Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/L235

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

L235

Final (240/4/4); Closed as successful by Maxim_(talk) at 15:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

L235 (talk · contribs) – I am very happy to nominate L235, better known as Kevin, to be added to our admin corps. Kevin has been an active Wikipedian since 2014, and has over 16,000 edits and a clean block log. He has created multiple articles, including a Good Article and half a dozen DYKs. His articles are very well written; please take a look at one or two of them! He is a longtime clerk at both ArbCom and SPI. Due to his work in those two areas he has an unusually good understanding of policy, and from working so closely with many admins he has also learned good judgment in applying policy.

As for his temperament, it is exactly what I like to see in an administrator. I have been impressed by his attitude of caution; he wants to learn all about something before undertaking it - a praiseworthy approach for a new admin! He thinks things out carefully before taking action. He is invariably polite and helpful; a glance at his talk page shows him responding to others’ questions and comments with calmness, patience, and professionalism. He has a definite need for admin tools, particularly in the area of SPI. I am sure he can be trusted with the tools and IMO he will be an outstanding administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

It's my pleasure to nominate L235 to run for the Administrator toolset. Many editors, like myself, will most likely think that this RFA is long overdue; L235 has shown great dedication to the project over the years, as well as great leadership and knowledge of policy. From his work at SPI clerking, I know that it will serve the project well to allow him to carry out actions himself rather than have to flag the report for an Administrator to take care of. His temperament, patience, and his think-first ask-questions-first approach to handling issues shows me that the toolset will be in good hands. I'm confident that the community feels the same, and I'm happy to see him finally running for the admin corps. Please give L235 your support. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, MelanieN and Oshwah. The trust that you and others have expressed means a great deal to me. Per the recent RfC on mandatory disclosure at RfA: I have never edited for pay. A list of all the accounts is available here; I registered my current account in 2010, but spent quite a while lurking around before editing. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:10, 27 August 2018 (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: I'm seeking the tools primarily to work at SPI, where I've been a clerk for about 2.5 years. Being able to see deleted content would help immensely – there are always tons of cases awaiting a behavioral evaluation, and making those evaluations is much tougher when deleted content is not viewable. Having the tools would also allow me to block socks and protect pages persistently disrupted by socks. Having the tools would also help a bit with my work at ArbCom – implementing sitebans, protecting pages, general maintenance, and such.

Outside of SPI, when time permits, I plan to try my hand at AIV, RFPP, and

CAT:ADMINBACKLOG

in general. When I start in an area I haven't worked in before, I will ask others who are knowledgeable in the area for advice before taking any administrative actions, and I'll make sure to ask whenever I'm unsure. I don’t think I’ll be working deletion much, though, and when I do, I expect it’ll be uncontroversial stuff like copyvios and vandalism.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: In the mainspace, I'm most proud of my law-related work, including creations Lafler v. Cooper

, Blueford v. Arkansas, and Napue v. Illinois, substantial contributions to Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, and a few more. I've also done general cleanup on a number of other articles. I genuinely love writing, but I only really get in the mood once in a while and typically use those times on real-life writing obligations.

Over at SPI, I've been involved in some capacity in at least 383 sockmasters' cases. My best contributions there have probably been my behavioral evaluations, such as here, which often take multiple hours but are often essential, either because CU is inconclusive or is stale. At ArbCom, I have organized the recruitment and training of most of our new clerks for the last three years or so. I've also worked to make the general process easier and less bureaucratic for the community.

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: I've certainly seen my share of disagreements here – it's part of the nature of an open collaborative project like Wikipedia, and it’s intensified in high-tension areas. I do my best to amicably resolve any disputes I'm involved in – I believe that consensus and a friendly editing environment is far more important than getting "my way". I also work hard to defuse any high-tension situations and not let the stress get to me – simply stepping back for a day or two is a trick many editors would do well to learn. I’ve never been brought to the dramaboards, but of course, there’s always something I can do better.

One recent example of how I approach criticism can be found here, where a user disagreed with a clerk removing their statement at ARCA. (Prior discussion here for context.) I should have communicated better initially, but I think my approach to criticism – acknowledging mistakes and working together to find ways forward – can be seen quite clearly here. More generally, I’ve been conscious to not involve myself in major disputes in an effort to avoid later having to recuse if it comes to ArbCom and leave more work for the short-staffed clerk office.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from SoWhy

4. Can you explain the drop in activity in 2016 and 2017 to almost zero and how likely it is that this will happen again?

A: Thanks for the question! Big real-life obligations prevented me from being as active in much of 2016 and 2017 as I have been, say, this year. Some fluctuations in my Wikipedia activity due to real life availability will certainly still occur, though I expect to be reasonably active for the foreseeable future. I do think that the drop in activity might be a bit over-exaggerated if we just look at the numerical stuff, like edits per month. In particular, much of ArbCom clerking is done offline – coordination, training, discussion, etc. I was spending several hours a week working on Wikipedia throughout most of 2016 and 2017, and when I had limited time, I felt helping ensure ArbCom continued functioning smoothly was my highest priority.

Additional questions from Hhkohh

5. You are an SPI clerk, but you are not very active in SPI cases, why?

A: Well, I wouldn't say I'm not very active in SPI cases – I've been involved in roughly 392 of them. It is a bit frustrating and tough, though, to clerk SPI without access to deleted content. Many (most) cases involve deleted content of some kind, so a lot of time is wasted when I get, say, halfway through a case before I realize I can't decide it on my own. I also think it's important to look at what that activity consists of – behavioral analyses take a long time to do, and though sometimes (like here) you can see how much work was done, oftentimes we state just our conclusions or very brief reasons, which covers up how much effort went into the case.

6. Your activity in

WP:RPP

is low, why?

A: I've devoted a lot of my time to other areas. Though I've dabbled in vandalism patrolling, it's a fact that there are thousands of better Hugglers than me

. I do plan on helping in those areas when there's a backlog as an admin, though.

Additional question from Wumbolo

7. Do you at all plan to participate at

Articles for deletion

? If yes, will it be nominating, voting and closing discussions; or just nominating and voting?

A: I don't intend to close AfDs – it's not an area that I enjoy much at all. Like I said in Q1, I don't anticipate doing too much in deletion areas. I think I will still nominate and comment in AfDs when appropriate, though.

Additional question from 78.26

8. It appears that most of the "non-matches" at AfD brought up by Ritchie333 were from a 6-month period (July 2014 - Jan. 2015) where several of your nominations for deletion were "kept". Given this took place early in your Wikipedia "career", do you still feel your nominations were correct? Would you do anything differently?

A: I was wrong to nominate any of the articles Ritchie brings up – even my correct nominations in that time period left much to be desired. Looking back, I certainly should have

WP:BEFOREd

more carefully. I should have been more familiar with SNGs before submitting noms, and I should have recognized backwards-copying of Wikipedia articles instead of being so quick to declare them copyvios.

Additional questions from Neovu79

9. Thanks for applying. Outside of the work that you have stated in question 1, what other areas of opportunity do you see yourself contributing to?

A: Well, it depends

. I do like to explore different areas, and I certainly intend on doing so in admin-y areas. Perhaps I'll find other things that I've got a knack for – I am open to helping anywhere that I am competent to do so. That could be everything from

WP:CP

to histmerges, though I don't plan on starting in an area I'm unfamiliar with before seeking the counsel of another admin experienced in that area.

10. What challenges did you face that prevented you from RfA in the past and how have you overcome them?

A: I mean, the biggest reason I procrastinated this RfA was RfA's general reputation, which is not entirely reassuring for potential candidates. How have I overcome the procrastination? Mostly by being frustrated at not having the tools at SPI

Additional questions from Lourdes (see General comments section for striking reasoning)

:11. Hi L235, thanks for coming forward for the RfA. Have you ever attempted to undertake undisclosed COI editing on Wikipedia (would you be okay with all history revisions of the page User:Lixxx235/sandbox being undeleted for review)? Thanks.

~~A: Hi Lourdes, I have never attempted any form of undisclosed COI editing or paid editing. I have asked for that page to be undeleted for your review.~~

12. Thanks for the response Kevin; as a follow-up, were you at any point associated with Trese Brothers and did you coordinate with them ever to attempt to create their page on Wikipedia, with or without any consideration? Thanks.

A: There was a while when I played their games, contributed to their Kickstarters, goofed around on their web forum with other fans of the games (if anyone remembers what "forums" were... makes me a bit nostalgic thinking about it). I wasn't associated with them beyond that. I think I did consider asking their fans (on the forum) if they had any sources to justify an article, but I don't think I actually posted anything about it. I've never coordinated with any entity (including Trese Brothers) to write an article about that entity.

~~I want to note that substantial discussion and follow-up for this question can be found below at #General comments. Thanks!~~

Additional question from Dolotta

13. What do you consider to be your weakest area(s) on Wikipedia?

A: As some people have mentioned, my AfD record – particularly in 2014–2015 – was fairly spotty. While I think my understanding of policy has improved since then, making the call about whether the subject of a particular article is notable or not continues to be tough for me.

Also, another weakness – the Bluebook citation style and I do not get along. :-)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

14. Why does not the Checkusers take the call and do the behavioural evaluation themselves (as they are best placed as they geographical location and IP address of the user ) and block the user if required in SPI cases instead of asking another admin and clerk.Why does another admin do the blocking instead of checkuser themselves? What is the policy regarding this?

A: CheckUsers can and sometimes do consider behavior when they examine SPIs – somewhat frequently, you can see CUs decide that a sockpuppetry is only "likely" or "possible" (instead of "confirmed") based only on the technical evidence, but block the users after considering the behavioral evidence. CU time is valuable, though – there are only a handful of CUs, and a fraction of them regularly work at SPI – so it would be impractical to have CUs do time-consuming behavioral analyses after every case. There's nothing in policy preventing them from doing so, though.

Additional question from Nosebagbear

15. Do any Checkusers or other Clerks disagree with your recommendations (occasionally) in that field, and on what grounds is that usually premised?

A: CUs have run checks when I've declined to endorse, and sysops have blocked sockmasters for more or less time than I've recommended. I can't think of an example – it doesn't happen often and I can't think of a case within the last few months where CUs/clerks/patrolling sysops have disagreed with my recommendations.

Additional question from Andrew D.

16. You mainly want admin rights for sockpuppet investigations and, overall, it seems that a lot of effort goes into this as it is a big problem for Wikipedia. In your own case, your account name is L235 but you now display this as Kevin. It appears that you are fairly open about your identity but it's not clear to me whether it is officially public or not. What are your views on the use of pseudonymous account names and the confusion that this causes?

A: I support the use of pseudonymous account names. The main problem with sockpuppetry is not simply the use of multiple accounts – it's using those accounts for

improper purposes

, typically to deceive the community into thinking there's more support for a position than otherwise exists, to evade community scrutiny, or to evade a block. Most Wikipedians do not do those things, and I think the advantage of allowing pseudonymous accounts clearly outweighs any disadvantages. As for my own identity, I've stated my name publicly on-wiki, so my identity is officially public to that extent.

Additional question from Wumbolo

17. Explain speedy deletion criteria A1 and A7 in your own words (you're welcome to describe examples).

A: Hi Wumbolo, sorry for the delay. CSD A1 is applicable when a short article doesn't contain enough information for editors to be able to uniquely identify the subject of the article. A7 applies to certain classes of articles (those about a real person, individual animal, organization, web content, or organized event, other than schools) which don't contain a credible claim of significance. A credible claim of significance is any plausible statement (including unsourced statements) that tends to suggest that the article subject could be notable, or that sources potentially exist to demonstrate notability. Additionally, any reference included in the article that contains any statements that suggest the subject could be notable also prevents A7. In any event, if a reasonable editor could object to speedy deletion, I believe an administrator should err on the side of allowing community review at a deletion discussion.

Additional question from Kirbanzo

18. As a Wikipedia administrator, it is your responsibility to assist in reverting vandalism and blocking problem users (which, as an SPI clerk, I'm pretty sure you have at least secondhand experience with the latter). What will you do to counter the disruption of Wikipedia by vandals?

A: As I mentioned in Q1, I plan on helping out at AIV and RFPP, time permitting, if this RfA is successful. I probably won't go on a Huggle spree or anything – plenty of people are far more competent than me at that

Additional (and entirely optional) question from Ritchie333

19. I'm looking at the huge weight of support from just about everybody I trust and respect, and think that I'm missing something really obvious here as 200 RfA Fans Can't Be Wrong, so just to reassure me that I should switch to support ..... an editor creates an article without any sources that says "St Mary of Eton is a church in hackney" - what, if anything, would you do with it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A: It appears that the Church of St Mary of Eton with St Augustine, in Hackney District, London, is listed by the UK government as a

WP:NGEO

. I would probably clean it up and add a few sources.

More broadly, since administrators are never required to use administrative tools in any given situation, even if permitted, I really don't see myself taking administrative action in any sort of NPP-related activity.

Additional question from StarlightStratosphere

20. Do you, yourself, honestly believe you have the patience, the time, and the skill to be an administrator? It is a hard job, and even though I am not an admin, I know it is hard.

A: I do think so. No one knows for sure, though – I would not have RfA'd without the assurances by experienced administrators that I would be a good administrator.

Discussion

Links for L235: L235 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for L235 can be found here.

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

Support

Support. Clearly competent.
Kablammo (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Kevin has done a great job with clerking, and that along with his editing profile shows me he would make a great admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom's. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support, obviously. A clueful and dedicated editor and clerk. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arb com and SPI clerk.Well versed in policy .Clear net positive.Project will gain with the user having tools.good content creation with over 9 articles including a GA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The editor whose username is Z0 14:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support precious, knowledge of legal matters, fairness + a human touch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Kevin is amicable to work with and has the best interest of the project at heart. I have long admired their amazing work and presence as an arbitration clerk, and adminship will help them to perform their tasks better. Alex Shih (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Arb Com and SPI clerk are very clearly indicators both of competence, knowledge of policy and demonstrates good reasons to have the mop. It is also a pretty good proxy for good behaviour and calmness. I took a look at his AfD record and was initially horrified. However that was his early participation and his later activity has been flawless. He hasn't been a pile-on editor and he has demonstrated he is capable of changing his mind. Thus he more than ticks the various boxes. Would be good to have him. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very knowledgable and always professional. He checks all the boxes for adminship. I can look past the fact that he uses noses in smiley face emoticons. Natureium (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support have me at SPI clerk Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noting I don't think there's any more useless metric on the project than "AFD's matched to consensus", so unconcerned with the current oppose. Courcelles (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Chris troutman/My RfA criteria explains it far better than I could. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll write a bit more here than I normally do in RfAs, because I think Kevin is such a strong candidate that he deserves it. He more than meets my criteria, but let me go into more detail: Kevin is one of the calmest users we have around here. He works in very contentious areas and provides clear answers to anyone who has questions (and to be honest, he might know more about the whole arb-bureaucracy stuff than some of the arbs)
As one of the regular admin patrollers of SPI, I always appreciate seeing Kevin's name on an SPI case: I know that he'll have reviewed it thoroughly and that his recommendation for resolving the case will be sane. Having another admin SPI-clerk will be a large benefit to the project, and I support there.
Finally let me address the opposes: while I respect Ritchie's view re: the AfDs, it's not a concern for me with this candidate. Kevin hasn't expressed any interest in working in AfD, and actually seems to want to shy away from deletion. I once opposed Primefac for similar reasons to Ritchie's oppose here, and that is the RfA oppose I most regret. Kevin is a sensible candidate who will be more than a net positive I am not convinced that the issues will make Kevin any less than a net-positive. The single most important factor for adminship is temperament, and I have no concerns at all there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support net-positive editor with an excellent demeanor.
Lepricavark (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - I've come across L235 several times in my editing experience, and I'd been thinking that he could make a good admin - I particularly observed how he's always calm and helpful, which are qualities that many admins today don't have, unfortunately. I was even thinking about casually asking if he'd be interested, but looks like I was beat to that. Support as a
net positive - I'm not seeing anything that makes me think that he'd frequently use the tools improperly.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support I've seen L235 around various maintenance spaces and think the mop will help him be more productive. I'm not too concerned with the AfD's listed below, as there was no indication that these would have been speedily deleted had L235 had the access to do so - taking this out of my consideration for how they will function as an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good track record, content creation, and calm demeanor.
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - My interactions with him have been positive and without red flags. I believe him being an admin would be a net-positive. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have been impressed by Kevin's work, both in content curation and in administrative clerking, over the last few years. Actually I was surprised by this nomination because I thought he was already an admin! I have also enjoyed meeting Kevin in person at Wikimania 2017. His participation in offline Wikimedia activities gives me additional confidence that he will be an accountable admin. Deryck C. 15:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Affirming to strong support following Kevin's above-the-board good conduct in his answers to queries about the deleted draft and his comments outside Wikimedia four years ago. Deryck C. 09:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'Bout time. Sro23 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Kevin is chock-full of cluefulness and is exactly the sort of thoughtful, reasoned person who would make an excellent sysop. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good answers Hhkohh (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others above, L235 is a great content creator, Arb clerk and SPI clerk. L235 is calm, knowledgeable and level headed which are great qualities have in admins. So this is a easy support for me. JC7V-constructive zone 15:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - you pretty much had me at "SPI clerk". I also noticed the gap in editing, answer to SoWhy's question is completely satisfactory. Answer to my question is also completely satisfactory. I've seen this editor around and have always come away with a favorable impression of their contributions. Add a "per noms" here and this isn't a difficult choice. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support (after a couple of ec's) – I believe he is more than qualified to wield the mop, and more admins at SPI is always a good thing. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Competent, no major problems. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unqualified support I've worked with Kevin for several years, and he will be a fine addition to the admin corps (came back from wikibreak to support :-)). Miniapolis 15:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thought you were one already. :-) No reason to be concerned about tool misuse, and SPI deleted content viewing is an excellent reason to have the tools. And I'd be one of the last people to be able to complain about gaps in editing. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the answer to Q12 and the elaboration on talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have seen L235 around enough to have a general idea of their demeanor and have seen nothing of concern there. The work at SPI shows an ability to deal with the 'personalities' side of admin work. I am not concerned about the AfD issues both because the bulk seem to be from years ago and L235 has said they are uninterested in working in that area. SPI is an area where where a claim of need of the tools just for that area is legitimate, as opposed to some other 'need for limited use' requests ie a large portion of the toolset is needed to fully process an SPI not just 'delete' or 'edit protected' in one narrow area. Jbh ^Talk 16:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's true there was a string of ill-advised AfD noms, and I share Ritchie's feelings about the importance of handling the venue well, but since the issue stopped 3.5 years ago, I'm pretty comfortable taking the candidate at their word that deletion's not their thing and they understand where the mistakes were (Q7 and Q8). I don't do a lot at SPI and even less at ArbCom, so my first-hand experience with L235 is limited, but I entirely trust Oshwah and Melanie's judgment in proxy for my "not a jerk" criterion. So I have no concerns. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I have to reconsider in light of Q12. I may ask a follow-up.~~ Nevermind. I'm ok with Q12, having now read the sandbox draft that did not in fact become a mainspace entry--I very much buy that after four years, anyone could forget where they got sources for an entry they didn't up writing. (Ask anyone who's ever put off doing the footnotes for their thesis 'til just before it's due--and those folks did write up the material!) I actually think, ironically, that forum comment (however embarrassingly phrased) indicates a commendably conservative view of COI, as for my part, I wouldn't consider it per se a violation to get solid sources from the subject themself; once I had someone contact me on here to propose sources for an entry on his partner and I would have felt fine using any that were good, if he had followed through (he didn't). I also think Kickstarter is not necessarily any more of a financial connectino than preordering a book or buying concert merch; and I don't find it odd that someone into video games would edit other video game entries. I flinched for sure, but on examination I think this is just a flub. And a four-year-stale one at that. We do have the best internet sleuths around though, which is a good thing! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No concerns, and clearly a benefit to the project. Loopy30 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Contribution at SPI is important, and newbie mistakes at AFD are of no concern to me, they are old. His most recent contributions in AFD show much improvement and I don't think he can misuse the tool by deleting good pages. Besides, he doesn't even seem to be wanting to work at AFD. Although overall contribution to the project is not huge (number of articles created is in one digit), he has shown that he can write a Good Article, and that goes to his benefit as an article creator. I have no reason to not trust him. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets reasonable criteria, only negative seems to be AfD participation ~2 years ago. And they said they'd stay away from closing there but still participate in discussions as appropriate. Ifnord (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support L235 is an incredibly knowledgeable and trusted editor, with a clear need for the tools. I see no reason to prevent him from accessing the tools he needs to be effective as an SPI clerk. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no concerns. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is NO REASON TO THINK THIS USER WOULD ABUSE THE TOOLS! There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. 100% support --rogerd (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I had some trepidation as to candidate's low AfD match rate, particularly those in which they were the nominator, I think that's more a function of low participation and no one needs to be fully immersed in all areas. Their track record taken holistically, I'm sure they'd do a fine job. Chetsford (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Awesome editor, from my interactions with them. Amory nailed it. Enterprisey (talk!) 17:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not as concerned with his AfD stats since there are people who monitor that (never enough, but so it goes), since he wants to take part in an area that always needs admin support: SPI. There's a high burnout rate for that area for people in general because there are so few people willing and able to work. That there's someone who wants to pick up the mop and broom for that area is very commendable. I'm pretty confident that if he does run into any areas that he's less certain about, that L235 will ask questions from another admin and review similar scenarios - he's done well at SPI. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As the cliche goes, I thought he was an admin. My observation is that Kevin exhibits qualities that align well with adminship. The AfD examples do not concern me. It can be very difficult to know what the community considers notable given conflicting guidelines, poorly referenced articles whose notability depend on non-English sources, and other factors.- Mr X 🖋 18:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has my trust of having the admin tools.
talk) (contributions) 18:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong support: temperament is the most important quality in an admin to me and I have no concerns here – in fact, L235's general attitude, calmness and politeness is exceptional. They have a need for the tools, are very experienced, will not abuse them etc. I gather that more SPI help is always needed. AfD is not relevant based on Q7 and their answer to Q8 is very good. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Highly trusted. FWIW I have never bought into the AFD stats thing and think it is meaningless in RFA. We should read policy and from that determine what is best for the encyclopedia, and have the guts to say when we think policy is incorrect (IAR and all) and then say so and argue why, lest we become Commons. --Rs chen 7754 18:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, we need more admin clerks at SPI, and I have full confidence in L235. GAB^gab 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have never interacted with this user but he seems well qualified. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly qualified candidate, a couple years-old AFDs don’t concern me at all.
talk) 18:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Yas sure, why not?
💖 19:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. Dekimasuよ! 19:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Low activity perhaps but making him an admin is low risk. Nigej (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Longtime SPI and Arbcom clerk, no issues. ansh 666 19:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid candidate. Edit count isn't my concern since they've sufficiently demonstrated their ability to perform administrative work. I wouldn't worry about AfD either, per the candidate's answer to question 7. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 19:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Does a lot of good work. --B (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Mona.N (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have run into this editor many times, and when he stands out, it is because of the quality of his works and insights. I am delighted to (hopefully) have him on board. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.
π, ν) 19:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I see nothing to make me believe that the candidate would abuse the tools SQL ^{Query me!} 19:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absolutely! Knows the ropes, pleasant, easy to work with, and overall a great candidate! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cabayi (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have seen the candidate around and did not notice any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets my criteria. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anybody who is a "longtime clerk at both ArbCom and SPI" and has gotten support from regulars at these venues is well qualified in my book. Daask (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen the candidate a few times clerking Arbcom things and dealing with questions and concerns with a variety of editors and I've been impressed by their conduct: patient, helpful, and willing to answer questions thoughtfully. I'm also impressed that the candidate has learned so much from his early days and is willing to admit that they were wrong about things. Good temperament in our admin corps is very important to me and this candidate has it. Finally, I highly respect the co-nominators (particularly for their temperaments and grace uunder pressure) and if they think the candidate will do a good job, I believe them. Ca2james (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support will be a fine admin. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Has clearly been an immense asset to the project. Orphan Wiki 21:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've always been impressed with L235's attitude and demeanor. Calm and highly qualified, he clearly meets the cut. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a strong support, and one I knew I would make based on my previous crossing paths with the candidate. He has a very good temperament for handling admin tasks without adding drama, and he has had plenty of prior experience with ArbCom clerking and SPI. I also want to agree with TonyB's comment in the general discussion section, that there comes a point at which off-site linking becomes not only an unfair criticism, but an issue in terms of our harassment policy. I'm seeing absolutely nothing in the oppose section or in the questions to the candidate that I think should come anywhere close to being disqualifying. With each recent RfA, I have been getting increasingly concerned that some editors see RfA as "time to show how proficient I am in digging up dirt". The purpose of RfA is not to find people who are perfect (lotsa luck with that) or to use the candidate as a dart board. It's to make sure the person won't misuse the tools. I decided to register my support a little earlier than I originally intended to, because I want to express my very real concerns about those things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support has demonstrated significant growth as an editor and maintainer of the project over the last 2 to 3 years. He's now sufficiently mature, clueful and thoughtful to be safely entrusted with the administrator toolset. Nick (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per noms, but the issues raised by Ritchie are recent enough that I would probably wind up Neutral or weak Oppose with less trusted noms. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I would have nominated the individual if they had approached me. Kevin has been doing a significant amount of underappreciated work as an ArbCom clerk. I could not think of a more qualified candidate. Mkdw ^talk 22:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Qualified candidate. Has clue and impressive work at SPI and ArbCom pages. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — A clearly competent editor, with clerking experience at both
WP:ARBCOM; would be a clear net-positive for the project.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Appears low-risk, and another admin-clerk at SPI can only be good. Home Lander (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clearly competent, right attitude, a net positive to the project. Brad v 22:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The clearest support in a long time. Incredibly competent, incredibly involved in areas that need frequent administrator attention (especially SPI). The opposers have identified that a new editor makes mistakes, which I don't find surprising. Judging a candidate today on a minor misstep four years ago is far too harsh; none of our current admins would pass the standard of "no mistakes in their editing history". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know L235 from my ArbCom days, where he was always willing to lend a hand with thankless ArbCom clerking tasks. He has good judgment and it's a no-brainer to trust him with the tools. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and my criteria. SPI will definitely benefit from him having access to the tools. I acknowledge the possible COI issue that Lourdes brought up, but it appears to be so old and stale that I think it is not an issue at this point. Nobody is perfect, and I'm sure L235's judgement has improved in the four years since then. Unless if anything more recent surfaces, I cannot see any reason to oppose. EclipseDude (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per EclipseDude. Double sharp (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
—AE (talk • contributions) 00:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: competent and demonstrates a need for the tools. Four-year-old AfDs and COIs don't concern me. Tera TIX 01:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: He's an arbcom clerk and the oppose votes so far are insubstantial. Philbert^2.71828 03:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would prefer a stronger content creation history, but having recently had a bit to do with Kevin at ArbCom, he seems to be very careful, level-headed and helpful. We need more admins and he seems to fit the bill. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - competent editor, with clue, who is a clear net positive to the project and will be better served to ameliorate it with the tools. Clear support from me. Stormy clouds (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns. Good luck! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: well-qualified; a net positive. Thank you for volunteering. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No major concerns from the opposers, looks like will be of help in many areas. ~ talk 05:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. Very competent editor who has improved since making a few mistakes or misjudgments four years ago. Clerking experience gives a good background for admin work at SPI. Good temperament. Clear net positive. Per noms, and as is often the case, per another well stated !vote rationale from User:Tryptofish. Donner60 (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support of course. Killiondude (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Qualified. His work is a strong indicator of competence. Robertgombos (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty my gut instinct is to oppose, on the basis that in my experience arbcom clerks generally become the most problematic admins (I consider "arbcom clerk" a pointless makework job whose only useful function is to identify the inflexible rules-is-rules busybody types). However, it's unfair to generalise, and I can't see any reason not to trust L235; in the absence of any actual reason to oppose, I'll support. ‑
Iridescent 06:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not a frequent RFA !voter, but this one I need to explicitly say yes - he will be a net positive. — regards, Revi 06:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Trustworthy editor, diligent, willing to work tough jobs. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I like the answers and the dispassionate tone. Good clerking work. We need more people like the nominee. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, no reason not to. Fish+Karate 08:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Courcelles. Impressive record of service. Jusdafax (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support He's a competent clerk and has a demonstrable need for the tools; I see no signs that he'd abuse them. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Lack of expertise in deletion related areas but appears to be a thoughtful cautious editor who is willing and able to learn from mistakes and not start working in an area with no experience without being careful. The AFD noms in 2015 were, as he admits, dreadful but recent comments such as [1] and [2] indicate that he did learn from it and can make good arguments for or against keeping an article. Other work looks good. Edit count is high enough to judge competency (in the good old days™ half that count would have been enough and there are quite a few good admins from back then). Has a GA and several DYK credits as well which is a nice bonus. Regards So Why 10:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Trustworthy, competent and knowledgeable. I trust that L235 will be a benefit to the project and will research and seek advice rather than taking any questionable actions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clearly Qualified. Zubin12 (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support It boggles my mind that this guy isn't an admin everytime I visit his page.
💸 11:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - no real concerns. Giant Snowman 11:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very strong candidate; no worries. Just Chilling (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My personal opinion is that he's responsible enough to be trusted with the mop, I don't think low activity is really an issue here. He obviously has the maturity and trust needed to become an administrator. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 12:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support,
WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support as per TonyBallioni. Impru20^talk 12:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Natureiums and Amorymeltzers comments below which have swayed me here, My main issue I have had is the lack of AFD participation, The low CSDs/PRODs and the low activity count .... those 3 things are always a must for me ... however if you're doing important Wiki-related things offline then ofcourse those 3 things will be low,
There's a valid reason for the tools and not everyone likes to do the boring wiki stuff some like to be behind the scenes and that's cool, They're not going to abuse the tools so all in all Support. –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems to be the sort of editor we need to become admins. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Tony. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Long time coming! L235 was fit for adminship years ago. I'm very happy to see he's finally at RfA. While authoring XTools and other user-related tools, I often use L235 as a test because his activity spans over almost all namespaces, and he's used lots of semi-automated tools (AWB, STiki, etc.) in addition to raw content creation (single handedly wrote Lafler v. Cooper and brought it to GA!). In fact, I've even awarded him for having such a perfect account for use in testing. It's this same multifaceted talent that will make him a great admin, in my opinion. He has experience in nearly every corner of the project. Support is a no-brainer for me. Best of luck, friend! — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support A clearly competent candidate with an exemplarily career on Wikipedia. I had expressed some concern about Q12, but these were just clearly the actions of an excited newbie or have otherwise been addressed by the candidate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support This user has shown themselves trustworthy in among the most sensitive of Wikipedia places (Arbitration). They now seek to do further work at another area they have proven their trustworthiness, as best they can, SPI. Trusted users should be trusted and despite the drahma that has now come here I see no reason not to full throatily support this user for whom it's "about time" that they pick-up the mop.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I assumed you already were an admin! Gamaliel (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I met Kevin at Wikimania in Montreal, and he's as nice and as chill IRL as he is here. I knew him as an SPI clerk before I was elected to Arbcom . He's a terrific Arb clerk, but that job is at least somewhat manageable (though editing the fully-protected templates require an admin). SPI, however, is much more difficult to clerk without the admin tools. Kevin has done an outstanding job of clerking regardless, and giving him the tools will help us out a lot. I look forward to never answering an {{
awaitingadmin}} from him again. Welcome to the mop corps, buddy. :-) Katie^talk 15:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support I see nothing wrong with the candidate Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Nosebagbear and Katie. Yintan 16:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very happy to support. Thank you for accepting the responsibility. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Yep, easy decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: One of the more qualified candidates I've come across for RfAs in the past year. Seems to me that concerns Ritchie333 brought up in his oppose were, while valid, were taken over the course of over three years prior and L235 has since learned and reflected on those mistakes over time. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Neovu79 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I tend to give reasons for supporting or opposing at RfA. For once I don't need to, because the candidate is the reason I'm supporting. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- To steal Fastily's catch phrase: why not? -- Dolotta (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Peter James (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support No concerns. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe the candidate is competent. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I acknowledge criticism that says that this user is not active in some areas where admins commonly are active. However, we do not require admins to be highly active in all possible admin activities. This user is very good in sensitive areas where we do not have enough admins. I appreciate this user's engagement as a clerk at ArbCom which demonstrates their ability to handle the most tense on-wiki challenges. I also appreciate the times when this user has done in-person Wiki outreach. I trust this person to speak off-wiki as an expert and to be polite, sociable, and in contact with an off-wiki network of other Wiki editors who all also engage together on-wiki. This user does good communication about off-wiki outreach to external organizations which is among the least scrutinized activities of a trusted user yet the most important and most risky. I can vouch that this user is thoughtful about outreach in a way that I wish all off-wiki actors would be. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent clerk who will make an excellent admin. — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very yes - admin your own SPIs from now on.^[FBDB] Seriously though, I've worked pretty closely with Kevin at SPI over the past few years, and even now, each time I see one of his cases flagged "awaiting administrator", I spend a moment wondering why he doesn't issue the block himself before I remember that, through some error of fate, he's not already an administrator. Let's fix it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See no reason not to. — 🦊 00:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it was reasonable to ask the the Trese question, but I can see no malfeasance by the candidate. Nor for the suspiciously large number of editing identities. Here is an candidate who appears to be a) Mentally stable b) Technically proficient with a need for the tools and c) Who edits with integrity. What more could one ask for? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Support - based on the noms. -
wolf 01:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support,clerking w/o all the tools, and doing a good job at it, shows a dedication that wp needs more of, a solid contributor who will make a fine mopper. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Clearly a competent editor, and I don't think someone has to be perfect in all areas. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clear need for the tools and I believe they can be fully trusted with them. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The answer to Q8 shows a humility and a willingness to learn that is reassuring when evaluating the nominee's character. I read
Good article about an important U.S. Supreme Court case, and well over 90% of the edits were by L235/Kevin. Concerns about content creation are without merit. I am impressed by Gorilla Warfare's assessment of his work as an ArbCom clerk and the evidence of his useful work as an SPI clerk is also strong. The issue raised by Lourdes is trivial, and the candidate's response to the matter reflects well on him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Has my trust; will do well with the tools. I feel that the candidate had fine answers to the questions, and will be very useful at SPI. Best, Spencer^T•C 04:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Long overdue. Kevin is a huge asset to Wikipedia. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per MusikAnimal. Also really appreciate the candidate's openness in acknowledging their own mistakes. What separates good admins from bad is not the making or not making of mistakes, but the willingness to admit to and rectify them. Λυδ α cιτγ 06:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Long overdue to me. He has my trust. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Step hen 06:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk to !dave 06:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – given user's clerking background, I have no doubt that he can be trusted with admin toolkit. Also, another admin at SPI (and more admins in general) couldn't hurt. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support But initiating a personal policy of writing longer support entries. I want to start by stating that I have absolutely no experience with SPI. As Kevin points out in the answer to Q16, while sock puppetry, like vandalism, is not tolerated, it is facilitated by our policies and procedures which allow multiple anonymous accounts for legitimate purposes. It is the misuse of this feature that constitutes sock puppetry. I would not support a candidate who wished to work in the area that did not show the same complete understanding of that. Now, when it comes to AfD, and for the benefit of Nosebagbear, a 50% score on AfD from flipping a coin would only work if there was a 50% chance of a keep result. In fact though, only 18.9% of AfDs result in a keep and another 6.8% are kept with a no consensus result. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 10:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support upon review. No issues here. Thank you for your long tenure as SPI and Arbcom clerk - it's not flashy, but it's vital and says a lot for potential adminship.
ZettaComposer (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - Completely trustworthy and capable. No problems here. ―Buster7 ☎ 12:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some opposes seem, well, unconvincing shall we say; another (Collect's) i just disagree with. Seems to be no reason not to activate the admin buttons for the candidate. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 13:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support even if it was a big deal. Excellent candidate. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tolly 4 bolly 13:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support 16,000 edits isn't enough? Sorry, I don't buy that. --Joshualouie711^talk 14:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I've seen this editor around in all the right places enough that I have no concerns. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent candidate. MBlaze Lightning 17:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support calm, collected, positive, net gain for the encyclopedia even if they make just one admin action, lack of activity is not relevant at all, good luck with the mop! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The candidate would be a good admin. Good work at SPI and other places.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Good work overall. It is unrealistic to expect an admin to be skilled in all possible fields, or to be perfect in any of them. I can think of no current or past admin who could meet either of those criteria. WP is too complex for anyone to completely master it while still doing any real work here, and the only way to avoid making mistakes is to do nothing significant. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support If the best that the Oppose voters can come up with is stuff from 3 or 4 years ago, this must be a pretty strong candidate. Seems like a net positive to me! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support What can I add to the conversation that hasn't already been said about this candidate? Happy to support! Strikerforce^Talk 20:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support As Ritchie mentioned below, my only serious concern was the candidates AfD skills, which is still on the learning curve. since in Q7 he has agreed not to delete articles so I am relieved. Good candidate and net positive. Also SPI backlogs need more admin hands and the candidate is already helping there. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The AfD record after 2015, though small, looks very promising.I am One of Many (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wow, you're already a strong candidate to be a checkuser and an arbitrator. This is a no-brainer. Swarm ♠ 23:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support no good reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support clear net benefit. More than enough experience across a range of areas. Should have been an admin years ago to be honest. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support A review of their activity reveals a level-headed and competent contributor who communicates well. Best of luck, Airplaneman ✈ 00:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Piling on the support here.
WP:NETPOSITIVE and meets all the qualifications for adminship that I have. Best of luck!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support No concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support no big concerns. Seen work at SPI. Competent and experienced. Any weakness can be improved and no admin nominee should be expected to be perfect. Should clearly be a net positive. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No reason not to trust, good answers to questions.
Fram (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support trusted editor. Fit India 06:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I trust Oshwah's judgement and it's always nice to have more people able to act at SPI. -- Luk ^talk 12:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Kevin contributes well, and communicates well; with guarantees regarding AfD, stellar nominators, and impressive work in SPI, I can see no other reason to oppose. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have seen nothing in the opposes to give me any concerns, and with vouches from trusted veterans MelanieN and TonyBallioni I'm happy to support as well. On the specifics, AFD is but one of the admin chores, and I'm sure the candidate will apply the rules judiciously if he ever ventures into that area. And with a GA under his belt and several other full articles, my content box is ticked too. Best of luck to you and welcome to the corps! — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Trustworthy editor, who has already shown their commitment to Wikipedia. Enjoy the mop. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Based on review; agree he should be more active in content edits, but that area can be worked on and otherwise do not see major red flags. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - sure. Competent candidate who will be able to use the tools well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support appears more than fully qualified and all evidence suggests a good potential user of the tools. Good luck! --LukeSurl^{t c} 16:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the usual reasons. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 16:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support No concerns from me. Level-headed, clueful and willing candidate.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, without reservation. bd2412 T 18:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good reasons for standing. Seems to have owned up honestly and learned lessons positively from the criticisms that have been dragged up here from way back. Has demonstrated attention to detail, e.g. merges at Wikidata.([3]) – Fayenatic London 20:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Kevin will make good use of the tools, and his temperament will be a real asset. I am completely underwhelmed by the oppose rationales. --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I am familiar with Kevins work and am confident he will make a great administrator. -- Dane ^talk 21:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Smart, organized, and competent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Happy to see L235 is still a "dynamic member of en.wiki" even after these few years.[4] It was during those days in 2014-15 when we used to discuss a number of matter about how to deal with things on Wikipedia. I used to observe that L235 was transforming every day and taking interest in large variety of things without messing anything up. L235 is enthuiasistic. One of the discussion I can name is the one I remember from Village Pump which saw obvious consensus to change "Reviewers" user right to "Pending changes reviewer"."Pending_changes_reviewer" He used to appreciate my work and often encourage me to do more good[5] and that is indeed what WP needs now. I am hopeful that L235 will keep contributing in bringing the change. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (t·c) 08:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - seems a good fit. SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've seen Kevin around for a while now; not only does he do a lot of work around here, he's also calm, dedicated, and constantly growing as an editor. We'd be lucky to have him as a sysop. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Finally! Jianhui67^T★C 14:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GenuineArt (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Trusted by people whose opinions I value, has a history of doing responsible work that will be facilitated by the tools. Adequate time served and content created. Got some things wrong some time ago? Who didn't? I don't believe he will do any intentional harm, and that is good enough for me. More likely to do a lot of good work so would give the tools cheerfully and with no loss of sleep. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have the utmost faith in Kevin's capability to act as a sensible admin on this site. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as a clerk at both ArbCom and SPI he has shown his dedication to the project and I have no reason to doubt that he will make a good administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can be trusted. Abhi88iisc (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support All looks good. Don't find opposes convincing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - candidate fully qualified. I hope, if this RfA succeeds, he will do great things with his new status. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Vermont (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seren_Dept 22:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Net positive Aspening (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm late to the party, but just wanted to go on record supporting Kevin's RfA. I think you'll be a great admin. Go out and do good work. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aervanath (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great candidate JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zeke Essiestudy (talk/contributions) 23:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
strike (currently) banned editor. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly competent, level-headed, and good work in editor retention as well. Finally! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I mostly know L235 from IRC, but let's just say I wouldn't support everyone I know. If
(talk)❀ 02:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - Seems sound. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and Katie. We are lucky to have volunteers like Kevin. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well experienced. KCVelaga (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I do have concerns about lack of content creation (I always think admins need to understand what it's like to have some 'skin in the game' to appreciate why editors act they way they do sometimes), but that is over-ridden by other, more positive attributes and abilities. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lar. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. His
good article is well written, and his involvement as a Arbitration clerk shows knowledge of policy and responsibility. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 16:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support - I have no concerns with this candidate.It's great to see so many great editors running all time.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support a pleasure to endorse Lyndaship (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly a knowledgeable and competent user who deserves the extra tools/rights provided by adminship (just based on the answer in question 1). I have also looked at the "Oppose" votes and while some did have valid concerns, in particular to AfD nominations, I don't believe they were significant enough as the candidate has acknowledged his past rushed AfD nominations as the "improper" ones, and besides, even if AfD nominations are premature - they are still beneficial to Wikipedia since they often encourage other users to actually bother with trying to improve nominated articles. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support with caution. I don't see the need now, but candidate could be learning admin tools in case
wp:SPI had critical shortage. Perhaps he could also start editing articles besides court-case litigation, or try editing landmark court decisions to see how interacts in controversial cases. Seems suspiciously too cautious when major legal cases need updates or clarified text. Several of WP criminal cases are still very slanted. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Support of course because of the username. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support As I see it, we're about to lose 6 admins through inactivity, a couple of others have jumped ship, and we need all hands on deck, and from my question it seems Kevin knows exactly what to do with content and where his specialities lie. I think the other 220 people have said the rest, really. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My reaction on seeing this is - he isn't an admin?Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A unneeded pile on vote, and I see Ritchie above has said exactly what I was going to say. Hands needed on deck, and no worries here. Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support but who on earth is Kevin and why are people supporting him? —usernamekiran(talk) 11:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: Kevin is the candidate's (my) name Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: lol. I apologise, I was kidding. I already knew that. Also, your real name is mentioned in the nomination itself. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe that he can be trusted with the tools and will be more effective as an admin.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The co-nom from Oshwah pretty much sealed the deal for me, good track record, understands the system. What more could you ask for? - SanAnMan (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per GorillaWarfare. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support He is clearly competent enough for the job. Bharatiya 29 17:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Experienced editor who would clearly benefit from admin tools, especially in his work at SPI. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good candidate. - Chandan Guha (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support A solid candidate, no issues. As this looks like it is going to be a nail biter just remember who put you over the top. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great candidate. //nepaxt 03:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hard-working editor, no concerns.Tacyarg (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All that needs to be said has been said above. The candidate obviously does not need any further support but I will offer mine anyway. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great candidate. We need more admins like him. LK (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support No issues , will make a good admin . Kpg jhp jm 10:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ritchie333 put it best. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems trustworthy and sane. --Dylan620 (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. —Zingarese talk · contribs 14:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - amazed that anyone wants to do it - so yes please.Icarusgeek (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. I was asked about this, and the fundamental issue I have with L235 is his track record at AfD just isn't up to scratch. For example,
alternatives to deletion, such that his stats only have 60.5% matching consensus even now. Six more months of solid AfD work and I'd have no issue supporting, but my gut feeling is he's not quite experienced enough yet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Allow me to take a shot at your rationale, Ritchie333. I have long disagreed with the notion that an admin candidate needs to have perfect or near perfect AfD, CfD or XfD record. These examples from 2015 can be valid, but I think a better opposing rationale would be that in my impression, L235 have the tendency to stretch themselves across different areas of the project in the past, resulting in suboptimal performance in some of these areas. Personally I would phrase this as a question first, and then oppose if their response does not demonstrate a strong understanding of deletion policy. But that is just me, of course. Alex Shih (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your point, but I just think AfD is so fundamental to the project - it's the only place that good faith editors who stay out of trouble are likely to encounter any administrative action, and it's a perfect way to show that you can communicate well with others, and you're able to help out in article work when the need arises. Without that, I feel in the future I'm going to be yelling at L235 for deleting an article per
WP:CSD#G5 when I didn't think there was any need to, although I appreciate this is more gut feeling than anything else. Still perhaps I'm wrong and everyone else is right, it does happen! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Commenting here generally rather than as an 'opposed to the oppose', I think there's an interesting meta discussion about how we think "matched consensus" stands as a useful proxy for "would close a AFD inline with the AFD's consensus", that we mostly haven't had, which would flesh out whether it's appropriate to say that a candidate must match the consensus in X% of the time. (There's a few separate-but-related discussions of "does this candidate reference policies and guidelines in the context of a specific discussion to support his opinion" and "does this candidate consider followup discussion" that might be interesting also.) --Izno (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "AfD stands as a rough proxy for policy knowledge" is a big thing, as for many candidates it's the only way to make such a judgement. Given his clerk work that isn't the case for L235. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In general, % concurrence in afd can be a measure of how difficult are the ones being nominated or commented on. Anyone can get a perfect record by avoiding anything that isn't obvious. Anyone who works with the ones that act to define guidelines will have a low %. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ritchie, low activity in general, low activity in CSD, etc. Also, I like to see more work in admin areas outside of just one or two, especially when you say you plan on working in those areas. Nihlus 16:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion, RfA candidates need to be transparent about their editing past. Kevin's interactions with the Trese brothers and his unsatisfactory response to my query, where he initially denied any such interactions, and then owned up post the links being shown, leaves much to ask. Given the understandable two question limit and the emphasis on brevity, I'll also mention my discomfort with examples like Kevin's drive-by culling and Afd nomination of Battlefield Hardline, a competing videogame, where Kevin claimed that a significant portion of the article was a copyvio; seen in the light that Kevin's interaction with the Trese brothers was financial too, I'm uneasy here. That said, I do respect the supporters' viewpoints and respect the weight of their arguments. However, my personal opinion here forces me to oppose this candidacy. Lourdes 19:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Striking post discussion at the General comments section. Lourdes 03:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes:Just my 2 cents, but if we start counting backing Kickstarters as a financial relationship, we are going to remove a large number potential editors from some areas of interest. Asking for links to news sites and CC licensed images doesn't seem like that huge of a problem (only skimmed the pages, might have missed something nefarious). The not remembering/admitting to it is a biggest issue, but I know that I wouldn't remember an interaction in a forum for 4 years ago. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 20:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am unimpressed by the answer to Q11 & 12, but more importantly I am willing to create a Wikipedia article for the brothers(which I really shouldn't per their conflict of interest policy but whats the worst that can happen?) displays an attitude that is disqualifying for an admin. I would need a much better answer before I could support. Find bruce (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of clarification to anyone reading this, the green quote does not appear to actually be an on-wiki quote from L235 nor does it appear to be a valid summary of what L235 said on wikipedia. Are you saying that he said this off Wikipedia or that it is your characterization of his attitude? What L235 says above is that he played a game written by the Trese Brothers, contributed to their kickstarter, and participated in their fan forums. I'm not clear how that's a conflict of interest. Most people here write about things that interest them and if you're not getting some sort of compensation or other benefit, it's not a COI. --B (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for seeking clarification - the quote is directly from what L235 acknowledges as his comments on the fan forum. Whilst I am of the opinion it is legitimate to quote it, I note others disagree set out in the comments below. Find bruce (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on how making this comment four years ago when L235 was a new editor on Wikipedia reflects his competency for administrator today? I see this only as proof that new editors don't necessarily understand COIs, which isn't that scandalous. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I will not be answering your question as it does not reflect my comment or my opinion. You are free to disagree with me & I note you have already done so in your support vote. Find bruce (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems to directly address your comment and your opinion. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Content creation? Basically nil. AfD? Under 5% "keep" !votes. And more than a third of his "delete" votes - ended up as "Keep" (36 total and 12 Kept outright, and another 5 were "no consensus to delete"). Poor result. BLP? Very few substantive edits at all. Three reasons for my oppose. Collect (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
60.7% of L235's total votes match the result, which by my standards isn't bad. My threshold is at least 50% but, it will vary depending on the person. This is by no means in criticism of you because I will always respect the basis if your threshold if it is a lot higher. I also, admire that L235 attempted to keep even though a majority of his keep votes did not match result. I am a huge fan of trying to save articles instead of of deleting thing, but only if it's in the intent of expanding them in good faith. Neovu79 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Collect picks a perfectly legitimate % (and higher) to be unhappy with at AfD success rate (aside - 50% would be no better than !voting via flipping a coin), I just felt that its worth was counteracted since he'd demonstrated a good change in that field. Nosebagbear (talk)

The AfD record isn't great, especially if you're an inclusionist. As it's largely based on edits from 4 years ago, almost all the voters are willing to ignore it.
π, ν) 03:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose CLCStudent (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CLCStudent: Can you explain the reason for your oppose? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know as well. In fact, I'm sure many people are watching to see if/when
wolf 13:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You do realise that in an RfA oppose !votes w/o any supporting rational are almost always discounted by the closing crat, right?
talk) (contributions) 19:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize for interjection (and you are free to delete this comment if you think it is inappropriate for any reason) but I believe the reason for this "Oppose" vote was based on a single interaction between L235 and CLCStudent, resulting in this comment. Based on what I've read, I believe L235's behavior was perfectly reasonable and civil and personally I wouldn't change my voting based on that interaction (but that's just my opinion, of course). Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"oppose !votes w/o any supporting rational are almost always discounted by the closing crat" - which is just as well, because it looks this one is going to be mighty close, and the crats will need to discount this oppose to tip the balance in favour of promotion... — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wolf 04:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
At this point, the RfA will obviously pass, so what's the point of putting an Oppose !vote with no rationale? Kind of reminds me of an earlier incident. . . ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 13:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Haven't decided yet, but I'm wondering why someone with such a low edit count isn't getting the flak that I would normally expect in these circumstances. Deb (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
16,000 edits doesn't seem very low to me, but if you read his response to one of the questions above, I would imagine that edit count is not a good measure of activity for someone who spends a good amount of time on arb clerk-related activities that don't inflate edit count. Natureium (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed — Kevin's answer to Q4 goes into some reasons for a low count, but any clerk or arbitrator will tell you it's easy to spend three hours making "just" four or five edits. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16,000 is "such a low edit count"? Even for RfA that would be a ridiculously high bar. What's next—are we going to start NOTNOWing editors who've been active since 16 January 2001? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that !vote is probably premised off the relatively low monthly edit count which is a much more reasonable point (in my view addressed by Q4, but people can make their own judgements on it) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that someone with this level of content editing and with long periods of inactivity could normally anticipate considerable opposition and I'm wondering what is so special about this candidate. Deb (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From Q4: "I was spending several hours a week working on Wikipedia throughout most of 2016 and 2017". See the full answer for more detail. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said for certain types of editors, myself included. In some of my copy editing, I've spent anything between 3 to 4 hours on WP at a stretch and saved as few as 4 edits. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think " 3 to 4 hours at a stretch" equates to "several hours a week".Deb (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kevin assures us he is not interested in working at AfD, I trust him to gain more experience in this area and just take things steady. I have already told him I expect this RfA to pass, so I'll duck out here as I don't want any unnecessary pile-ons. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstention. As I do not have time to do any research of my own (recently criticised in a previous RfA), I'm just registering that I am nevertheless following this RfA but have nothing to comment apart from concuring with the fact that sometimes lower edit counts are due to a lot of time consuming work , on- or off-Wiki for the project, that is not reflected in an edit count . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning oppose. The nominations are strong, but Lourdes'—now withdrawn?—concerns do not appear to be without basis. But, L235, I wish you all the best in your future endeavours; as the fella said, "I want to congratulate you on your new business. I'm sure you'll do very well, and good luck to you. Especially since your interests don't conflict with mine. Thank you" :D —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As L235 says below, the incident was over four years ago and did not involve a single mainspace edit, so I fail to see how there is any basis for concern at all. Concerns should be resolvable by the user. The fact that the person who brought this up (in a violation of
WP:DOX) has now withdrawn their question, not just their oppose, should tell you everything. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I went through about a year of contribs in Wikipedia space and unsurprisingly found little of controversy to evaluate the nominee as an administrator. As a clerk they're doing great. I suppose this is the nature of clerkship – doing it well is inherently sort of invisible: "grey man" if you will. However, it gives little evidence as to what they would do in a position of real judgment and authority, and their answer to Q3, how do you handle conflicts, is more of the same. "Someone got mad at me once for editing their comments" isn't really a high-value basis for evaluation either. So here I am not knowing one way or the other. Perhaps the most verbose support vote here is that of Bluerasberry which is sort of positive about a polite demeanor to outsiders, but that just reinforces the point I'm trying to make here. A good admin is more than polite and invisible. Don't want to go all meta at this venue but is RfA self-selecting people who don't have a track record of taking any particularly noticeable decision-making positions? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Hoping to explain and follow up on Q12 and the subsequent oppose. Regarding forgetting the forum post from August 2014 – I mean, it was over four years ago. I searched in my email because I had a suspicion but didn't think it was anything; even a Google search turned up nothing (except some stuff from me explaining Wikipedia governance, which was particularly interesting to me at the time). I certainly hope it isn't viewed as an attempt to deceive – I mean, it's a public forum post; if I had some devious plan, I would hope it's more clever than that.

Re the underlying conduct: it's not particularly flattering (particularly the grammar), but I don't think it was improper or a violation of policy. I decided to look into writing an article, purely on my own, without anyone else suggesting that I do it. I created a userspace barebones draft. I asked for sources and free-license photos. I then determined and explained that the sources don't establish notability, and deleted my userspace draft. I never touched a mainspace article or anything outside of my userspace, and I U1'd it when I determined that notability couldn't be established. I mean, the effect on Wikipedia was identical to if I had been drafting it in a google doc, decided it wasn't going to become an article, and deleted the google doc.

Regarding Battlefield Hardline in January 2015, I absolutely should not have blanked it as a copyvio and I absolutely should not have AfD'd it. However, I don't think connecting that to the Trese Brothers thing is fair. I don't see how Battlefield Hardline competes with anything Trese Brothers makes (I mean, it's a first-person shooter video game), and the "drive-by culling" of the article seems to have resulted from spotting it during a STiki session. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want to acknowledge that it was a mistake and a lapse in judgment to post the referenced thread on the fan forum four years ago. I don't think my actions violated policy for the reasons I've stated, and I hope my comments will be read in the context of the full thread (where I'm explicitly trying to follow policy, explaining what constitutes a reliable source, how notability works, and so forth) and in the context of what I actually did on-wiki (not modifying any mainspace articles and asking for the outline to be deleted when the lack of notability became apparent, etc.). Nonetheless, I completely understand concerns that those posts indicate that I won't follow policy as an administrator. It's important to acknowledge mistakes, and this was certainly one of mine. We expect all of our editors to grow over time; I hope my editing history in the four full years since demonstrates my understanding of policy and fidelity to it. If I've earned your support, I very much appreciate it; if you feel the need to oppose, I am sure it would make me a better editor. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I’m very uncomfortable with the recent trend in linking to off-wiki posts in RfAs, even if the editor is somewhat open in his identity. The harassment policy still applies to linking to off-wiki accounts unless the editor has linked to it here. As one of the editors who does a lot of work in COI, I know this is a difficult balance to maintain, but generally we shouldn’t be connecting individuals to any website unless they make the connection themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with you Tony. I find Lourdes digging into off wiki forum posts from years ago and bringing them up in this rfa to be very troubling. @Lourdes: I think you should remove your question. Additionally, I certainly don’t remember everything I’ve ever typed and nobody should be expected to have to in order to be an admin for Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - that question should be removed. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree - a conflict of interest evidenced off wikipedia is still a conflict of interest. Similarly linking to that evidence is not harassment. The issue for me is not his memory, but the content. Find bruce (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read
WP:DOX if you haven't already. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

(
WP:COIN to link to potential COI editing on an article (and this is something I have never done and discourage others from doing because the line is so easy to cross.) COIN regulars know this, and abide by some of the strictest rules while fighting one of the most difficult problems we have. A four year old post on a sandbox draft that was never created by what looks to be a fan doesn’t come near being an exemption from the harassment policy. This information would likely be oversightable in any other forum, and it should not be considered by the crats here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If it's oversight-able in any other forum, then it is oversight-able here. If it is oversight-able, somebody should see to it being oversight-ed. If not, then not. I have no opinion on whether it is oversight-able, since my understanding of doxxing covers personal information, not things that can be obtained from searching an editor's username online – ~~I seem to recall~~ ~~Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim! tanking because of things that GW found simply by searching up their username online.~~ Strike reason: Poor recollection, it was linked on-wiki [00:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)]. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate has acknowledged it and been forced to play defense on something that now two !votes mention: revdel or oversight wouldn’t work at this point. ArbCom in the most recent case (German War Effort) disagreed with your assessment: linking to other online identities that someone has not linked themselves on-wiki is not allowed and is subject to suppression: individual oversighters may or may not act on it because suppression requires significant judgement, but that does not make violating the policy acceptable. The issue here is that Kevin should never have been put in the situation of having to defend himself from 4 year old posts as a fan on a forum that under policy should not be linked.
Re: GorillaWarfare (courtesy ping): she linked to content from an account that Salvidrim! had made publicly available on-wiki. That is fine to link to.
Kevin has not to my knowledge, before the question was asked, posted about that account anywhere. I’m making a fuss about it because this has to stop going forward, and if it doesn’t, crats should start blocking people. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Tony. Yeah, @Mr rnddude:, Salvidrim! had disclosed the name of his Reddit account onwiki. Similarly people have linked to my tweets in the past, which is acceptable because I've disclosed my Twitter account on-wiki. Agreed with those above saying that Lourdes should not have linked to that account—it's in violation of OUTING unless L235 has disclosed the account as his before Lourdes brought it up. I see he did so afterward, but that does not make it acceptable on Lourdes' part. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was about to say that I think TB is correct about it being available on-wiki. It rang a faint bell when he said it. Thanks for the response though GW. Hmm, I'm aware that Wikipedia takes a dimmer view of doxxing then myself (I think of personal as being identifying of the individual, rather than any one of their online avatars), but I'll go by whatever the consensus is. I was more making the point that if action should be taken, then somebody should take it. That said, TB, I can see where you're coming from: too late now, but curb it so that a repeat event doesn't happen. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What bothers me about this question is that it is clear that Lourdes had already done the research, and found the offline discussion, before she asked him about it. She even knew, with her first question, what specific deleted page to ask to see, because he had mentioned it at the offline discussion. But she asked a general question, and then a slightly more specific question, and then she nailed him with information she had known all along. Lawyers call that technique a perjury trap. I’m really sorry to see it being used here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, and find this concerning - this isn’t the first time Lourdes has been called out for crossing the line with RFA questioning. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say, I appreciate the scrupulous attention to doxing policy; and secondly, as we're not in a US court of law, one certainly can raise other kinds of concerns about RfA questions, but I also think it's only fair to clarify Q11/12 was not a "perjury trap",^[1] unless one believes Lourdes did not raise the line of questioning seeking truthful information about an issue of concern to her. Does anyone really believe she brought it up with no concern for the underlying issue, just to create a situation where L235 would lie? Because, what, she has a secret personal vendetta? No. Come on guys, let's try to hang onto good faith. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what her motive was. I'm just noting the obvious fact that the way she approached it was a setup. If she was seeking information she would have gone at it directly: Kevin, could you comment on this discussion I found? --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A setup is not the problem; that alone does not create a perjury trap. It's a "gotcha" question for sure, but I don't think that's really an issue. It does seem to be analogous to a perjury trap more because the conduct is so old (and came when Kevin was so new) that, were Kevin to remember and acknowledge it, I don't think any reasonable editor would see it to be an issue. It suddenly seems scandalous when he forgets about the conduct himself, which is completely reasonable, and then is "caught in a lie". That's a new "conduct issue", which can then be used to justify an oppose. Personally, I find that to be in very poor taste. Of course an RfA candidate isn't going to remember something they did four years ago when a new editor on Wikipedia. That's not exceptional, and it certainly isn't a lie. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13. I share your opinion that the material was, as I’ve already said, stale and not of concern to me. That’s entirely separate from whether it was of concern to Lourdes. You really think this is pure bad faith, she was not genuinely concerned about the issue she asked about and set out to falsify a new issue that would condemn a candidate? Why would she do that?! I mean, really, the suggestion starts to verge on a personal attack and I’m perplexed and disappointed by the eagerness to attribute ill will. ‘It would have been nicer to ask directly,’ fine. But for what it’s worth, it would have been a worse information-gathering approach for anyone sincerely concerned for the matter at hand, and would have deprived the candidate of the chance to make a voluntary disclosure to the best of his recollection, which to my eyes he did, allaying any concerns I might have had about the issue, such as it was, being entirely in the past. The question could just as easily have come from hoping for that outcome. I feel actually certain it did. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987: This may have come across in a way other than how I intended it. I'm not saying that was Lourdes' motivation; I do not attribute bad intent. I am saying their actions were observationally equivalent to such a perjury trap, and will probably leave the candidate feeling much the same way. The correct way to bring this up would have been not at all, since the information was oversightable at the time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ "1756. Perjury Cases -- Special Problems And Defenses -- Perjury Trap". Office of the United States Attorneys. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 19 February 2015. Retrieved 28 August 2018.

Well, hadn't realized this would turn out this way. My apologies for the same; if Kevin wishes, I'll strike both the question and my !vote at this RfA. While I'm not sure whether that would help, like I said, did not realize this would be perceived in such a way. Lourdes 03:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: - If you believe that the right thing to do is to remove the question - you should do so. Don't make the candidate ask/beg for it's removal. With one exception, I think consensus is clear here that the question is inappropriate. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've struck the same. Lourdes 03:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was written before the striking happened. @Lourdes: I appreciate the offer very much. An administrator asked me whether the questions should be removed and suppressed, and I declined to ask them to do so, so I will let you choose whether to keep it up. As to striking your vote, I hope I've earned your support for this RfA. If you feel I would be a net negative or would not be a good sysop, I will respect your vote and encourage you to affirm it. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed, not struck out. Fish+Karate 08:43, 28 August 2018 (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/L235&oldid=1142574910"

[1] "1756. Perjury Cases -- Special Problems And Defenses -- Perjury Trap". Office of the United States Attorneys. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 19 February 2015. Retrieved 28 August 2018.

[1]

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log PROD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights