Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Newslinger

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

Final (135/4/2); closed as successful by Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! at 10:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger (talk · contribs) – I've recently noticed Newslinger making thoughtful and insightful comments on several noticeboards. I then took a look at their contributions and was quite impressed - as well as diligently working on articles, they've got a good track record at AfD, can take care of vandals and trolls, and in particular have a flair for caretaking RfC closes, which is something not too many admins get involved in. He can talk a good argument and stand his ground when challenged by existing admins, while also respecting their views - such as this noticeboard thread about his non-admin closure of a policy change.

Like many RfA candidates, Newslinger was a little apprehensive about running the RfA gauntlet, but I really think he should give it a go. It's always good to get new blood in the admin corps, especially those who can communicate well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing Newslinger's contributions to RfC closes and noticeboard discussions for a while, and had noticed, in particular, the work he put into discussions about sources. He has a well-rounded history on Wikipedia; he's created a few articles, and put considerable effort into cleaning up a few others, so he knows his way around content. He has a solid track record at AfD, and has experience with counter-vandalism. He communicates clearly, and perhaps most importantly, has been able to keep his cool and remain polite in contentious discussions. I think the admin corps will benefit from Newslinger's skill set. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is a cornerstone of our project, critical for maintaining and keeping Wikipedia as a useful resource, and few editors spend as much time thinking about sources as Newslinger. Their experience thinking about the reliability of sources is next-level. Newslinger's content creation chops are strong: there's great value to be had in improving existing stickers, especially doing it the hard way. Maybe it's not flashy but it proves a deep understanding of our content policies and, importantly, how they translate to novel and difficult scenarios.

In the end, though, the reason I'm here is because Newslinger is a thoughtful and considered editor who is very good at explaining to others how they arrived at a given outcome. Newslinger has a great AfD !voting record, but importantly even the "misses" show good understanding of and receptivity to arguments made by others and based on policy and guidelines arguments. This is important for closing and reading consensus from difficult discussions and is vital for responding to questions and criticism of administrative tasks. This is what I want in a sysop and what makes a good one. I hope you'll join me in supporting them! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you, Ritchie333, Vanamonde93, and Amorymeltzer, for taking the time to nominate me. I have never edited for pay, and do not have any alternative accounts. — Newslinger talk 10:09, 16 December 2019 (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: If approved by the community, I intend to participate in the following administrative areas:

• Closing more controversial requests for comment (RfCs): The requests for closure noticeboard is frequently backlogged, and I have been closing RfCs to help editors proceed with implementing consensus. Most of my closures are indexed in the noticeboard archives (primarily 26, 27, and 28). Two of my more detailed closing summaries can be found in Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 14 § Juan Guaido RfC and Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 11 § About Santa Claus. Currently, I refrain from closing highly contentious discussions, especially when "the outcome is a close call", as noted in WP:BADNAC. Adminship would allow me to close more controversial RfCs, which lets me attend to requests for closure more effectively.
• Attending to the spam blacklist and spam whitelist noticeboards: The spam blacklist and spam whitelist are in the MediaWiki namespace, which is fully protected. Adminship would allow me to answer requests to add or remove domains from these lists, and also implement consensus on additions or removals that are proposed on the reliable sources noticeboard.
• Patrolling sockpuppet investigations (SPI): Sockpuppetry halts progress on affected articles, and I have previously filed over a dozen SPIs, which can be found here. The most extensive one, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sfj340sfeoem71/Archive § 02 October 2019, covered 14 suspected sockpuppets who took an interest in a controversy described in the Rob Andrews article. As an administrator, I would patrol open SPIs and take administrative action when warranted to help reduce article disruption.
• Closing articles for deletion (AfD) discussions: I would close AfD discussions when there is a backlog. Please see my AfD stats for a summary of my past participation in AfD discussions.
• Other administrative areas: I would also attend to vandalism reports, username reports, protection requests, permission requests, undeletion requests, and move requests that require administrative attention.

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

A: My best-known contribution to Wikipedia is my work on the perennial sources list (WP:RSP), an index of sources whose reliability has been repeatedly discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. The list was started by MrX and contains contributions from 101 editors, as well as the insight of hundreds of editors who participated in noticeboard discussions. Thousands of editors review the list every month as a starting point for evaluating which sources should be used to support content in articles in compliance with the verifiability policy (WP:V) and the reliable sources guideline (WP:RS).

Although I have created a few articles, such as I Admit (R. Kelly song), most of my contributions in article space focus on improving existing articles. For example, after the previously mentioned sockpuppet investigation for Sfj340sfeoem71 was closed, I added a neutral and comprehensive description of the controversy in the Rob Andrews article and replaced the imprecise wording that motivated the sockpuppetry. More recently, after the Casting couch article was reduced to a stub for being an indiscriminate list, I expanded the article with content that examined the topic in general.

I also dedicate considerable effort to improving article sourcing. Source checks can result in the following:

• Reliable sources are added, such as the ones listed in the AfD discussions for the Phoenix (compiler framework) (AfD) and 4imprint plc (AfD) articles.
• Self-published sources (by non-experts), questionable sources, sponsored content, and unverifiable content are removed, as seen in the WeChat (diff) article.
• Sources that are less reliable are replaced by sources that are more reliable, as seen in the Ihor Tenyukh (diff) and Sandra Dodd (diff) articles.

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 frequent the reliable sources noticeboard and have helped resolve a number of content disputes that were discussed there. One of the more stressful conflicts was the 2018 WorldNetDaily RfC, in which an editor asked me to explain how I determined that WorldNetDaily was generally unreliable from 16 past noticeboard discussions. Each of us evaluated 8 of those discussions in depth, and the rest of the commenters expressed their opinions in the RfC's survey section. In the RfC, I took care to support my arguments with the relevant policies and guidelines, and I will continue to deliver policy-compliant rationales in future discussions.

Challenges to closures can also be stressful situations, and I respond to them by explaining my reasoning as transparently as I can. Most of the time, my answer adequately addresses the challenge and no further action is taken, as seen in User talk:Newslinger/Archive 2 § monitor lizard. On rare occasions, my closing statement is found to be deficient in some way, and I amend it appropriately. In Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4 § Request for comment, I clarified my ambiguous closing statement. In Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2) § RfC, I struck my closing statement and replaced it with a different one, as I had misread a guideline. When I make a mistake, I do not hesitate to acknowledge and correct it.

In my experience, the best approach to handling content disputes is to focus on article content, not editor conduct. Adminship would have no bearing on my involvement in content disputes. (I can close more controversial RfCs, but only if I am uninvolved.) I will continue to use content-oriented methods to resolve content disputes regardless of whether the community approves my request for adminship.

I have rarely been involved in conduct disputes, with the exception of reporting vandals and sockpuppets.

---

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 Interstellarity

4. If you are elected to be an admin, would you place yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles?

A: Yes, I would place myself in both categories. All editors with permissions are accountable for their actions, and the sysop permission requires an even higher standard of accountability, as explained in Wikipedia:Administrators § Accountability (WP:ADMINACCT). If the community shows consensus to implement a standardized recall process, I would be willing to participate regardless of whether it is mandatory or optional.

If elected, I would be willing to provide copies of deleted articles in accordance with the undeletion policy, and also attend to requests for undeletion. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 17 December 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Carrite

5. Was Newslinger your first account at Wikipedia? If not, what previous account or accounts did you use?

A: Yes, Newslinger is my first and only Wikipedia account. I have no previous or alternative accounts.

I have previously edited Wikipedia without an account, although these edits were minor and infrequent, primarily copyediting and reverting obvious vandalism. I had already been familiar with basic features of Wikipedia (including the page history, user talk page, and user contributions page) when I joined. Wikitext was not difficult for me to learn, since I had prior experience with Markdown and web template systems.

After reading the Vandalism on Wikipedia article, I became more interested in Wikipedia, and created my account to try out recent changes patrol. I made sure to study the relevant policies and guidelines before jumping into any unfamiliar area on Wikipedia. (Regarding my protection request linked in Lepricavark's comment: the instructions for submitting a protection request are at the top of WP:RFPP, and I found them fairly straightforward.) I also learned by observing experienced editors (including other recent changes patrollers), and discovered Twinkle from the "TW" tags in their edit summaries.

Twinkle exposed me to many of Wikipedia's procedures (including WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, WP:AFD, and WP:MFD) and provided an accessible interface for me to make efficient use of them. The gadget let me properly participate in these areas much sooner than I would have otherwise done on my own.

If you have any concerns about my editing patterns, please ask a follow-up question and I'll be happy to answer it as well as I can. — Newslinger talk 04:04, 17 December 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - Well, now that you mention it, there are a number of highly idiosyncratic edits for a new editor that took place around your first day, April 18, 2008. I'll raise them in the order they caught my attention and any illumination you can provide would be appreciated: (A) You launched your user page not by typing "Hello, my name is Steve and I like to surf" or whatever, but by dropping two templates { {user page} } and { {open task} }. That's all. That would seem to be a first for a new editor. It indicates to me a very high level of preexisiting familiarity with WP's templates, more than a casual once-in-a-while IP editor is likely to have. I'd be curious about where and when you learned of templates and where you found those particular templates. (B) You corrected obvious vandalism on Hillary Clinton one minute after it was made with your 19th edit, never having edited that page before. How did you accomplish this as a new editor without a watchlist? (C) I count 43 edits the first day, which is a lot but not unheard of — there is currently an RFA for another class of 2018 new editor who racked 66 the first day. What is highly unusual is that by my count 11 of these were vandalism warnings to IP editors. What moved you, who edited once in a while as an IP, to suddenly begin hammering vandals with warnings on day one? (D) With your eighth edit ever you used the edit summary: "Remove link spam from non-notable website in irrelevant field." This seems to intimate a preexisting knowledge of Wikipedia insider slang ("link spam") as well as WP's notability doctrines ("non-notable website"). Please help me understand how you had a grasp of such things as a newbie. (E) After an initial frenzy of activity in April 2018, you went two whole months with only 32 edits combined. Then you returned with a vengeance with a fairly astonishing 1,874 edits in July 2018 and have never have had fewer than 631 edits in any single month since. Please help us to understand what was going on during those two months that caused you to drop out of Wikipedia so completely and what motivated you to come back so vigorously. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'll address your points one-by-one:

• A – While editing, I noticed that my username was shown in red in page histories, and felt that it reflected on me in a bad way – similar to how the Twitter egg avatar had a maligned reputation. However, I am conscious of my Internet privacy and prefer not to reveal my personal information online. I decided to fill the page with something useful, and selected {{open task}} for this purpose; I found this template on a project page – I think the page was Wikipedia:Maintenance, but I don't remember exactly which one. I added {{user page}}, because I saw it on another user's page, and thought it was nice to have. (I later decided that it was unnecessary, and removed it.) Before I joined Wikipedia, I had previously used web template systems, including Mustache, that featured template transclusion (although they didn't use the term transclusion).
• B – I was participating in recent changes patrol, and the edit that introduced the vandalism appeared in the recent changes log. I did not make use of my watchlist at that time. Recent changes patrolling is fast-paced; for higher-profile articles, if you do not revert vandalism quickly after it is introduced, some other editor would likely to do so before you. There were other instances of vandalism that other patrollers had undone before me, and my attempts to revert were prevented by the edit conflict. I just happened to be fast enough when I reverted the edit on the Hillary Clinton article.
• C – I created my account with the intention of participating in recent changes patrol. The Vandalism on Wikipedia article motivated me to join Wikipedia as a registered user, and informed me of the user warning system.
• D – Link spam is not exclusive to Wikipedia, and I had previously encountered it on other websites. I had a basic understanding of notability when I joined Wikipedia, as I had previously noticed the AfD template on articles before, and had seen some AfD discussions. Although I joined Wikipedia as a registered user in April 2018, I had been reading Wikipedia for many years before that.
• E – I was traveling during May–June 2018, and had limited Internet access. Additionally, since Wikipedia is a volunteer service, I occasionally take breaks to focus on other things. May–June 2018 is my longest wikibreak to date. When I returned, I resumed recent changes patrolling, but also tried other things including article writing and participating in deletion discussions. The variety of things to do on Wikipedia held my interest, and I then began to participate as an editor in a more dedicated capacity.

I hope this answers your questions. If not, I'll do my best to clarify further. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from John M Wolfson

6. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?

A: The following assumes that the article was created in article space, and is about a real school.

• These criteria are likely to apply:
  • G12 (copyright infringement) almost certainly applies. A spot check of schools listed in Category:Elementary and primary schools reveals that many elementary school websites have a copyright notice, and I didn't find any sites that were under a compatible free license.
  • G11 (advertising and promotion) would apply if the copied content from the website were written in a highly promotional tone, or would cause the article to violate WP:NOTPROMO or WP:LINKSPAM.
  • G8 (page dependent on deleted page) would apply to the talk page of the article, if the article gets deleted for any reason (including another criterion listed here) and the talk page were no longer useful.
• These criteria may apply:
  • G4 (recreation of page deleted through discussion) may apply if an article that is substantially identical to the new article were previously deleted through its most recent AfD discussion, and were not subsequently undeleted.
  • G5 (content from banned/blocked users) may apply if the article creator were subject to an active block or applicable ban when they created the article.
  • G7 (author requests deletion) would apply if the article creator indicated that they wanted the article deleted.
• These criteria are unlikely to apply:
  • G1 (patent nonsense), G3 (vandalism and hoaxes), or G10 (attack page) could apply if the website were vandalized (e.g. through user-generated comments or a security exploit) in a way that would cause the article to be identified as one of these things.
  • G2 (test page) or A3 (no content) may apply if the user selectively copied a portion of the website in a way that would cause the article to be identified as either of these things.
  • G9 (office action) would apply if the Wikimedia Foundation authorized an office action for the deletion of the article.
  • A1 (no context) would apply if the copied content does not provide enough context to identify the school.
  • A2 (redundant foreign language article) may apply if an existing page on a non-English Wikimedia project has substantially identical content.
  • A10 (duplicate article) would apply if there were already an existing article for the school, and the new article would not make a plausible redirect to the existing one.
• These criteria do not apply:
  • A7 (no indication of importance) specifically excludes educational institutions, which include elementary schools.
  • G6 (technical deletion), G13 (abandoned AfC submission), A5 (transwikied articles), A9 (unimportant musical recording), A11 (obviously invented), and X2 (created by content translation tool) do not apply.
  • G14 (unnecessary disambiguation) does not apply, assuming that the article content is not identifiable as a disambiguation page.
  • Other criteria in WP:CSD § List of criteria do not apply to non-redirect pages in article space.

— Newslinger talk 10:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from ToThAc

7. In your opinion, what circumstances would be necessary to ensure that deprecation of a source would have a more desired outcome than simply denoting it as generally unreliable?

A: Deprecated sources are questionable sources for which the community has authorized technical measures (including edit filters set to "warn") to discourage editors from citing them in articles. Since these measures affect the entire article space, we have historically used requests for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard to gauge community consensus on whether a source should be deprecated.

Setting aside the RfC requirement, there are several situations in which it would be more appropriate to designate a source as generally unreliable than to deprecate it:

• The source is a publishing platform used by reliable sources: Platforms such as YouTube (RSP entry) do not vet content published by their users, and are considered self-published sources. However, many reliable sources publish content on these platforms, which inherits the reliability of their primary publication if the content is subject to similar editorial standards. We don't want to discourage editors from citing reliable sources just because they are published on a platform that allows unreliable sources.
• The source is frequently used for uncontroversial self-descriptions: Social media sites such as Twitter (RSP entry) are often used for uncontroversial self-descriptions (WP:ABOUTSELF). When there are enough valid uses of these sources, the inconvenience of technical measures outweighs their benefits.
• There is no way to distinguish affected pages through their URLs: All of our technical measures use URL patterns to determine which links are affected. If we can't construct a pattern that targets only the deprecated source while leaving other sources unaffected, deprecation would not be technically possible. This is a problem for sources that have different classifications for separate aspects of the same website. For example, Forbes staff writers (RSP entry) are generally reliable, while Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) are questionable, even though both of them publish articles at forbes.com/sites.
• External links to the source are commonly used: External links do not necessarily have to be to reliable sources, as long as they meet the requirements of the relevant guideline. There are some sources that are not appropriate as article citations, because they host user-generated content, but are still commonly used as external links. Examples include Crunchbase (RSP entry), Discogs (RSP entry), and IMDb (RSP entry). Deprecation authorizes an edit filter, and there is no practical way to have edit filters apply to references, but not external links. Thus, the RfC closer would have to explicitly exclude edit filters in the closing summary, as seen in the Crunchbase RfC, and the source would only be partially deprecated. A more targeted approach would be to submit the source for just the technical measures, such as in the IMDb RfC.
• The source is already blacklisted: If the source is on the spam blacklist, editors are already prevented from citing the source in articles. Deprecation would have no additional effect for non-whitelisted links to the source, and the necessary RfC would serve no purpose.

When a source is highly questionable and often cited inappropriately, yet fits none of the above situations, deprecating the source would be a more effective solution for ensuring article quality than simply designating it as generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 13:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Andrew Davidson

8. Please could you explain your choice of account name. For example, is it parsed as News-linger or New-slinger?

A: The username Newslinger is a combination of the words news and slinger. It's a fancy name for a newspaper carrier. This video provides a good illustration.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't use this username for anything unrelated to Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'm also not affiliated with Batt Humphreys, the executive producer of Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson who apparently used the word Newslinger in his Twitter bio at least three years before I came up with it. — Newslinger talk 15:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I was a paperboy myself, in my teens. But I would always post the newspaper through the letter box. The US idea of just slinging the newspapers into the front garden always seemed strange. Surely the wind and rain will tend to ruin them? I trust you take more care with your deliveries on Wikipedia. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a crime in the US for anyone not working for the postal service to put anything in someone's mailbox. Seriously. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9. What is your opinion on these mass deletions of over 1000's articles in here .These Articles were created years ago some created as early as as 2009 when they were listed in WP:FPL and passed the SNG WP:NFOOTY.Now on on Nov 23rd 2019 .It was decided that the Russian Professional Football League was not fully pro hence would these articles now fail the SNG.Do you believe that articles articles can be mass deleted retrospectively for anything (other than BLP violations).(Please note Football is the most popular sport in Russia and receives high media coverage)

A: Nominating a large number of articles for proposed deletion in a short period of time, as seen in Special:Diff/931335879 § PROD, is allowed by the deletion policy, the proposed deletion policy, and the deletion process guideline. I think a mass nomination of athlete biographies is the only practical way to address the disqualification of the Russian Professional Football League from criterion #2 the WP:NFOOTY guideline, although I understand that interested editors and reviewing administrators are likely to consider the workload of evaluating the nominated biographies to be burdensome. Slowing the rate of nomination would spread the burden across a longer period of time, which would make the nominations more palatable to reviewers at the expense of protracting the cleanup process.

Editors are expected to take an interest when articles they have created or substantially contributed to are nominated for deletion. Likewise, relevant WikiProjects are expected to take an interest when articles under their scopes are nominated for deletion. Even though the subjects of the nominated biographies no longer qualify for criterion #2 of WP:NFOOTY, they could still remain eligible for articles by meeting the general notability guideline or another subject notability guideline. It takes time and effort to find sources for articles, especially when the article subject is based in a country that does not use English as its primary language. Since proposed deletion imposes a 7-day deadline for objections before the article is eligible for deletion, a mass nomination compels interested editors to expend a nontrivial amount of resources to assess whether these biographies meet these notability guidelines before the time limit elapses. I count 990 proposed deletions within the last two weeks in the list you provided, almost all of which are related to the re-evaluation of the RPFL; such a high volume would be particularly stressful to conduct a comprehensive search for.

In this scenario, the editor who nominated these articles was also the editor who created a large number of them. I think it's great that Geregen2 contributed all of these articles to Wikipedia, and was also willing to assist with cleanup when the articles no longer met the notability guidelines. However, since the ownership of content policy states that "No one [...] has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page", a mass nomination should preferably be done in cooperation with WikiProject Football. On the other hand, the absence of controversy on User talk:Geregen2, WT:FPL, and WT:WPF gives me the impression that the mass nomination was generally well-received. I see that Geregen2 reduced the number of articles they nominated from 500 to 100 per day in response to the comment at User talk:Geregen2 § Proposed deletions, and received a barnstar for their cleanup efforts at User talk:Geregen2 § A barnstar for you!

I would advise any editor who objects to the mass nomination to start a discussion at WT:WPF and propose an alternative cleanup strategy for the remaining biographies. Improperly sourced articles on living persons do constitute violations of the biographies of living persons policy, so leaving these biographies in place with no action would not be ideal. — Newslinger talk 13:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the largest editor in the Russian Professional Football League areas is this editor who has received over 650 prod notifications .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from New3400

10. How long do you edit Wikipedia per day?

A: Too long. — Newslinger talk 14:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

11. What is your understanding of WP:BEFORE?

A: WP:BEFORE is a series of recommended steps to take prior to nominating an article for deletion. In deletion discussions, editors most commonly invoke WP:BEFORE to refer to a cursory search for reliable sources that determines whether a deletion nomination would be reasonable. WP:BEFORE searches do not need to be exhaustive, but they should usually include a major general-purpose search engine (e.g. Google Search) and several subject-oriented specialized search engines (e.g. Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar). If a WP:BEFORE search fails to return results that establish the article subject's notability per the applicable guidelines, and the article is inadequately sourced, an editor would be reasonably justified to proceed with a deletion nomination. — Newslinger talk 12:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Followup to Q 9 Do you think the WP:BEFORE should be done by the nominator particurly for mass nominations when a user is noming 500 or 100 articles a day in this case a check whether there are sources in the Russian language to pass WP:GNG and whether player has played for a diffrent club or his club has been promoted at a higher level in the Russian Premier League,or Russian Football National League which remain fully Professional Leagues for example hence would pass WP:NFOOTY.

A: Sorry Pharaoh of the Wizards, but I'm declining to give a "yes" or "no" answer to this question, because I don't think we should be evaluating specific actions taken by Geregen2 on a page where they don't have an open opportunity to respond, especially when they haven't been questioned about this in a more suitable venue. I'm concerned about how there is more discussion regarding Geregen2's mass nominations on this page than on User talk:Geregen2, WT:WPF, and WT:FPL.

At WT:FPL § Status of 3rd-level pro-football in Russia, one editor Miraclepine said that "Each one should have a WP:BEFORE done on both their English and Russian names before sending them to WP:PROD." Geregen2 responded:

The words "checking everybody's career" indicate to me that Geregen2 may have been performing "basic due diligence" on the articles they have nominated, in accordance with WP:BEFORE. Geregen2 does appear to be checking for participation in the first-level (Russian Premier League) and second-level (Russian Football National League) tiers of the Russian football league system. If you want more details about how Geregen2 is verifying these biographies, please ask Geregen2 directly, because I don't have details on their verification process and it's not my place to speak on their behalf. — Newslinger talk 12:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Miraclepine's username to the above, as they have commented about the matter on this page. — Newslinger talk 10:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Geregen2 Question 9 also posted to another candidate was meant to a General regarding mass nomination a not a personal one regarding a particular user.Through the nominations were done around 3 minutes intervals ,I never state that the concerned user did not do WP:BEFORE ,it was meant only a general one Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

​For the general case, I would recommend basic source checks (as described in WP:BEFORE) prior to all deletion nominations, including mass nominations. When an article on a clearly notable subject is nominated for deletion without a source check, the nomination unnecessarily increases the workload of interested editors and reviewing administrators. For mass nominations, editors don't necessarily have to perform source checks immediately before nominating each article; for example, they could check sources for a list of articles, and then post the nominations all at once. I'm sorry if the tone of my previous answer was a bit harsh, but in case you had any specific concerns, I wanted to ensure that you directed them to the right place. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Jasphetamine

12. Given your strong desire to prevent sock puppets from causing problems, would you approach a user reported as a sock looking to prove the accusation correct, or would you first ascertain if a good faith action by an editor was misconstrued?

A: Assuming good faith is a critical guideline that should be upheld in all areas on Wikipedia, including sockpuppet investigations (SPIs). When patrolling SPIs, I would work under the assumption that an editor is innocent until compelling evidence shows the contrary. In behavioral investigations, the burden of proof is on the filer of the SPI to provide evidence of misconduct.

Some SPIs involve editors who blatantly violate our policies with multiple accounts, e.g. when different accounts spam external links to the same commercial website using near-identical language; these cases are fairly straightforward to resolve. Other SPIs involve actions that are more ambiguous; in these cases, it is important to ensure that editors are cleared of blame when suspicious behavioral patterns turn out to be a coincidence. When the behavioral evidence is unclear, I would ask the reported editor to explain their actions, which gives the editor a chance to show that their actions were misconstrued. I could also request CheckUser assistance, which has the potential to clear the editor with technical evidence.

When the presented evidence is inadequate to show misconduct, I would recommend no action to be taken on the SPI, and I would not approach the reported editor at all. — Newslinger talk 10:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a flawless answer, so here's my mild curveball: An SPI being conducted by a more senior admin in contravention of the investigatory standards you outlined above is brought to your attention. What's your next move? Jasphetamine (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with any non-trivial procedural dispute, I would first relay the concern to the administrator and ask them to explain the reasoning behind their actions. For non-sensitive issues, this conversation would take place on the SPI page if it were not yet archived, or on the administrator's user talk page if the SPI were already archived. If the administrator's response were lacking, I would escalate the issue to the administrators' noticeboard, where a broader section of the community would review the actions taken. Consensus in the noticeboard discussion would determine whether any actions should be reversed, or whether any additional actions should be taken with respect to the SPI.

If the concerns brought to my attention were of a sensitive nature, I would use private means (such as email) to communicate with the administrator. If I needed to escalate a sensitive issue, I would contact the functionaries mailing list or another Arbitration Committee mailing list depending on the nature of the issue.

Since I am not a checkuser, I do not have access to technical data from the CheckUser tool. Without this data, I am unable to verify the results of technical investigations, and I generally assume that they are correct. Checkusers are assigned a high level of trust, as they are selectively appointed by the Arbitration Committee, which is elected by the community. Any concerns related to checkusers should be brought to the Arbitration Committee. — Newslinger talk 21:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Newslinger: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Newslinger 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, as co-nominator. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Limited content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as I too have noticed what the noms have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support damn ~ thought Newslinger already was one ~ the editors' actions sure do mimic other good administrators ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support: I’ve had positive interactions with Newslinger in the past. He would use the tools constructively at noticeboards like AfD, RfC, and SPI (which do suffer from backlogs). — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. 2018 WorldNetDaily RfC is impressive, both in skill-level and temperament; also impressed by noms whose judgement I respect. Britishfinance (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support This editor has been contributing for the past 21 months, the tenure should not be a concern to oppose. the contributions look good to me and are in multiple admin areas. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
9. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I have had good interactions with this editor before and I don't see any reason to oppose. Need for the tools. Will be a great help as an administrator. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Seems to be a good candidate for adminship. I have no real concerns. Quahog (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
12. Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support No concerns here, AfD results are exceptionally good. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - Looks like a really good candidate to be an admin. --BEANS X2 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - will be a net positive to the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzo fan2007 (talk • contribs) 16 December 2019 (UTC)
16. Support. I'm happy to see another great Wikipedian ready to help out with administrative tasks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support can be trusted with the mop. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 15:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support on balance. Content creation isn't massive but seems adequate. Deb (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - This one's easy. - MrX 🖋 16:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support No red flags and having the tools will enhance their already positive contributions to the project.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support: RfC closures are an area where the admin role is particularly powerful and things get messy if an admin makes a mistake, so I have a higher bar for this RfA than I have for most others. Nonetheless, what I've seen of Newslinger is consistently careful and considered writing and analysis. I participated in the RuPaul closure that they mention and though the result was not what I wished for, their eventual close was appropriate and they responded very politely to some overt hostility. As for their other contributions, WP:RSP is an exceptional resource—I've no idea why we didn't make it 15 years ago—and I find it enormously helpful in day-to-day editing. Currently I've got no concerns, as I believe Newslinger has the maturity, experience and care to close contentious discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support I don't see anything that would persuade me that they would be unfit as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support -- I've only ever crossed paths with this adventurer at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act where I was impressed by their patience with a new editor whom they really disagreed with. And, I like what I see on this page. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
24. Most extreme possible support. I'll add details later. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't even have to read the nomination statements before knowing my support. Newslinger and I started editing Wikipedia around the same time, and they are one of the users whom I always find myself admiring. Newslinger has never cooked up significant drama, but they have always made significant and productive contributions to projectspace including work through WikiProject Reliability. They are always friendly, kind, insightful, and helpful; all qualities that translate extremely well to adminship. There is not a user more fit to be an admin among the freshmen Wikipedians than Newslinger. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

25. Support Excellent editor who spends a lot a time up at WP:COI and the Spam noticeboard and could do with the tools. He will be an ideal administrator who will work at the sharp end of Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support per no big deal and my minimum requirements. I am very interested in an oppose comment that signaled problematic behaviour at WP:RSN but my cursory look didn't find an example. I will keep an eye there. Ifnord (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Plenty of clue and well-suited to be an admin. Some of their positions regarding the role of RSN are somewhat controversial, but this should not be confused with either a lack of knowledge of policy or an inability to behave on noticeboards. Newslinger's record on talk pages is thoughtful and civil, and that's what's most important when evaluating an RfA. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - Consistently thoughtful and excellent contributions at RSN, including contentious RFC closures - even when I have disagreed with their conclusions, they have made cogent, policy-based, and defensible choices. That indicates they'd likely make similar decisions as an administrator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Editor seems dedicated to thoughtfully working out contentious and nuanced issues and has good communication skills for those areas. While I prefer more experience, I believe the editor would carefully consider any admin tasks that go beyond their areas of experience. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
30. SupportI think deprecations and countless of RS/N RfCs have went too far, and perhaps Newslinger is partly to blame, but I think his actions and comments have been diligent and fair. That's needed from an admin. --Pudeo (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
31. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
32. Does good work. Trustworthy. A net positive. El_C 19:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I was surprised when I checked Newslinger's contribs on XTools that their tenure is as brief as it is - having regularly come across confident, well-argued contributions from them in various places, I assumed they'd been around longer. Content creation in article space, which so many people look for in their criteria, isn't overwhelming, but there are other ways to make valuable contributions - their work on RSP has probably been of more overall benefit to the project than if they had, say, spent their time writing a few GAs on historic buildings in Scotland (ahem). I see no reason to oppose, and lots of clue and good intentions, making this an easy support. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
34. As co-nom ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
35. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support I've had extremely positive interactions with this editor, and a further review doesn't reveal any problems. – Teratix ₵ 23:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Yes! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, not concerned with points raised in opposition. BD2412 T 02:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support I recognize Newslinger from their closes of WP:RM discussions, which are consistently very good. They seem to have a good ability to read and summarize consensus. Colin M (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support, trusted editor, happy to support. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support: Trusted user who is clearly deserving of my praise, especially for their work at RSN. ToThAc (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support per noms. They have said everything. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. I think the comments by Newslinger at RSNB and elsewere were reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - seems like a valuable contributor with pretty good knowledge of PAG - no reason to think they'd abuse the tools — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Per nominator statement, per above support rationales, per User:Deepfriedokra/On RfA. And frankly, if user composes voluminous answers, it means they have the ability to process large volumes of information, and that can come in handy when wading through the backlogs.-- Deepfriedokra 05:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
48. I have no concerns about them having the mop. I strongly disagree with NS about RS "general reliability" RfCs, but that philosophical difference is no reason not to trust them with the bit. The Sherlock Holmsing over at Q5 is ridiculous. I remember when people said the same thing about my "perfectly formatted" early edits. I mean, if he was editing modules or manually bundling AfDs with manual delsorting, then yeah, I'd think that was a sign of a prior account. But a couple templates on a userpage, or reverting vandalism? That's real easy to pick up on one's first day editing. Recent changes is a link on the main page. Adding a page to a watchlist only requires clicking on the star at the top, you don't have to edit the page first. It's not even weird to watchlist a page before editing–I do it all the time. You also don't need to create an account to read the policy pages, or to practice editing. "Link spam" isn't a Wikipedian term, and "notable" is a word that one learns when they read WP:N. I'm not sure why people expect newbies to stumble around for some period of time before getting the hang of very basic tasks for which there is ample documentation and billions of example edits to study, nor why people expect newbies to never have read any of the documentation prior to registering an account. Sheesh, folks, it ain't that hard to edit. It ain't 2001 anymore. – Levivich 06:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support a net positive and then some. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support no issues at all. Tolly4bolly 06:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support — Per WP:MOTHERNIGHT — "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." If this is a banned POV editor returning from the grave, he's doing a damned poor job of being a POV editor. I'm seeing a vandal smacker and sources nerd and administrator to the core. Extremely weak content creation record counts nil in my book — writers write, copywriters correct, administrators administrate, and conflict resolvers resolve conflicts. Definitely not a drone bee. Carrite (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support I have seen Newslinger around the traps and have a good impression that they have a steady hand and good intentions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
54. —Kusma (t·c) 09:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - nothing of concern has been raised. GiantSnowman 09:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support All the best. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Looks good to me now! Puddleglum ^2.0 12:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Have seen around, again cannot remember exactly where(apologies my weakness there), and was going to !vote support when I seen one or two notes and maybe concerns about RSN work and thought I'd better try to check that first. I checked WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263 which related to something I was involved with, and note Newslinger impartially gave moderation support to that discussion. While I'm no expert in such matters their contributions on the rest of that page seemed constructive and astute so definitely remaining support. Good luck.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support: TTWOA. SITH (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - per my trust in the nominators, what I've seen of them around, no red flags when looking at their contributions, and clear indication the toolset will help them contribute more efficiently. The fact that several have said "I have disagreed with them, but I trust them" is highly indicative of NOTJERK and CLUE. I believe we're in good hands here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - I disagree strongly with their position at WP:RSN, but this ultimately is just their POV and does not reflect badly on their judgement as a whole. Otherwise appears clueful. FOARP (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support per noms and personal knowledge of candidate. Will make an excellent addition to the admin corps! PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - lots of good work at AfD and with minor edits. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
65. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support good sense of policy, should make an excellent admin. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - I've encountered Newslinger now and then, clearly has a clue. Good luck :) Daß Wölf 22:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - Competent and trusted editor, I see no red flags here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Opposes not a concern. Miniapolis 23:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. I have seen him around, and the impression has always been good. His answers to questions here have been very impressive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Not a vast amount of content creation, perhaps, but this is counterbalanced by a lot of other evidence of a serious and sensible approach to Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - Very hard-working editor. Interstellarity (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - Mostly because of the answer to question 5. Philbert^2.71828 01:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - "Only 14 articles for content creation? Don't let the door hit you on the way out, pal!" ...really folks? Content creation is hardly a deal-breaker. I apologize if I am being uncharitable. Anyhow, I would support the RfA considering the qualifications they have listed. Scriblerian1 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - I do require some quantity of content creation to support someone for adminship, but this candidate has a GA under their belt, as well as other material, so easily passes that test for me. Other than that, nothing has come out of the woodwork to suggest they're a jerk, and they have the necessary experience to be an admin, so go for it. Hopefully others will look at this uncontroversial-looking RfA and decide to run as well, because personally I'd far rather add to the pool of full admins than have to keep carving out special permissions, granted with less scrutiny, because there are those who don't dare to apply for the mop.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - I have only had positive interactions, and I see no serious reasons to oppose raised. Hug^syrup 10:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - Seems likely to be a net positive and unlikely to be a disaster; which are my only criteria. Nigej (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - Something is nagging me, but try as I may, I can't find any reason not to support. The content contribs are a bit underwhelming, but so were mine when I ran. I trust them not to break anything with their admin bit and that's the main thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Good nominations, I see nothing of concern here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support - Seems to be a good candidate and will be a useful wielder of the mop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
81. Support Has my trust, will provide help in needed areas. I had roughly a year and a half experience when I became an admin so I'm not concerned about length of time on the project: candidate has clearly demonstrated useful contributions and competency thus far. Spencer^T•C 19:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Can't see any problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support - will make good use of the tools. Gizza ^(t)(c) 21:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Seems like a good editor with lots of participation in areas where we need more admins. Should be a net positive so you have my vote. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support not a fan of the sheer number of links Newslinger uses, but none of the oppose reasons are very convincing after review. Peter Gulutzan's is the most serious, but the three examples are not persuasive. Banning people if one doesn't like their edits might sound bad in a vacuum, but it's true in general (and definitely in the context of Aquillion's proposal), because by far the biggest reason people are banned is because of their edits that others don't like. There are good reasons not to like edits, e.g. nobody likes vandalism. Removing opinions from articles if consensus says so is also fair, since Wiki operates by consensus. Overruling consensus is a drastic step that I doubt Peter Gulutzan is arguing for, but that's what it sounds like. As for the last example, I see it more as a "this is how to write a RfC" thing, not "this is how to close a RfC". Therefore I am unconvinced, and am supporting. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support: would be a good addition to the admin ranks; thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support: likely to be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support: Appears to be that rare person that not only read the manual, but doesn't seem to condemn those that haven't. I would prefer more content contribution, but overall appears to have the knowledge and the temprament to be a good mop wielder. --Find bruce (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support The attempts to find a previous editing identify are frankly laughable and the RSN concerns are at worst evidence of strict observance of policy. Nothing raised here is disqualifying and their positive contributions far outweigh the concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support "Only been here for a year and a half" does not concern me in the slightest.. Newslinger will be a fine addition to the admin team. ~riley (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support I see no problems and very thorough answers to Carrite's concerns. GregJackP's criteria are too stringent. Peter Gulutzan's oppose constitutes a reason to support. We ought to be working toward a stricter interpretation of which sources are reliable, in my opinion. Lightburst criticizes the candidate for failing to write BLPs and instead writing articles about songs. How bizarre! If that kind of stuff is the best that the opposition can come up with, then support for this candidate is called for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support. Resourceful and multi-talented. A great candidate, should make a fine admin. -- œ^™ 11:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support per supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. No issues found with what is clearly a positive contribution history. Loopy30 (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - The thorough and detailed answer to Question 6 was what decided it for me. This person would be a great and constructive admin. CʀʏsᴛᴀʟBʟᴀᴄᴋsᴍɪᴛʜ (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support – Well-qualified. Good answers to the questions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support; generally like everything I've seen in reviewing this candidate, good variety of useful work done and I'm not convinced by any of the opposes. I was reviewing this simultaneously with Rosguill's near-simultaneous RfA, and initially thought Rosguill's answer to User:John M Wolfson's question was about as overly comprehensive as I could possibly expect, only for Newslinger to blow it out the water with an even more in-depth dance through the CSDs. I'd personally be retiring that question at this point; if I were to re-run RfA I could barely do better than pointing at that answer! ~ mazca ^talk 20:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support – A proven asset to Wikipedia who can be trusted with additional responsibilities. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Trustworthy, competent, and in need of the admin tools. Good luck! Demetrius Tremens (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support. Strong candidate, and some good responses to questions here. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 10:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support, welcome. Fish+Karate 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. While not the "first" author, recently cooperated in creating 2 new articles (one pending), significantly improved others, and was a moderating influence in some contentious edit disagreements including sock puppets. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support as a competent and qualified candidate per noms and above. Regards SoWhy 14:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support - solid chap, knows his stuff - particularly his good work at WP:RSN. That "oppose" gives the reasons you need to support - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Would like to see more content work but hey, I don't think Newslinger will abuse the tools and seems competent. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support -- I appreciate their fine all-around work. And the solid responses to the questions here. Seems fully-qualified. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support seems to have the right stuff. Cabayi (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. We're living in an era where the need for some new faces in the admin community is at a peak. Oh, and @Newslinger:, I'm the "one editor", see "Followup to Q 9". ミラP 02:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support. Funny enough, I nominated this user through WP:RAUTO to have their redirects be automatically patrolled. Thank you Rosguill for catching me there. Basically everything I said there applies to their pursuit of adminship. While they are a newer face compared to most, I don't doubt Newslinger's ability to perform well in this role. Utopes (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. The nominations are persuasive (just look at the link in Ritchie's nom!). The answers to questions are excellent, and the oppose comments do not convince me. An articulate and clueful candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support Great candidate, add this to the list of "thought they were already an admin!" Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support I wasn't too familiar with this person but the nomination argument was very solid and I didn't see any persuasive reasons to say 'no'. Michepman (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support. Has lower content-creation than I usually support for, but has a declared interest in adminning certain things at which the editor is already clearly clueful, which we do need, and which the candidate will surely be helpful in. I don't detect any problems, and the oppose below alleging RSN-related issues seems weird and lacking in evidence. I'm not terribly familiar with this editor, but believe the mop in the candidate's hands will be a net positive (or maybe it'll be more of a broom in this case).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support. Encyclopedic knowledge of how to conduct SPI's, the chutzpah to stand up to a senior admin if needed, and versed in the procedures of issue escalation -- beginning with the most important part: WP:AGF

     Jasphetamine (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

119. Support. Is helpful and supportive with new editors. Has a balanced viewpoint. Will be great as an Admin. Mnair69 (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support — meets my criteria —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support - seems to have a clue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support - no concerns here. the wub "?!" 10:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support: Will make a great admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support a competent and trustworthy editor. Vexations (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support. Questions about prior editing history went out of style around the same time paper encyclopaedias did... Airbornemihir (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support - This candidate is doing useful dirty work such as deprecating crud and closing RFCs, and will continue to do useful dirty work and useful clean work. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support - While I haven't had much interaction with this editor, after researching their contribution, no alarm bells go off. In fact, quite the contrary, so will make an excellent addition.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support' - A lot of other rationales include reasons to support. That's great, but it's not the only reason I'm supporting. I think that you'd be a WP:Net positive. I took a look at your talk page and your interactions with other editors is kind and considerate. I appreciate that in an admin candidate. Clovermoss (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support. While the WP:RSN stuff is only tangentially related to adminship (normally only coming up occasionally in WP:AE and the like when it's necessary to evaluate if someone is egregiously misusing a source or something), since it was brought up in the main oppose... I do want to say that Newslinger's work at WP:RSN has generally been important and productive. Sifting through sources and deciding what to do about them is often tricky work that Newslinger has generally done well, bringing a degree of much-needed standardization to how we handle problems with sources in an era when intentionally-misleading sources are on the rise. --Aquillion (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
133. Support An asset, to be sure. Regards,  Spintendo  07:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support, has a clue, etc. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support No brainer and definite asset to the project. Congratulations! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 15:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. Newslinger has had a strongly negative influence on WP:RSN, pushing so-called "deprecations" that amount to prohibitions based on misleading language and forcing editors who violate them to read his essay-class posts. Even if Newslinger acknowledges unfitness for using adminship in WP:RS because Newslinger is frequently involved in all of it, the crusader instinct would be likely to promote censorship in other Wikipedia areas. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   My default approach is to be on the fence about any given RfA candidate. Your opposition could potentially be persuasive to myself and others, but I would need to see evidence that supports your assertions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Peter Gulutzan, my default approach is to support. I had a cursory peek at WP:RSN and found the candidate's level of participation is quite extensive. Really, really extensive. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I too would like to hear more about your comment that their influence is strongly negative. An example, perhaps? Ifnord (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   I find that having an admin (or two) who is regularly focused on a particular noticeboard (AIV, RPP, AfD) is a great help in the efficient operating of that board, and can ensure that standards are upheld and communicated quickly to new users; with such concentrated activity on a board, if such an admin were handling themselves in an unsound manner, I'm sure we would have seen the result at ANI/AN (e.g. a poor AfD closer, or AIV closer, would light-up pretty quickly), but I don't think that has been the case here? Britishfinance (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   • My interactions with Newslinger at RSN have been good ones, even though we don't always agree. I went to his UTP to with a question so I'll share it here, scroll down to #RSN Moratorium. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC) ^{underlined add-on 14:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)}[reply]

   Here are samples showing three aspects. (1) In a branch of a discussion about having a moratorium on "general reliability" RfCs, where a proposal was made to ban some editors from objecting in general-purpose discussions about RfCs with a template that Newslinger favours, with this example. Newslinger said "Support". So: banning editors if you don't like their edits = OK. (2) In an RfC about Taki's Magazine in response to an objection that this would in effect censor opinions (a book review and an architecture review by Theodore Dalrymple), Newslinger declared it's okay to remove opinions in articles if a consensus says "generally unreliable". So: banning opinions = OK. (3) Newslinger has been largely responsible for promotion of a template for WP:RSN, that says an option is "should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail". This despite the fact that deprecate's principal dictionary meaning is "not approve", that the closers of WP:DAILYMAIL didn't say deprecate and did say that opinions are okay, and the actual effect regardless is always the same "generally prohibited" filter with an insistence that you must consult an essay-class Wikipedia page for approval (click on History to see who's lately been editing that page the most). So: touting templates that say X when the actual effect will be Y = OK. (NB: nobody said that is a deliberate attempt to deceive.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   @Peter Gulutzan: With all respect, I don't see how any of these actions even somewhat call Newslinger's behavior into question. #1 is just Newslinger stating his opinion based on policy, #2 is a bit of the same (he says that "banning opinions = OK" because of undue weight among other policy-based reasons), and #3 is not promotion in the slightest, it's just Newslinger suggesting a precedent RfC to go by as per consensus on the RSN talk page. None of the "evidence" you presented is questionable behavior, it's either a simple mistake or you likely just need to see the bigger picture of the argument. ToThAc (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   What you cite there is Newslinger's excellent and correct behaviour on WP:RSN, and leads to me supporting the nomination - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Only started 14 articles none are BLP - some are articles about songs, and 2 are disambig pages. Not enough experience building an encyclopedia. Short time on WP and little experience creating articles but a very high delete !vote count at AfDs. Easy to !vote delete when you do not have experience creating. Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   To be fair, AfD doesn't require much encyclopedia content creation experience. A large part is verifying that sufficient non-promotional sources exist to support a proposed article, or that the initial sources cited actually back up the content of the article in question. I don't think content creation should become a prerequisite for AfD contributions. Scriblerian1 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   • As a point of data; I took a look at the first 7 days of December at WP:AFD. Of all the discussions that were had, 63.9% resulted in delete. Newslinger's !voted to delete 61.5% of the time at AFD, including speedy deletes (according to this). Newslinger's delete pattern appears to be quite in line with common practice, and perhaps a bit less delete than is common. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a good idea to look at what kind of AFDs people have been involved in as well. If they've been working on NPP (or similar parts of Wiki) it's OK to see a high delete-vote-count as NPP comes up with a lot of very-low quality articles that might not be PROD or speedy cases but which are still easily candidates for deletion. At the same time AFD is often the landing-ground for deletion campaigns against certain article-types that are sometimes poorly thought out, and not all of these articles should actually be deleted. FOARP (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose, per Lepricavark’s comment in the neutral section. There is a real risk that this admin candidate could be a sock of a banned editor or an editor who otherwise ran foul of the community. They began using Twinkle to revert and warn vandals and knew about how, where and when to request page protection, all of this on the first 24 hours of editing. I think the community could be making a big mistake here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   @Literaturegeek and Lepricavark: I sincerely don't mean to "badger" either of you, but have you considered the candidate's response to question 5? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, I saw the candidate's response shortly after it was posted. Given that this discussion was, and still is, heading toward a clear consensus to promote, I decided not to pursue the matter any further. Lepricavark (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   That is okay Newyorkbrad. Question 5 and the discussion below it with his answers only act to reaffirm in my mind that this is a banned (and probably de-adminshipped editor) returned on a sock. I dislike accusing without solid evidence/proof but that is where the evidence points for me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   @Literaturegeek: This is an unfortunate comment. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   I know MJL, yeah it is. But the candidate has over 130 positive comments and votes to largely drown out my concern.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   While I do not assert my concerns as strongly as Literaturegeek does, I feel uncomfortable with this candidate. Hopefully, I am mistaken, but I'm not going to pretend that nothing seems questionable about the early stages of this candidate's editing career. I think what's genuinely unfortunate is that several participants in this discussion have completely dismissed these concerns as if they are totally far-fetched. Has everyone already forgotten about Edgar? Lepricavark (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   @Lepricavark:, @MJL:, @Xeno: Hi Lepricavark, interesting comparison with Edgar. My first thought was actually Newslinger could be Rlevse/PumpkinSky, who was a former bureaucrat, ArbCom, checkuser, etc, who fell from grace and was blocked on many occasions, most recently indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting only about six weeks before newslinger arrived on the scene. What should and needs to happen is for a bureaucrat and a checkuser investigate prominent editors/former admins who were banned or de-adminned in the previous 3 to 6 months of this admin candidate’s account being created. I have done my bit in warning the community.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Lepricavark, your current position seems to be getting closer to oppose than neutral, perhaps you should move your vote here — your choice though, of course.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   If you suspect Newslinger of sockpuppetry, you should file an SPI with your evidence. Posting unsubstantiated comments like this amounts to casting aspersions. – Teratix ₵ 07:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   This RfA closes in a couple of hours, so I think a closing bureaucrat should liaise with a check user before closing. Not enough time for me to file a sock investigation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   You want the candidate checkusered despite no evidence of sockpuppetry? If you don't have the time to back accusations up with evidence, don't post them. – Teratix ₵ 08:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Newslinger began editing in April 2018, I do not know if ip records are retained that long to compare with a indeffed editor of that time period? Checkuser might just say “stale” evidence/accounts. I will research check user policy and make some inquiries. The evidence has been described by myself here and Lepricavark in the neutral section. No adequate explanation has been given to alleviate my concerns that this editor was experienced before they created the Newslinger account.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   @Teratix:, Wikimedia only retains IP information for 90 days, therefore it seems it is not possible to have this matter investigated via a SPI as it would require obtaining IP information of a user not logged in since being indeffed in early 2018 or so. Thus this is indeed the correct forum to raise suspicions, inconsistencies and concerns for the consideration of the community and bureaucrats.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral for now while I wait to see how the oppose votes turn out. They might become persuasive enough for me... Puddleglum ^2.0 16:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Moved to support. Puddleglum ^2.0 12:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral - Assertion made that there are "no alternate accounts" but no information provided yet to my question of whether this was a first account. Looking forward to a forthright answer on that matter. I will support or oppose based upon research following that. //// Mulling. Generally impressed with tone and content of response, leaning Support. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Moving to Support. Carrite (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. The candidate's earliest edits suggest a preexisting familiarity with the inner workings of Wikipedia. In particular, see this properly-formatted RfPP that was made only 20 hours after the candidate's first edit. Note also that the candidate was using Twinkle less than 24 hours after their first edit. It appears that Newslinger has not been completely forthcoming about any prior editing history, even if the phrasing of their acceptance doesn't explicitly deny prior accounts or IP usage. Like Carrite, I also want a forthright response from Newslinger. Lepricavark (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral - Only been here for a year and a half. Not sure if they have enough experience to be honest. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• H'mmm. If a nom has only recently noticed Newslinger making thoughtful and insightful comments, then they've either been looking in the wrong place or not looking hard enough. Although perhaps this is contextualised by the candidate's tenure. Interesting. ——SN54129 11:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Information pages for new editors must be even more convoluted and incomprehensible than I realised if getting things right on your first try is considered suspicious. – Teratix ₵ 12:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems to have been resolved in the answers to question 5. I love how the incomprehensibility of RFPP in particular was used as an argument for suspicion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  With so many editors defaulting to support, somebody has to ask the tough questions. It looks like the candidate has a good answer in this case, but that doesn't mean that the concerns were not worth raising. Also, I never suggested that RFPP was incomprehensible. It just seemed a little odd for a brand new account to already know about our page protection process on day one. Lepricavark (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lepricavark: When I was in Middle School, I did a report on Carlos PenaVega. The page had a silver lock at the time, and I couldn't edit it. Curious, I clicked the lock and was told all about our page protection process. I wasted a few minutes going to different pages I thought would be controversial just to see which color locks they had (if any).
  It's easy to forget how much info we put out there for people. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not just formatting RFPP, but also how they installed twinkle and started using it straight away and basically became ‘addicted’ to Wikipedia on their first day editing by being an unusually prolific editor on their very first day — not normal at all for a newbie, not how the brain works, takes time to develop a habit and pattern. I am not certain this candidate is a sock, but I am suspicious, at a minimum I am fifty percent sure that it is a sock.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:49, 23 December 2019 (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.