Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clpo13 2: Difference between revisions

Clpo13

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (68/0/0); Scheduled to end 15:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

Clpo13 (talk · contribs) – It's my pleasure to be nominating Clpo13 for access to the administrator toolkit. With almost 40,000 edits to their name over the course of more than 10 years editing here, I think Clpo13 has more than sufficient experience to be trusted with the extra buttons.

Clpo13 has a wide range of experience on the encyclopedia, including at Articles for Deletion, with a high match percentage and well informed vote rationales, lots of anti-vandalism work, and a huge CSD log, which a spot check shows to be more than sensible. He also has a good history of content creation, with a number of quality articles including Did You Knows and a Good Article. His area of expertise, however, is evidently files and copyright - a quick look through his contributions to files for discussion debates will show that he is very knowledgable when it comes to this area of the encyclopedia, and would be a real asset to it if given the mop.

Clpo is friendly and informative when speaking to new and experienced editors alike, and I believe can absolutely be trusted to act sensibly and knowledgeably as an administrator. Sam Walton (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I happily accept the nomination. clpo13_(talk) 15:54, 3 May 2017 (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 primarily interested in file work, such as files for discussion and moving appropriate files to Wikimedia Commons at CAT:COMMONS. I'm quite active at Commons as well as here on enwiki, and I feel I've got the necessary experience to understand the issues surrounding both US and non-US copyright. I also hope to expand my participation at articles for deletion and new pages patrol with the tools allowing me to close discussions with a delete consensus (as well as assess more complex discussions than allowed under WP:NAC) and delete new pages that are blatant copyvios and attack pages. With more experience as an admin, I'd move on to requests for page protection and the edit warring noticeboard, where I have some experience filing requests and reports, though I'm not planning on jumping feet first into protecting pages and blocking editors (aside from cases of obvious vandalism).

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

A: I'm quite fond of John E. Corbally, which I researched, started, and brought to good article status. It was a good opportunity to exercise my research skills and round out the list of Syracuse University chancellors articles on Wikipedia (I also created William Pratt Graham and Charles N. Sims). It was also my first experience with the GA process. While it's my only GA so far, I hope to get more articles to that status and maybe even start reviewing some as well. Aside from article creation, I'm happy to have contributed some photographs that are used on Wikipedia articles. I believe that every article that can have an image should have one, and I try to do my part to find or create an appropriate illustration for a subject.

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: Yes, I have been in a few, some quite heated. Most recently, the matter of infoboxes on featured articles led to negative interactions with some prominent FA contributors, some of whom are, regrettably, no longer active on the project. Looking back now, the whole situation was a good lesson on the importance of civility and respecting the work of editors who may make editorial decisions I disagree with. I've avoided the infobox area since (with the exception of starting an RFC on an infobox template), and I now try disengage from such stressful situations until I can come back later and take a fresh look at the situation.

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 Ritchie333

4. You recently tagged a number of coin images (eg: File:Hannibal1.jpg) with WP:CSD#F4, all of which were declined, but then sent on to WP:FFD. For those of us who don't work with image copyrights too often, can you explain the context behind this? Do you still believe your tagging was justified?

A: The images lack any sort of source or photographer information. Were they taken by the uploader? Found on the web somewhere? Without a source, we can't verify the copyright status of the image. Nyttend declined the speedy on the basis that explicit source info wasn't required until sometime after these images were uploaded. My original tagging was done without being aware of that caveat. Now that I know, I would send particularly old images to FFD instead of speedying them.

However, with regards to these specific images (of old coins), I now believe my concern about copyright status was completely unfounded. I initially thought that, even though the coins are ancient, photographs of them might have their own copyright. That may not actually be the case (at least in the US), just as photographs of public domain art don't have their own copyright (see {{PD-art}} and Copyright of Coin Photographs). A source would still be preferred since the coins pictured might be modern reproductions or fakes, and other countries may apply the sweat of the brow doctrine, meaning that non-original works like photographs and copies of public domain works could have their own copyright due to the amount of effort put into creating them. If I could do these images over, I would tag them with {{PD-art}} and {{do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}} until more was learned about the provenance of the coins and images.

@Clpo13: It's a bit off topic here, but I think it's important to correct this point. The opinion of Mike Godwin, back in 2007 when he was still the WMF General Counsel, is that Bridgeman v. Corel does not apply to photographs of coins, as they are 3D articles (see here). Commons does not accept such images without a license from the photographer (see commons:Commons:Currency), and the English Wikipedia should not either. Revent^talk 23:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: Well, that clears things up immensely. Thank you for the correction. Knowing that, I would have sent those images to FFD for lacking source info that could be used to verify copyright. clpo13_(talk) 23:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Andrew D.

5. There was a change recently so files can now be prodded. I looked at a bundle of the nominations and found that orphan images were being systematically deleted even though some of them seemed to have merit – files such as Aker bilk. It seems wrong to me that many thousands of good faith uploads should be deleted in this blanket way but what's your view about this, please? Andrew D. (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: I would prefer that orphaned files be moved to Commons, assuming they meet licensing requirements and c:COM:SCOPE. Even if an image doesn't have an immediate use on the English Wikipedia, it might be useful on another language Wikipedia or in a future article. This applies to images that don't work with Commons's licensing (e.g. public domain in the US but not in the source country). If an image is potentially useful on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be deleted solely on the grounds of being an orphan.

Additional question from Linguist111

6. A user, 0000, asks you to close an AfD they created four weeks ago. The article being nominated for deletion is an eight-week-old BLP about a one-time Miss Finland non-placer containing two paragraphs, and is unsourced apart from one statement. The nomination statement is "Non-winning Miss contestant who fails WP:N." The votes of other users are as follows:

• Delete per nom. 0001 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:N. 0002 (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cruft. Sources do not indicate notability and the article will only interest fans. 0003 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing in the article suggests notability. 0004 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block the creator - I am soooo sick of these crufty articles! They are only creating them for fun and are therefore WP:NOTHERE so we should delete all their articles and block them indefinitely!! 0005 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 0006 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - not sure about notability, but the article is several weeks old and contains only one reference. We can't have a BLP this badly sourced. 0007 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - being a Miss contestant alone does not make someone notable, so this qualifies for CSD A7. 0008 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone above. 0009 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 0010 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing the votes against the relevant policies and guidelines, along with WP:ATA, what would you do?

A: On a solely numerical basis, the deletes far outweigh the keeps, and the sole keep doesn't even have a rationale. Looking more closely, though, shows that most of the deletes fall afoul of WP:ATA. 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0008 have somewhat policy-based !votes. 0002 only mentions the policy without saying how it applies. 0008 misses the mark as A7 doesn't address notability; as long as an article has a credible claim of significance, A7 doesn't apply. 0004 judges the article on it's current state, not the availability of sources outside the article (WP:ARTN). 0003 at least argues that the sources available don't support notability, but there's no policy saying that articles must appeal to a wide range of interests. Overall the delete !votes are weak, but far better than any keep !votes. I would close this as delete on the basis that the consensus is the subject does not meet WP:N.

Additional question from Juliancolton

7. An AfD has been open for more than seven days, and has received no comments except for the filing editor's statement. As an admin, what are your options for dealing with this AfD?

A: If the article hasn't been proposed for deletion and declined before, I can treat it like an expired PROD and close in favor of the nominator's proposal. If deleted, it would be a soft delete that can be reversed on request at WP:RFU. However, if there is a declined PROD for the article or it might be a controversial action to delete, merge, or redirect it, I would relist for further discussion.

Additional question from JJBers

8. Let's say a IP address starts adding unsourced information on Montana, and when reverted, says it's true, and links a possibly unreliable source. How do you handle the IP?

A: I would advise the user that the source given may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (linking WP:RS for further info on what makes a source reliable) and recommend that they find another source. If the information is true, there should be a better source available. If the user insists on using the original source, its suitability can be discussed on WP:RSN or the talk page of the article where more editors can chime in.

Additional question from User:Bigpoliticsfan

9. Here comes a UAA question

You see the following usernames, none of which have edited yet. What do you do?

• BrooklynNetsSuck
• BushdidKatrina
• 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
• New York University Langone Medical Center
• Articles for deletion
• Ritchie334
• Chad Duell

A:

• BrooklynNetsSuck – problematic per WP:DISRUPTNAME, though not something I'd immediately block over. However, such a name might make it hard to work well with other users, especially die hard Nets fans. I'd ask the user if they'd be willing to change to something less negative.
• BushdidKatrina – this one seems immediately blockable per WP:DISRUPTNAME as it references a controversy (Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina) and would prevent collaborative editing.
• 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043 – this is the address for Montclair State University. It's not immediately apparent that the address of a public university is disruptive, but it might fall under WP:UNCONF. It also might suggest a conflict of interest for the school. I'd ask the user to change the name.
• New York University Langone Medical Center – clear case of WP:CORPNAME that implies shared use, which is not permitted. I would give them the opportunity to change names or with a note that editing promotionally on behalf of this organization is forbidden.
• Articles for deletion – this one could be considered misleading per WP:MISLEADNAME, since it references a Wikipedia process, but it doesn't imply that the user is in any sort of position or power or has extra permissions. I'd wait and see how they edit before taking action.
• Ritchie334 – very similar to the existing and well-established user Ritchie333 (WP:IMPERSONATOR). Since they haven't edited yet, I'd leave a note about the username and that it might cause confusion with an existing user, though I'd keep a very close eye on their contributions and block at the first sign of impersonation or other inappropriate editing. While there's a good chance it's someone up to no good, it could also very well be a well-meaning user who doesn't realize the similarity.
• Chad Duell – there is a notable person named Chad Duell, so it would be best to keep a close eye on this account for signs of impersonation. WP:REALNAME says that such accounts can be blocked as a precaution, but I would wait until they edit before taking action.

Additional question from Linguist111

10. While patrolling the new pages log, you come across an unreferenced article which, in its entirety, reads, "Une jeune fille disparue en 1990 corps découvert la semaine dernière." What do you do?

A: Translated from French, the article is about someone who went missing in 1990 and whose body was just recently found. At first glance, this looks like it could be deleted under WP:A1. However, there seems to be enough material that I could find some information about the subject if it's true. I'd start by looking for some sources and wait a few minutes to see if the article creator fleshes it out. If I can't find any information and the creator doesn't add any more to the article after a suitable amount of time, even after a gentle reminder on their talk page, I'd tag it as WP:A7 for lacking any indication of importance, since going missing and turning up dead is not a claim of significance.

Additional question from SoWhy

11. I noticed you are not using edit summaries all the time. If this request is successful, would you be willing to turn on "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in your preferences?

A: I would be willing to turn that feature on. I explain my edits more often than not, but a reminder to do so when I've forgotten certainly can't hurt.

Additional questions from Mendaliv

12. You come across an article that has been tagged for A7. Upon examining the article, you conclude that the article meets the criterion, and that there are no policy reasons why you may not delete the article (e.g., no issue of notice to the article creator, no COI on your part, no ongoing active development). What would you do between making these determinations and deleting the article, if anything? Why? (If your specific response would depend upon facts not stated here, please discuss this and note the difference such facts might make.)

A: If the article subject looks interesting to me – that is, it's something I would consider writing about – I would take a brief look online to see if maybe there's some more information out there on the subject that previous editors and taggers might have missed that would allow me to flesh out the article and show not only a claim of significance but perhaps even notability.

13. You have been a Wikipedian for nearly twelve years. In this time, how has your perception of administrators and adminship changed?

A: I can't say that my perception has changed very much, though I don't recall how exactly I perceived admins in my earlier days on Wikipedia (beyond them never being at AIV when I wanted them). I suppose the main thing is that admins feel so much rarer nowadays. Not necessarily that I don't come across them very often, but rather that it's the same handful that I see around most of the time.

Additional question from Beeblebrox

14. So, since your an expert on images, I just used the "upload a new version" feature to update a corporate logo. I now realize that in nearly ten years of editing I had never done this specific action before. So, serious question that I actually don't know the answer to: should I now delete the old version of the file, and what policy explains why I should do so?

A: Yes, the old revision of the logo should be deleted. A logo uploaded under fair use is non-free content and must fulfill the non-free content criteria. So, if you upload a new version of a logo over the old one, the old one is no longer in use in an article and fails WP:NFCC#7. The file page should be tagged with {{subst:orphaned non-free revisions}} and deleted per WP:F5.

Additional question from BU Rob13

15. Interested in images? Have an inevitable copyright question! In each of the following cases, we either can't accept the image entirely or we can only accept the image on the English Wikipedia (i.e. don't transfer to Commons). Explain which is true and why. If necessary information is missing, explain what information you would need to make such a determination. Some of these scenarios are tricky, and "I don't know" is a far better answer than something incorrect. Good luck.

• In 1952, an American artist painted a self-portrait. He posts the image on his website with the statement "I want this to be available on the internet!"
• Same scenario, but the statement reads "I release this image under the CC-BY-SA license."
• Same scenario, but the statement reads "I release this image under the CC-BY-NC 2.0 license."
• In 1925, a French artist painted a portrait of his mentor and gifted it to him in thanks for his teaching. The mentor died in 1950. The mentor's sole heir releases the painting under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.
• In 1904, a Mexican artist painted a portrait. It is not available under any free license.
• A picture of a cheerleading uniform taken by an independent photographer is released under the CC0 license by the photographer.
• A picture of a cheerleading uniform taken by an independent photographer is released under the CC0 license by the owner of the company that designed the uniform.
• I take a picture of a new building created by one of the best living architects in France.
• I hand my phone to a friend and have them take a picture of me. I release it under a license stating "I irrevocably allow anyone to use this image for any purpose."
• I take a selfie and release the image under the following statement: "At this time, I allow anyone to use this work in any manner they see fit and for any purpose."

A:

Additional questions from L3X1

16. Do you believe an obvious failure of the GNG justifies the application of A7, or should it go to AfD? Thanks

A:

17 How will you treat foully uncivil comments from established users? Insta-24 if no sign of repentance? Or a long discussion re: their behavior?

A:

Additional question from Northamerica1000

18. This is a bit in line with Question #7 above. So, lets say an AfD discussion based upon topic notability has been open seven days with no commentary, but upon checking out sources in Google News and Google Books (per the Find sources template atop the discussion), you see many news articles and coverage in books that could potentially demonstrate notability. What are your options for dealing with this type of AfD?

A:

Discussion

• Links for Clpo13: Clpo13 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Clpo13 can be found here.

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

Support

1. Support as nominator. Sam Walton (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support per nom. Excellent experience and no immediate red flags. --Joshualouie711^talk 16:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - Seen Clp013 around, I see nothing to make me think they would abuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support: From the three questions, and the nominations, I can see this being beneficial. —JJBers 16:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Seems to be a great user who answers every question on their talk page (that can be answered in a respectful manner). The speedy deletion log is great. No reason to oppose here. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - Seen this user around, seems like a good qualified candidate, should be fine! Good luck. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Great answers to the questions to this point, respect the nominator. Would be a net plus. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support per nom. Net positive for sure. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support per nom. No red flags for me (from what I have found so far) and I'm satisfied with the answers given to the questions (so far). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support No issues at all, good luck. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - With the editor's extensive track record, I already thought he was an admin. Very deserving of the tools. It would undoubtedly boost the project.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support based on answers to Q4 and Q6. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support per answer to question 6. Everything else looks fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - I've seen clpo around and am familiar with their work and judgement. No concerns. -- Dane ^talk 17:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Clueful and policy-fluent answers, trustworthy nominator, cleaned block log, good interuser interactions. Easy decision. FourViolas (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - great work and judgement; a no-brainer. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 18:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Been around, seen around. No concerns. Widr (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
19. No concerns: the candidate is experienced, competent, and trustworthy. The answer to my question was perfectly sound, so I have no qualms about the user's stated intention of working extensively with AfD. Best of luck for the remainder of the RfA and, presumably, in your new role as an admin. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Really liked the answers, well thought out and very competent responses. Actually learned something too, which is great because I want to get more involved in these discussions myself. Good luck with the nomination! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Happy with the answer to my question (the Monkey selfie is as good a reason as any to declare file copyrights as very complicated indeed). I am happy with the answer to Q3. No other concerns. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support FFD and other areas related to files is a place where we really need more admins, and the candidate seems to have good solid knowledge that could be put to good use. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support 40,000+ edits for 10+ years is about 4,000 edits a year. also, he has more than enough experience. The garmine ^(talk) 19:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support – Fully qualified for the role. Clpo13 has sufficient experience working in the janitorial areas of Wikipedia, and his understanding of these processes is shown through his contributions in the filespace, which often involve complicated copyright questions that he is knowledgeable about, as well as in the deletion process and in countervandalism. He also has experience creating and working with content. His ability to communicate this understanding is also apparent in his answers to the questions so far, and overall, he seems like a friendly user who would be a pleasure to work with as an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Well though out answers to the questions listed. They have my confidence. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
26. (edit conflict) Support as you are in pillar 1! Linguist^talk|contribs 19:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support I like the answer to Q4, also the experience is a plus. Easy to support. South Nashua (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
28. (edit conflict)Support: Have seen the editor a few times, no issues overall. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Fully qualified candidate. (For what it's worth, I'll mention that I found question 6 to be an easier "delete" call than the candidate did.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support as a clear net positive. Excellent candidate. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - a model candidate. No issues to speak of; a clear net positive. 65HCA7 21:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support I'm impressed by the question answers, and could not find any problems in my review of selected contributions. Mamyles (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support No concerns. :-) Katie^talk 21:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Looks competent and worthy of a mop.  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Good answers to the questions and well qualified. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, easily. Everything I look at lines up right for me, and we can always use more admins working with files. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. I have no concerns. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Why not? -FASTILY 23:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. Indeed, why not? Double sharp (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
40. Sure. — foxj 23:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. I have seen nothing but good things from this editor. bd2412 T 23:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. No reason not to. I've taken a look at their answers and their contribs and everything's fine. Good luck with the mop. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Overall good. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Very experienced and well-rounded editor who has helped me many times in the past. Sro23 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Experienced, interested in janitorial work on files. Sensible and well thought-out answers. Hand them the mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support per nom. Good candidate. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support The candidate can delete files listed at FfD, for example, if he becomes an admin. He voted "delete" on one of the files I have nominated for FfD, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 April 7#File:Haroon Akhtar Khan 2016.jpg. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support net positive-hood likely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
49. support the good reasons are mostly taken. Looks trustworthy. Dlohcierekim 01:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support I have no concerns. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Looks good! We do need more admins experienced in copyright and FfD matters. Nsk92 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
52. Stephen 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Has established trustworthiness over a long time. Experience in several areas. Interested in work that needs administrator attention. Very good answers. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Admins who are fluent in copyright structue will be a net positive to the project. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support No concerns. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 02:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support The response to Q4, even without the update, just about had me supporting. Clpo13's took ownership of a mistake without a lot of hedging or excuses, and moreover showed what he'd do next time. I believe this shows a high degree of professionalism commensurate with Clpo13's tenure. That it turned out not to be so much a mistake as a reasonable degree of uncertainty regarding a thorny issue of copyright law doesn't change the beauty of this moment. I went on to ask my own questions, Q12 and Q13, to elicit a bit more about Clpo13's thought process and attitudes. I was pleased not only to see responses that were not only thoughtful but concise. I found Clpo13's response to Q12 to be frank and reflective of a realistic attitude about adminship; an unsatisfactory answer to me would have been an effective commitment to do outside research prior to any A7 deletion, which would reflect an unrealistic attitude about the voluntary nature of our work here, as well as suggest a misunderstanding of the focus of A7 deletions on form rather than substance. I'm proud to support your candidacy, Clpo13. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - long time editor, will not likely abuse the tools. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - clearly qualified. I examined the opposes from the first RFA, and I'm satisfied that whatever grounds may once have existed to oppose are no longer an issue. Steve Smith (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. Has gained much experience since 2008 RfA, and has proven reliable. The project will benefit if Clpo13 is able to use the tools. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support An all-around strong candidate. I made a note about the candidate's response to question 12 in the general comment section about the need to review page histories before performing a delete, but this is a minor issue for an otherwise stellar candidate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support most definitely. Hope to have the pleasure of adding you you in the WP:ANEWS new administrators section! Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 05:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
63. No concerns. I took a look at some of their content work, their AfD edits, and their posts to ANI/AN3. Their edits show them to be prolific, civil, and knowledgeable. The answers to the questions here reflect that. Vanamonde (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - appears to be very competent and well-spoken. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 08:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support No concerns about competence, I'm particularly impressed by the way Question 4 was addressed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Seems to grok Wikipedia well. Andrew D. (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support particularly in light of the excellent answers given concerning files for deletion, moving files to Commons and general outlook on orphaned images. It's an area where there are often no definitive answers, so to have someone who has a great deal of common sense and thoughtfulness, as I believe Clpo13 does, administrating in this area will be a benefit to both our project here, and across the way on Commons. Nick (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
68. Oppose, per ridiculous overlinking,[1][2] watchlist-clogging self-reversions,[3][4] and creation of unsourced biographies.[5] Sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

General comments

• With all due respect to the asker, question 15 strikes me as a "Multi-part questions disguised as one question". Should this be allowed? -FASTILY 01:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't bother me (aside from arguably being a bit too rigorous for the purpose of enwiki adminship, but all the better if the candidate answers well). As far as I can tell, it's no different from the hypothetical usernames questions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Same. I think it's just a straightforward policy quiz rather than an open-ended question asking for in-depth musings on policy, which strike me as more what the question restriction is aimed at limiting. I think the rigor is fine given the candidate as well, who professes an interest for and experience in copyright issues; not because those are specifically relevant to enwiki adminship, but because they provide a look into the candidate's ability to master technical rules. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As the person who asked the question, I want to address a few things. First, I see no difference between my question and username policy questions. My question is multi-part, but it's all tightly related, with many parts having only minor deviations from each other. Second, I recognize my question is on the long side, which is why I've chosen to limit my total questions asked to one instead of two voluntarily. Third, the rigor requested is not below that expected of an admin dealing with images. Some parts are difficult, but if an admin closed things like this incorrectly at FfD, we'd end up hosting a copyright violation on our site in many cases. That's one of the worst possible outcomes of any process on-wiki as it opens us up to legal liability. It's also possible an admin who consciously chooses to retain an image when they've been alerted to copyright issues could be personally sued for infringement by failing to act. I don't know the copyright holder would win such a case, but they'd at least drive the contributor into the poor house through legal bills. Given the legal issues at play, it is highly important both for the community and the candidate that we ensure they understand copyright at a high level. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think BU Rob13's question is fine. If Clpo13 has prepared themselves by reading through the last few successful RfA's they'll be aware that these types of "mini-quiz" questions are the latest trend, and it's no different to the highly predictable User Names thing. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I dislike the multi-part question trend as much as the next person, but this is at least relevant to the areas of administrative activity that the candidate wants to take part in, unlike the ever-present UAA question. We've generally allowed this kind of question recently, unless they are truly excessive - lists of >10 usernames, for instance, have been questioned, IIRC. I think at this point if we want to stop these kinds of questions we need to formally sort that out as a general guideline for RfAs, rather than re-litigating it every time one comes up and failing to come to any broad consensus. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to question 12, you always need to check the page history before speedy deletion since its possible that there is a valid article that was covered up by a vandal or for some other non-policy based reason. I'm going to support your candidacy, but please keep this in mind when working with speedy deletes. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fair concern, though I'd point out my question was phrased explicitly to eliminate these possibilities. I intended it explicitly to focus on what the candidate would do in between properly concluding that policy allows for deletion and actually deleting the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]