Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steel1943

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

Final (19/12/1); ended 22:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC) - withdrawn by the candidate -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943 (talk · contribs) – I am so excited and honored to nominate Steel1943 for adminship, an editor with an impressive resume, including over 65,000 edits to his name. Steel1943 has been a regular contributor at WP:RFD for a few years now. I've gotten to know him well there, and I've always been impressed by his rational, insightful, and policy-based contributions. Even when we (rarely) disagree, I always find his position to be reasonable and intelligent. He has also been a very helpful "clerk" at RfD, by doing thankless but useful tasks such as relisting and/or closing discussions, adding {{oldrfdlist}} when necessary, fixing broken nominations, etc. The experience and disposition that Steel1943 has is exactly what is needed at RfD, which is still understaffed in the admin department.

Outside of RfD, I'm excited to see that he wants to work at WP:FFD, which has by far the biggest backlog of any of the XfD forums. Steel1943 was instrumental in simplifying the file namespace XfDs, by proposing to merge WP:NFCR with WP:FFD, and WP:PUF was merged a few months later. From observing these discussions play out and the aftermath, I have full faith and confidence that Steel1943 will make a great admin there.

On the content side of things, Steel1943 has focused on a cause I personally find noble: improving the navigation and accessibility of the encyclopedia. He's created more than 100 disambiguations and set indices and has also worked on several templates. He has also taken that approach to creating articles when necessary, an example of which is Ken Reeves (meteorologist). His lengthy CSD log is full of uncontroversial maintenance, G8's, and a healthy amount of F-prefixed speedies thrown in there. I believe this is telling to predict the kind of admin he's going to be: one who epitomizes the metaphor of the mop by cleaning up exactly what needs mopping. With so many messes lying around, I hope he can get started soon, and that's why I strongly recommend him for the mop. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to join in nominating Steel1943 for adminship. Besides what Tavix has already covered--all of which I'd like to second--I wanted to add a few things about the great work I've seen this editor do. I've been most impressed with his technical prowess. He's one of my go-to template wizards. In particular, two of his updates recently have made administering to the RfD backlog much more manageable. The first added an option to close a discussion as "retarget", which is a common outcome at RfD. Compare a discussion page today (keep/retarget/delete) with one from two years ago (keep/delete). The same edit also made sure deletion summaries point to the right RfD page even after an item has been relisted. The second of these updates tweaked the RfD closure templates so that closed discussions are collapsed by default on the main RfD page, making it much easier to see all open discussions at a glance.

In addition, Steel1943 has shown excellent judgment at RfD and RM, where I've observed him. Tavix has already touched on his aptitude for navigation, and I've been impressed about his ability to consider a reader's experience in discussing particular titles or redirects. Many of us editors end up with our own little fiefdoms, so it's heartening to see editors really dedicated to putting readers first.

Steel1943 has just about all the admin permissions which are unbundled. This won't be a great step for him, but it will be one that grants him access to more tools. I have no doubt he'll consistently use them to the project's benefit. --BDD (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Tavix and BDD, thank you for your nominations. I accept. Steel1943 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank everyone who has participated in my RFA thus far. For now, I am withdraw-ing my RFA. In my mind, I knew that some of the opinions I had and mistakes I made (which I no longer agree with myself) happened recently enough to a point that it would be difficult to be able to see the difference between now and then. I hope, at this point, to continue to prove useful and helpful contributions to Wikipedia, and hope to see you all again for a possibly new RFA in the distance future. Thanks again! Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 plan to work mainly on assisting with closing discussions on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and Wikipedia:Files for discussion and sometimes Wikipedia:Requested moves. At first, I will probably focus on Files for discussion over Redirects for discussion for a while due to Files for discussion's backlog that currently dates back to April 18th. I will also validate speedy deletion nominations for their validity and delete them as appropriate, most likely focusing on nominations that fall under the "G", "F" or "R" criteria. I would also like to help out with edit history merging since I have found broken edit histories created by cut-paste moves in the past and think I may be able to provide assistance with the merges.

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

A: What I consider my "best contributions" are mainly edits that don't really get "noticed" but have a positive effect on Wikipedia overall. I mainly perform edits that have the potential to provide better navigation and usefulness within Wikipedia itself including creating disambiguation pages and redirects, determining primary topics, finding ways to make templates more user-friendly for non-technical editors and more helpful for all editors, monitoring the file upload log for issues that may require cleanup or may require that the file be deleted, and proposing changes within Wikipedia itself that may benefit the community by simplifying possibly confusing and redundant processes. If I had to name one specific contribution, it would probably be the grouped nomination on RFD I made in November 2014 of 357 redirects that eventually led to a resolution for all readers and editors involving fixing wiki markup in page titles that can completely break the appearance of text in an entire page. (The nomination itself took me about 4 days and performing about 100 edits before the nomination could even been posted, not counting the edits involving posting notices.)

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: Unfortunately or fortunately, in my 4 years of frequent editing on Wikipedia, I have attempted a "retirement" three times, and each was the result of a conflict.

The first "retirement" was the longest (about 5 months long) and took place at some point in 2013. This was around the time that Wikidata first launched, and some misunderstandings I had about how Wikidata worked resulted in me performing bold edits to give subjects their own dedicated pages if the subject was represented only with a section on a different page. (At the time, redirects could not be built into Wikidata.) After having a few editors and administrators explain to me the error of my ways, I realized that I caused the community issues, attempted my best to revert the edits I performed, and stepped away for the aforementioned 5 months. Afterwards when I returned to editing again, I had a fresh mindset about Wikipedia and became willing to either start discussions for resolutions to issues/problems I noticed, or just step back if I really have no idea what is going on.

The other two "retirements", in retrospect, were breaks I took after I was involved in a policy dispute between myself and another editor that became so intense that I had to step away. Both of those lasted no more than a month each.

The reason why I stated "Unfortunately or fortunately" in the first sentence of this answer is after every aforementioned "retirement", I learned more about myself and this community and continued to better figure out where and how I can fit in to provide the most helpful contributions without causing disruption. To answer the second part of this question, I would first attempt to resolve the differences with the editor via communication on a talk page to determine where the differences lie; if there is seemingly no resolution and the discussion gets to a point where I experience personal stress, I first make sure that there aren't any other discussions or edits that do or will require my attention in the near future (including any edits of my own that I should undo per the dispute) and then temporarily step away from Wikipedia for a few days (instead of "retiring") to recollect my composure. I know that with Wikipedia being a place for collaboration, no place here benefits with troublesome edits or comments placed due to a negative mindset that was the result of something completely unrelated.

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 John Cline

4. In question 2, you stated that the mass RFD led to "a resolution for all readers and editors involving fixing wiki markup in page titles ...", can you link to this resolution please? Thank you.

A: After the referenced nomination, I proposed a fix at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive 4#Request to add to title blacklist. After seeing that the majority of these titles were most likely created in error, I came up with the idea to restrict the creation of titles that contain at least two consecutive apostrophes. In fact, at the present time, if an editor attempts to create a page at a title that canoe sins at least two consecutive apostrophes, the title creation blacklist will prevent that title from being created and provide the editor who attempted to create that title a note about how {{DISPLAYTITLE}} works and how to accomplish the task of adding italics or bolding to the title of the page after it has been created.

Also, since then, from time-to-time, I have been working on the list created by the administrator who implemented the change in the title creation blacklist to try to remove some of the titles that remain on Wikipedia that have two consecutive apostrophes while taking extreme care to ensure no edit history gets lost or any incoming links get broken by bypassing the links prior to the titles being put up for deletion.

Additional questions from Ritchie333

5. A brand new user creates an article titled "Edgar Bruce". The content in full reads "Edgar Bruce was an actor manager". What actions, if any, would you take with this article?

A: (I answer this question assuming that the page is in the article namespace, is named "Edgar Bruce", and I know no knowledge of the subject myself.) My first thought would be that the article may qualify for A7 speedy deletion, but I wouldn't immediately tag the page. First, I would see if there are foreseeably any edits that the creator of the page may perform to help resolve the importance concern since the creator of the page may not have been aware that they published the page after saving their creation edit. Also, I would try to see if there are any immediate third-party sources on the Internet regarding this subject that could establish notability for this person as an encyclopedic subject. If neither of these actions are possible, then I would tag the page with {{db-a7}} and post the appropriate {{db-notability-notice}} notification on their talk page. (And maybe soon, I will look into why the text of {{db-notability-notice}} doesn't have a link to WP:REFUND in the event that the page's creator wants to restore the page and work on it as a draft until it meets established notability requirements in the event that the deleting administrator is inactive. (I just discovered this and was honestly a bit surprised.))

6. A while back, I noticed you were either opposing or posting a neutral vote on RfA candidates who had a lot of user talk space edits. eg: Oswhah, Montanabw, the latter of which you said, "It's refreshing for me to finally see a nominee whose "User talk:" edits are not in the top 2 highest amounts of edits they have done". Why do you think this was an important criteria for you when evaluating RfA candidates, and do you still feel the same now?

A: Yes, I did, and in retrospect, it was very unfair to make that connection between namespace edits and the appitude of the candidates. I had based those RFA comments on some previous RFAs I had participated in the past where the candidate(s) had focused their time on tagging editor's talk pages in regards to vandalism, and that seemed to be the candidate(s)' primary focus, so I did not see the need for those candidates to have the tools. However, that mindset and belief of mine went into my comments in the RFAs aforementioned in this question, and looking back at those RFAs at the present time, if those RFAs were still open, I would have either crossed out my comment or moved myself to "support". I also had a discussion with an administrator regarding my vote in one of those RFAs and my vote. (I believe this discussion happened on my talk page, but I am unable to locate it at the moment.) Since those RFAs, my opinion has changed drastically regarding putting any focus on namespace edits percentages and more focus on the nominee's need for the tools, where they plan on participating with the tools, and finding any issues in their past which could put in question their ability to do so.

Additional question from Mkdw

7. At APerson's RFA talk page when asked about quality-over-quantity and statistics and ratios over actually checking a person's body of work, you expressed the importance of edit space ratios over their work. You opposed the editor on those grounds alone and seemingly did not pursue investigating their body of work. As an administrator you are expected to review the conduct and contributions of an editor, presumably unbiasedly and without regard as to whether they're a newcomer, experienced editor, article writer, wikignome, and so forth. If you prioritize ratios and statistics so highly, will that be the basis of your administrative actions?

A: (This was the discussion I referenced in Q6.) I hope I essentially answered this question via my answer in Q6 since this was the discussion I was referring to. After having the aforementioned discussion with Mkdw, my mindset on the whole matter started changing. I can honestly say that the mindset I had which resulted in those comments on APerson's RFA would not in the least be reflected in any of the administration actions I would perform and would primarily focus on the areas I mentioned in Q1. I agree that an administrator's opinions and administrative actions are and have to be two separate lines of actions and thinking, and have over time have been able to better separate the line between the two. And if all else fails, if that cannot happen and I feel as though my opinion would cloud an administrative decision I could have the opportunity to perform, I will leave the decision to perform an action to another administrator.

Additional question from Biblio

8. You say that "in retrospect, it was very unfair to make that connection between namespace and the appitude [sic] of the candidates." What caused this sudden change in opinion?

A: In the RFAs that have been referenced thus far (Oshwah, APerson and Montanabw, all of which happened in September 2015 around the same week), I had an opinion that was the result of a previous few RFAs that led to my former belief that a large percentage of user space edits equated to lack of need for the tools. As referenced in Q7, I participated in a discussion on APerson's RFA where I was still trying to push this point of view of mine in the RFAs while attempting to make a "skeleton-in-the-closet" claim based on that information alone. At some point shortly after, I found an essay or policy somewhere in Wikipedia related to commenting in RFAs that I took to heart which explained why voting based on namespace edit ratios does not in any way gauge the qualities of what makes an editor a good candidate for administrator. (I tried to find the page I am referring to before I answered this question, but seem to not be able to find that page.) Afterwards, I essentially realized the point behind the section at WP:NOBIGDEAL and started participating and commenting in RFAs based on the candidates' overall experience and where they have proven their areas of experience and expertise could be additional asset in that area if they were to become an administrator. Around March/April of this year, I participated in about three RFAs where I attempted to apply this mindset to RFAs and to further appreciate and understand the RFA process. After I participated in a discussion regarding my "neutral" vote on Amakuru's RFA that resulted in me essentially being convinced that if I have no reason to oppose then I support, I became a lot more optimistic about the whole RFA process and do my best to gladly support anyone who has done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in good faith and attempted their best to respect the community. If such an editor wants to help out in an area where Wikipedia needs help but needs the "admin toolset" to help out, I will gladly support them, and if I am approached and I confidently know enough about them to provide a clear, helpful nomination statement that could help their RFA, I will.

Additional questions from LavaBaron

9. Should the current policy on RevDel be amended to allow obfuscation of block logs in the case of editors who are erroneously blocked?

A: I would say "No" because not only does the block log track who is blocked, but also who did the blocking. If the blocker performs several erroneous blocks, if these are revdel'ed, then if an editor needs to reference this information (or for that matter, even find it), they would need an administrator.

10. Since an erroneous block has grave consequences for the victim - marking their block log permanently with no hope of revocation or correction - should an admin found to have performed such an erroneous block be subject to similarly grave consequences, say, summary de-sysop'ing with no right of appeal?

A:

• Links for Steel1943: Steel1943 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Steel1943 can be found here.

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

1. Support not an editor I know all too well, but having gone through their contribs I have no quarms with them becoming an admin. Steel has been a constructive member of the community, and their work here shows a need for the tools -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support User seems to have a strong understanding of core WP policies, and has been an outstanding editor and WP:GNOME since they first became active. I believe they are definitely here to build an encyclopedia, and would be a prime candidate for the mop. Keira1996 15:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Obvious support as co-nom. Already someone I approach when I need assistance, Steel1943 will serve the project and its users very well. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Great noms, have seen him around a lot and have confidence he'll be an asset as an admin. From memory, can occasionally become a bit too heated in disputes and that's something they'll have to watch once this passes. But overall very happy and confident in my support. Jenks24 (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Will be a net positive. From a search of Steel's contribs, Steel seems to be a very productive and skilled editor. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong support as nominator. I know how strong of an asset Steel1943 is as a non-admin, having the tools would be a big help to augment his already excellent work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Great contribution history and well-suited for the job. We need more admins willing to work in administrative areas of Wikipedia! Will definitely be a net positive. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Definitely a strong candidate. Excellent work, and from their answers has learned, and willing to learn from previous mistakes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - Past interactions with Steel1943 in various RMs and RfDs left me with a good impression. Also, as recently discussed, the File namespace desperately needs more admins willing and able to help close discussions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Here's an idea: when you're tired and stressed about something, stop doing it for a while and do something else, so you can come back refreshed and ready to engage. The nominee seems to understand when to step away. None of us are irreplaceable, and we do not require admins to attend the site every day, or every other day, or every month. We're all volunteers, and to oppose based solely on the ability to know one's own mind is...something. I find Steel to be competent and trustworthy, with no red flags in his edit history and a willingness to work in areas where we sorely need help. That's all I need. Katie^talk 17:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Steel1943 makes very useful contributions and the tools will benefit them. I acknowledge that the candidate may not be, or have been, perfect, but I trust them that the Q6/7 issue is a thing of the past, and that they will be able to handle disputes well. I think that them being an admin will have a net positive effect on Wikipedia. Also, I don't mind the occasional break at all, including future ones. Doing good work 90% of the time is a lot better than 0%. Gap9551 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - I regularly interact with Steel1943 at RfD and occasionally in other discussions. Though I often agree with the candidate, even when I don't, their opinions are generally well thought out. They are duly qualified, and I trust that they will use good judgement when wielding the mop.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - I also regularly interact with Steel1943 at WP:RFD and I have found Steel to be a conscientious editor who is genuinely committed to improving users' experiences on Wikipedia. I am very impressed by Steel's work creating disambiguation pages, and I can always count on Steel to offer insightful and helpful opinions at RfD discussions. I am confident that Steel will make a fine administrator. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support: A net positive. Excellent work has me with a good impression. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. While I usually disagree with Steel1943 at RfA, lots of great work in administrative areas should be rewarded with even more work in those areas, and I am sure the candidate will do an excellent job in deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 18:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Someone who knows when to take breaks will make a good admin, and his work on disambiguation pages is second to none. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, net positive for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. WP:NETPOSITIVE. I entirely reject the reasoning behind some of the opposes based on the candidate's past RfA votes. The candidate has evidently changed their mind about that subject (sincerely, I hope). I don't see the point in voting based on qualities of the candidate that require mental gymnastics to be tied to their future performance as an admin. Anyway, their template work seems good. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Great candidate, No issues, Good luck. –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. I'm just not comfortable supporting a candidate who has retired every year that he has been here (the last time being only one year ago). Admins need leadership skills, a thick skin, and an ability to deal with conflict without letting it faze them. Plus we don't give out the tools piecemeal. I thank the candidate for his rather self-incriminating honesty, but I would like to see another yeat of activity -- especially "down in the trenches" activity that demonstrates leadership skills and an ability to handle and resolve the conflicts of others -- without retiring. Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I would much rather support someone who knows when to step away when something causes stress. When thinking about "fight or flight" someone who decides to "fight" a situation can cause more harm to a situation by letting emotions drive one's editing. Steel admits he's in the "flight" category, he'd much rather walk away from a stressful situation and come back when the situation is no longer stressful. In this case, "cooler heads prevail," and it's great that he recognizes that. His last "retirement" was more than a year ago, and from being around him frequently since then, I haven't seen any evidence of a "retirement" happening anytime soon. I really do feel that he has learned from those situations, as he explains in Q3. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Walking away is not retiring. Not sure why you are conflating the two. I walk away from nearly every overly contentious no-win situation on Wikipedia (taking a page off of one's watchlist is easy to do), but I have never retired or semi-retired. We need mature admins who can handle stress and walk away when needed without throwing their toys out of the pram. His last retirement was exactly a year ago, July 2014 -- again, not sure why you are trying to muddle this. As I stated in my !vote, I need to see another year where he does not retire or semi-retire, and where he has shown he can handle conflict and also help resolve the conflicts of others. Softlavender (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose primarily per Softlavender. If the candidate can demonstrate and prove his commitment to Wikipedia full-time, I may support. However, I have personally noticed he struggles to stay calm when the editing gets hot in some disputes - despite this, it is an uncommon occurrence. I nearly voted Neutral and I may well change my !vote if I am convinced otherwise. I ask that the candidate not take this personally and I wish him the best of luck. --Zero^talk 16:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Pinging Softlavender since this response addresses both of your concerns. To me, a clean block log combined with these "retirements" indicates that Steel1943 knows when to pull back rather than double down and potentially do further damage. Plenty of uses, admins included, lack this self control, and the project has suffered from it. Additionally, if Tavix or I are conflating walking away with retiring, I think a user who returns hasn't really retired, regardless of how it was previously labeled. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Walking away is not retiring. Not sure why you are conflating the two. I walk away from nearly every overly contentious no-win situation on Wikipedia (taking a page off of one's watchlist is easy to do), but I have never retired or semi-retired. We need mature admins who can handle stress and walk away when needed without throwing their toys out of the pram. His last (semi)retirement was exactly a year ago, July 2014. As I stated in my !vote, I need to see a two-year span where he does not retire or semi-retire, and where he has shown he can handle conflict and also help resolve the conflicts of others. Softlavender (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Given that you've now said it twice, Softlavender, I thought I'd point out that July 2014 is two years ago (not one). Schwede66 19:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   You are correct that that was two years ago; my error. Softlavender (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   You need not change your mind on the basis of my remarks, or even accept my explanation, but repeating the "Walking away is not retiring", when I have explicitly addressed it, comes across as quite rude. I hope it was only an oversight. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Sorry but I agree with Patient Zero and Softlavender. An ideal candidate for me includes being active for a long time and keeping a cool head during disputes, unfortunately, I don't see this here. A concern with not keeping a cool head during disputes could result in pointless blocks and I do not want to see this. However, I also ask the candidate doesn't take this personally and I wish the candidate the best of luck but it's constructive criticism and we can learn from this. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - per past RfA comments by the candidate, I feel like they do not understand what adminship is. Commenting on the % of edits to the user talk space is clearly unrelated to whether or not a candidate would make a good administrator, and it makes me concerned that Steel views the role too much like a job or status symbol, rather than a few extra tools that allow people to help more. We don't need that; we need people that recognise that Wikipedia is a hobby, and that being an administrator is no big deal. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   FWIW, I would also like to oppose some of the ridiculous comments above which seem to suggest that admins must not be human. Leadership isn't needed, and the ability to step back from stressful situations will definitely come in hand if the candidate passes. Being a full-time editor certainly isn't needed, and should even be discouraged. Sorry to end up in the same camp as these others. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Discussion moved to the talk page. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose. Were it possible to restrict admins to the use of the technical tools the candidate seems to favour I might be inclined to support. But it's not, and I find the lack of content contributions concerning. Not to mention a retirement every year when the going gets tough. Eric Corbett 17:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. I rarely oppose, but as Ajraddatz noted (and as I have personally observed), Steel will oppose candidates solely based on namespace percentages. I am very much against using arbitrary statistics to judge candidates—such methods utterly fail to take into account the candidate as a person, and are invalid because they have absolutely no grounding in policy. As per WP:CONSENSUS, all arguments are to be viewed "through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (but for some reason, RfA has illegitimately become an exception to that policy). Someone who has strict RfA standards evidently views adminship as high position—in other words, they view it as a big deal. Therefore, I am concerned that such a person will treat adminship in the same manner once they actually get the position. In other words, they may believe that they have some important position of authority, and that is a rather dangerous mindset to have. In contrast, a candidate who sees adminship as a no-big-deal maintenance job is less likely to falsely imagine it as a position of authority if they actually become admins themselves. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 17:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   @Ajraddatz and Biblioworm: just so you are both aware, Steel1943 has responded to those concerns in Q6/7 and admits that he no longer has that mindset. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I have asked Steel a question for further clarification. I would also note that I join Ajraddatz in disavowing any agreement with some others above me who essentially criticize Steel's taking breaks due to stressful situations. They simply reframe it as "being unable to stay cool." Granted, it would have been more appropriate for Steel to say he was simply taking a break rather than repeatedly announcing "retirement." But it is healthy when a person is able to step away from this place and take a break. Otherwise, one would be driven to the brink of insanity. I personally took a break of several months earlier this year. It is indeed ridiculous to make Wikipedia addiction a prerequisite for adminship. We have lives, families, and jobs to attend to—as I say on my own talk page, "Wikipedia is a hobby, not a job." Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 18:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Biblioworm, because you refer to Steel1943 as "[s]omeone who has strict RfA standards", it looks like you reject their claims that they've changed their standards in their answers to questions 6 and 7. Would it be possible for you to explain the reasoning behind that a little more? Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 21:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose primarily per Softlavender and Ajraddatz. The inability to deal with stressful situations is certainly not "sysop material". Administrators often have to make hard decisions based on consensus. — Music1201 ^talk 18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Too little content creation. Andrew D. (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per Eric and Andrew D (and User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content) and also per this harassment warning served back in April. There don't seem to be any significant mainspace contributions or any CSD calls outside of G6. For Q5, there are a number of options, but the answer really bothers me that the candidate didn't seem to type anything into Google and discover that Edgar Bruce was an actor manager associated with the Prince of Wales Theatre in the 19th century. That shows he will rub people up the wrong way accidentally and delete good faith work without realising if he has the tools. Too high a risk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Wow, just wow. In that ANI from late April 2016, he states in bold "My only comment on this, and then I'm done on Wikipedia indefinitely." That was less than three months ago. Why in the world is he running for adminship? Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   @Ritchie333: Though I have already withdrawn this RFA, I want to apologize for misunderstanding your Q5. I was responding to it as a "if article Foo Bar exists with only text "Foo Bar was a person"". Per my answer, I would/should have found the information about "Edgar Bruce" and tried to incorporate it into the article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose Moving from neutral after reading this AN/I thread. Not only is a stern warning so recently a concern, but Steel1943's instant response of "My only comment on this, and then I'm done on Wikipedia indefinitely" just smacks of an editor that can't handle the going getting tough. There's walking away when it's not productive or healthy to stick around, which is fine, and there's spitting your dummy out and biting in the face of any conflict, which is not. This diff referenced in the thread is not befitting of an administrator either and suggests that Steel1943 has a tendency to react and take the bait. My points in my struck-out neutral !vote about it being fine to take a break still stand, but this massively supersedes them. I'm sorry. KaisaL (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Candidate's response to question 9 seems to prioritize recordkeeping over creating a fair and inclusive environment for editors. LavaBaron (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that's a particularly good reason to oppose, and sounds more like a grudge against your own block log. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether a candidate prioritizes form or process is critical to our understanding of their acceptability. LavaBaron (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose This diff from just a while ago in which the candidate endorses, in a rather questionable manner, an inappropriate closure made by an involved administrator is enough for me to oppose as it indicates the candidate's unfamiliarity with WP:CONSENSUS and reveals his/her tendency to personalize disputes. For another example of the latter, see the candidate's comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 24#Plowback retained earnings. All of that, coupled with what the other opposers have brought to the table and the candidate's repeated "retirements," leaves me no choice but to oppose. Above all, I simply do not believe that Steel1943, for all his/her good intentions, possesses the right temperament for the job. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral: Good contributions to the areas that the candidate wishes to work in, but the constant retirement lasting two weeks (shorter than many wikibreaks) and the practice of namespace arithmetic in place of meaningful study in RfA shows that the candidate cannot handle tough situations and will overlook critical details while acting as an administrator. — Esquivalience (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I have no objection to the user's tendency to take breaks (although regularly calling it "retirement" almost seems like a dramatic way to put it), but I am neutral due to the past analysis of adminship candidates based on their namespace percentages. That has no bearing on a candidate's ability to do the job. This quote from their answer to question six particularly alarms: "The candidate(s) had focused their time on tagging editor's talk pages in regards to vandalism, and that seemed to be the candidate(s)' primary focus, so I did not see the need for those candidates to have the tools." If users handling vandalism and doing the mundane work of keeping the encyclopedia running smoothly don't need "the tools", then who does? It's starting to seem like Steel1943 has been hoist by his own petard. (Note: I have read that Steel1943 has renounced these views and that is why I am neutral rather than oppose.) KaisaL (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC) I am moving to oppose after reading the AN/I report from April, sorry. KaisaL (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Biblioworm and a couple others raise a good point regarding the candidate's opinion of adminship, especially the mentality that it's a big deal through their voting choice when it comes to talkspace edit percentages. Tavix notes that Steel1943 no longer holds that point of view, and I sincerely hope that this is true, as I believe that many editors will see this reason to oppose -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I read the answers to those questions after I had already commented, unfortunately. I'll definitely have another look through their most recent RfA comments, and see if the pattern has actually changed. If so, then great! Nobody is perfect and I have no issues forgiving past mistakes. Any new admin will make mistakes anyway; if Steel can respond well to concerns then that'll just be another point in their favour. Plus, given the other reasons for opposing, I am quite uncomfortable sitting anywhere near that section. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2016 (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.