdue. elektrikSHOOS 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Very good admin candidate, also I feel the need to offset the weak opposition a little more. SwarmTalk 09:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Easy decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Favonian. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Yeah, --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support: I hummed and hawed on this one, and was considering a neutral !vote. Favonian is undoubtedly a valuable contributor – performing tireless anti-vandal work whilst retaining a cool head is a combination many struggle with. I was just a little concerned about the seemingly low level of content creation or related activites – I have lower standards in this regard than many; I don't think having F/GAs under one's belt is a requirement for instance, but I like to see something which demonstrates an understanding of what goes into building the encyclopaedia. On the other hand, his gnomish edits appear good and well-founded in policy, guidelines and the manual of style, which suggests he is clueful in this area too, even if he doesn't use that knowledge to its full potential, and his unquestionable commitment to the project is mightily impressive, so in the end I'm actually leaning towards strong support. AJCham 11:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. SupportAdmirable knowledge and application of policy, dramah-free, hard-working, clueful. Vandal haulage is hassle enough without the hot-button MMORPGesque trophy hunters but Favonian's consistently thoughtful approach demonstrates the need for and the ability to use the tools well. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - the opposes bring no reasonable concerns, terrific answers to questions. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - Good anti-vandal work, much of which I've seen on the front lines. Good contributions in other areas; I feel he will make good use of the tools. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Looks fine, don't agree with the opposes. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Absolute Support We need more Admins like this. Ronk01 talk, 17:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I've seen great things from this user, and I don't see anything that would lead me to oppose. Reach Out to the Truth 17:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Should be a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support with the hope that the Q4 answer is broader than others have interpreted it, meaning that "i like pie" (actually, probably something worse) vandals that get a L1 warning, then a L3 warning, then a L4 warning, count within the definition of "focused" vandals. Shadowjams (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Fully qualified candidate. At some point, the community may wish to reconsider the number of warnings that vandals receive before being blocked, but the candidate's agreeing with and/or complying with the current policy is not a concern at RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support based on interactions with candidate. Fully agree with Newyorkbrad above, that individual RFA's aren't the place to decide to rearrange the warning levels, though I feel it may well be a good idea. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. T. Canens (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Sole Soul (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  77. All looks fine to me. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support This user will be an asset to Wikipedia as an admin IJA (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support I've seen them around Wikipedia and shouldn't do too bad. Good luck as a janitor! Schfifty3 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Good luck. Connormahtalk 23:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Good luck! Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 01:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support — Master&Expert (Talk) 05:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support I have actioned many of the requests by Favonian, and I have the impression that they are likely to be good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Insert cliche "thought he was one already" statement here... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Favonian, meet your new friend, the mop (hopefully). --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. As promised, if I could be convinced to Support I would. A perusal of your deleted contributions plus my recent deletion of Ryan Sault which you correctly tagged have swung my opinion in your favour. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong support I have come across Favonian frequently, and have found him to be a very reliable Wikipedian. I have no concerns at all. (I do agree that the answer to question 4 was too tentative, but I regard this as a reason to encourage Favonian to take a more forthright approach to vandals, not a reason to withold adminship. In any case, I would much prefer a new admin to start by being over-cautious than the opposite.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Clueful answers. I respect the oppose rationales, while disagreeing with them. In particular I feel that 1,2,3,4 warning for vandals demonstrates WP:AGF and a thorough, methodical approach which befits prospective mop-wielders. TFOWR 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. I haven't seen anything to give me concern, or even a pause. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support A favorite. —Soap— 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Seen them do good work. Would be a net positive. Elockid (Talk) 22:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Solid credentials: clueful, experienced, cerebral answers (I have to confess that I have a soft spot for those who use sports metaphors)--Hokeman (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Excellent candidate.--LAAFan 01:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support This will most certainly benefit the wiki. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 08:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support I've seen this editor's work and been impressed; I have not seen anything at this RfA to suggest there'd be any problem whatsoever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 support. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support I trust this user. Immunize Contact me Contributions 14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Good luck. Theleftorium (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, Barnstars, autoreviewer, great user page, and the use of templated warnings when necessary. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Hay que apoyar po', mirevé. Diego Grez what's up? 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - extra points for using "i.e." correctly in an RFA. Jonathunder (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. The candidate is a seasoned user with a good track record. Majoreditor (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Secret account 00:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - No issues. IQinn (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support I have a general favorable impression of Favonian and a quick review indicates that adminship is a good idea here. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I could have sworn you were already an admin.. either way, I have no issues.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Weak support. Lacking in content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - I am mildly surprised that he's not already an admin. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - you do a fine job, my friend. Seen you around a lot. :) Orphan Wiki 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. I'm certain Wikipedia will benefit greatly with Favonian wielding the mop. -- Ϫ 02:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support – Looks fine in my view. –MuZemike 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support – lack of content not thrilled about, but honest self-reflectiveness is a plus, and seems to have the trust of a few folks. ergo, likely to be a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. With no reservations. —Dark 13:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Dedicated, collegial. Congratulations! - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support should be a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Doh, see above. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - answers to questions show Favonian can learn from mistakes, which is a vital trait in an admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Reasonable Support The answer to Q9 indicates that Favonian is fallible, but he does realise his mistake. To see if this was indicative of other bad nominations, I had a good long look at loads of his other recent CSD noms. It does appear that this was his only mistake, so to put it down as even a neutral vote would seem a little harsh. If you are going to do work on CSD nominations once you get the mop (and let's face it, at this stage it is looking very likely), I would recommend you have a read of this essay and the links. Stephen! Coming... 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Stephen. That's generous of you. I shall read the essay but, ahem, the link is red. Favonian (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure he meant WP:WIHSD Regards SoWhy 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Never let it be said that Admins are unfallible! (Thanks, SoWhy!) Stephen! Coming... 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not? Then why did I become one?! SoWhy 18:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Yeah, yeah. —fetch·comms 20:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Yup, no alarms here. GedUK  21:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support No reason to believe tools would be misused.--MONGO 23:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support As someone said on my RfA, an admin who understands his limitations, knows that he is fallible, and is willing to own up to his past and future mistakes, is way better than an admin who thinks he can do everything and is perfect. His nomination and answers to the questions indicate strongly to me that he will act responsibly and will carefully consider actions he is taking, and will not object to criticism over misuse of the admin tools. I don't foresee any abuse of the tools from this editor. (Also, I have a soft spot for RfA candidates who don't have a lot in the way of super-awesome article-writing contributions, but are very active in the AIV arena, since that's the boat I'm in.) --Chris (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Looks good. There's something real about the way this user interacts with others that strikes me as rare. sonia♫♪ 08:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Favonian is a responsible, experienced, and skilled editor who has my trust. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Sure. A review shows a responsible editor unlikely to go off the rails without warning. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Indented dupe, RegentsPark was also caller number 109. — ξxplicit 06:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this user reverted vandalism on my user page (before it was deleted), though I don't even remember half the stuff I've done on it. wiooiw (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support // ••Pepper•• 12:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per wimpy response to vandals and lack of content creation. I'm entirely mystified why so many people are supporting this thin self-nomination. Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to see some examples of his "wimpy" response to vandals (not to badger – I am genuinely curious). Airplaneman ✈ 22:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly in response to the answer to Question 4. I'm not a big fan escalating, templated warnings. One of the things that I would expect any experienced anti-vandalism admin candidate to do is issue blocks immediately on seeing a problematic pattern, not warn IP addresses and new accounts multiple times for adding "fag" or "I like pie" to random articles. If anything, I view the answer is overly process-bound, and unwilling to endorse the appropriate level of flexibility, possibly in the name of political correctness. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this isn't Favonian's fault, this is how things work on WP. Don't kill the messenger. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No intention to. However, I have noticed a rather prominent trend for the first opposer to get asked to explain his/her rationale in great detail, as if there's some big imaginary threshold from going from 0 to 1 oppose. I am not out to derail Favonian's app, nor do I expect to be followed by hordes of "per Jclemens" votes, but I just don't like the superficiality of what I see. If he'd had a GA (or other content creation) or a more assertive take on vandal-handling, I would have likely abstained from commenting or positioned as neutral. That's really all there is to this. Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for any inconvenience; but for me, it's because I like to know someone's logic, to see if they saw something that I missed. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have to go with Tyrol on this one. Thank you for elaborating, Jclemens. Airplaneman ✈ 02:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very Weak Oppose (I'm leaning towards neutral though) per Q4 and Jclemens. The "Let's template vandals 4 times and then block them for adding in "I like pie"" is just ridiculous and a waste of vandal fighters' and admin's time. Remember WP:OWB 12 as well and get to writeing an encyclopedia :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was being too harsh on you Favonian. You were only following policy :) Good luck.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 21:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think the candidate would do well to take WP:OWB 6 and 7 to heart in future responses to questions on vandalism. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ, WS. It is not uncommon that they realize they are not going to win the battle and give after the 2nd or 3rd or even 4th level warning. -Tommy! [message] 11:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Tommy - lots give up after a first or second warning, even more after 3rd or 4th. If it's not offensive or blatant, then it's worth avoiding the initial WP:BITE. Having said that, if it is blatant/offensive then I'll often skip a level or two. It's all about using judgement.  Begoontalk 11:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Candidate unfortunately does not meet my admin criteria. BigDom 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LoL perhaps you should take a good look at the candidate and not make your decision based on a quick list of criteria that thousands fall into. I am just not a fan of lazy votes :) Moxy (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did take a good look at the candidate; how else would I have come to the conclusion that he didn't pass the criteria? I didn't just dream up those standards from thin air, I have compiled them from the experience of participating in many RfAs. Perhaps you should stop and think before accusing others of laziness in future. BigDom 17:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If all candidates went by that criteria, I think it'd be safe to say that we wouldn't have many administrators as we do now. Connormahtalk 17:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If your criteria lead you to reject obviously suitable candidates, then I think it's the criteria that should be dropped, not the candidate. Robofish (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not agreed. BigDom's criteria are among the laxest I have seen. Compare with e.g. Kraftlos' which are tough but still not frivolous. --Pgallert (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They are both tough and frivolous :-) Two years and 10,000 edits indeed... some people do have a life away from Wikipedia, but are still capable of helping out when they can. It's arbitrary criteria that helps make RFA the bloodbath it is. Completely unnecessary and demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the purpose and role of administrators. Aiken ♫ 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They just make no sense. Yours truly has half of his edits in userspace. Fail. Three db-user tags, wait for one hour - bingo: very few userspace edits, Not Fail. Designed to be gamed ... but nobody really cares! East of Borschov 08:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Three db-user tags will hopefully result in 3 deleted edits and 3 creator's notifications, so that would be many user space edits, not few. But aside from that, misunderstood that comment, yes, it can be gamed like this. please note that I did not oppose the candidate. In fact, I would probably support after checking his contributions. Certain editors have published their criteria, and I find that a good thing. BigDom has his, Kraftlos has his, I have mine. Some criteria I do not like, like min/max n% edits in Y-space, or the like. I assumed, though, that BigDom opposed per weakness in the content creation, and his criterion there, 15 articles start class or better I find not frivolous. You cannot game everyone's criteria at once, and if one !voter consistently is out of line the RfA community usually reacts. --Pgallert (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry i was a little harsh BigDom....just think its a bit unfair to oppose and not really say y ..as it not realy clear as to y you oppose ...perhaps you could state what part of your criteria he does not meet, so he can reply to it. Because as you can see some others that oppose have reverted there oppose due to new information/comments that explain away the problem.Moxy (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, apology accepted, sorry if it was unclear. Yes, it was the content creation part of the criteria that was failed. I just feel that writing articles is the most important part of Wikipedia, because without articles the project would be nothing. BigDom 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose - I'm not impressed on how you final warned a seemingly misguided good faith contributor who looked to be trying to do a pagemove for vandalism. You could have simply wrote a friendly note on the talk page, simply explaining why that is the wrong way to move, and direct the editor to the right venue, rather than giving a final warning, threatening to block the editor if it occurs again. I do see that you did write a note, but I could do without the final warning there. Though this is likely to pass, please take into consideration my comments below, and over here if you do pass. Connormahtalk 21:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that yesterday when he carried out exactly the same "rename by copy/paste" on a different article. He chose to blank my message and then today repeated the transgression. This caused be to shout loudly. From there, the discussion moved to my talk page, and I believe we have an understanding. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I'll strike. Connormahtalk 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose - the user's last two articles contained no inline citations. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you please be so kind as to explain what impact this issue has on Favonian's suitability to be an administrator of the site? Stifle (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you link to them for me? Soxred93's pages created tool isn't working for me. NW (Talk) 20:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The tool gave me a result after about 10 tries, so I've listed the result (minus dab pages) at WT:Requests for adminship/Favonian#Articles created. Favonian (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stifle: Well, if someone is too lazy to use inline citations, might he be too lazy to do other important stuff too? I will switch to support if footnotes are added. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
I'll go neutral here, weakly. I, also am not too fond of giving vandals 4 (or 3) freebies to vandalize, if they're being disruptive after a couple warnings, then it should be appropriate to block. I particularly don't like some AIV reports I make of rampant vandals being rejected, simply because there isn't 4 warnings on their talk. As this looks to succeed at this point (though it's early), please do take into consideration Jclemens' concern. You are a very solid vandal fighter, though, and I'm confident you'll do well with the tools. Good luck! Connormahtalk 00:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Move to oppose[reply]
Agree 100%. Also going to take the time to shamelessly plug User:NuclearWarfare/Vandal Warnings. NW (Talk) 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm reading a different nomination. I see the candidate explain when reducing the number of steps from four would be warranted, and listed four types of edits that could get a block without a final warning. I confess I haven't reviewed contributions, but the answers to questions aren't giving me a vibe of "let's tread lightly on vandals". What am I missing?--SPhilbrickT 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. Per points raised by JClemens, Connormah, and Nuclear.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#Neutral. Clearly does a lot of good anti-vandalism work which is essential to the maintenance of the encyclopaedia. There are two things that slightly concern me. Firstly, whilst I don't expect an administrator to be the next Ambassador to the Court of St. James some of your interactions on your talkpage are just a little curt for my liking. Secondly, I've looked through your past 1,000 contributions and it was rather difficult to find many articles nominated for speedy deletion, an area you have expressed an interest in. That said, I don't think you'd abuse the tools, and I could be persuaded to move to support. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at his deleted contributions I see quite a few requests for speedy deletions. Garion96 (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Favonian&oldid=1147981964"