Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chongkian

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

Chongkian[edit]

Final (2/8/4); ended 03:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC) – Withdrawn by candidate. Steel1943 (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Chongkian (talk · contribs) – The following description are my contributions within the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) only (I am self-nominating myself). I joined Wikipedia in January 2009. So far I have written 2,072 articles with a total of 176,847 edits in various topics from various countries and regions. I contribute to Wikipedia purely 100% as my hobby in my own personal time, without receiving any payment from any particular party. I have received 366 thanks and 19 Barnstars from other users with 0 blocks (hopefully it will stay this way). I also have the autopatrolled and extended confirmed user rights. My AfD statistics is 81.2% matches. While my biggest contribution is on the main page, I am also active in other namespace of Wikipedia: talk, category talk, category, template talk, user, Wikipedia, template etc, which I always try to balance things out. I have created 1,482 active talk pages, 60 active disambiguation pages, 17 template pages. Generally I like to create articles which are less-famous or less importance-level, to ensure every aspect of human life is fully covered in Wikipedia and in 100% neutral and objective way. From time to time I try to de-stub articles, add infoboxes, add proper categorization, add coordinates, add its WikiProject classification, add WikiProject grade and importance level, revert any vandalism, update its information, add links to its Wikimedia Commons, ensure its navigation box template suits the article name, add references, update dead link website, update an article's photo if there is any newer version of its photo in Wikimedia Commons etc. withdraw

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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:
  • Apply, modify, and remove page protection on a particular page to restrict or allow editing, moving, or creation
  • Delete pages with 5,000 or fewer revisions
  • View and restore deleted pages
  • Restrict and restore public visibility of information in individual logs and page revisions
  • Edit fully protected pages
  • Override the title blacklist
  • Move a page to any desired title


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
  • I have written 2,072 new articles, why? because having more articles will make Wikipedia a more complete encyclopedia
  • I have made 176,847 edits in various topics from various countries and regions, why? so that countries which are less famous will get more exposure to the world
  • I am active in other namespace of Wikipedia aside from the main page (52.5%), such as: talk (19.4%), category talk (13.8%), category (3.8%), template talk (2.8%), user (2.6%), Wikipedia (2%), template (1.6%) etc, why? so that people will know that Wikipedia is not only about the main page, but there are also many important pages surrounding the main page
  • I have created 1,482 active talk pages, 60 active disambiguation pages, 17 template pages, why? because by having good talk page it will make the main page of the article better, having well-written disambiguation and template pages will make people to have better experience for navigating around Wikipedia articles.
  • Generally I like to create articles which are less-famous or less importance-level, to ensure every aspect of human life is fully covered in Wikipedia and in 100% neutral and objective way (e.g. academics, anime, archaeology, artists, beach, bridges, business, churches, colleges, companies, crime, cultural centers, dams, disability, education, electrical engineering, energy, environment, event, fashion, farm, festival, forest, forts, galleries, geography, geology, harbors, hospitals, hot springs, incinerators, industrial parks, islands, lakes, libraries, lighthouses, mausoleums, meteorology, military, mining, mountain, movies, museums, mosques, nuclear engineering, organizations, parks, people, politics, power stations, representative offices, rivers, roads, shopping malls, sports, temples, theaters, theme parks, tourism, train stations, transportation, tunnels, universities, waterfalls etc), why? so that people know Wikipedia is not only about any breaking/popular/big news (e.g. Beirut blast, COVID-19 etc)
  • I like to de-stub articles, add infoboxes, add proper categorization, add coordinates, add its WikiProject classification, add WikiProject grade and importance level, revert/erase any vandalism, update its information, add links to its Wikimedia Commons, ensure its navgiation box template suits the article name, add references, update dead link website, update an article's photo if there is any newer version of its photo in Wikimedia Commons etc, why? so that Wikipedia can be a full perfect online encyclopedia and have its interconnection well established with each other and other Wikimedia Foundation projects


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:

To answer it in short: Always

  • Especially when there are controversial articles or different way of writing styles. Usually I will invite/ask other active editors in that particular article's WikiProject and have a group discussion. Usually when there are more editors involved and voiced out their opinion, then everyone will follow the majority's answer.
  • Caused me stress? Once in a while yes. There are some stubborn editors who think that he/she is the correct one 100%. In that situation, I try not to argue further and stay silent for a while. Based on my experience, those stubborn editors will not last long in Wikipedia (they will retire/quit easily). Once they are no longer actively around, then only I 'revert' back their works peacefully. If those editors are the well-matured and experience ones, they will never be stubborn. They will be quite open and listen to people's opinion :)


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 questions from Lee Vilenski
4. Hi! Thanks for running - you are clearly a prominent content creator. You state your admin actions you would do, but this covers a lot of ground. You mention deletion, would you close AfDs, CSDs, etc, or work in any specific areas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: I've been involved in several AfD discussion (although not too many), and I did voiced out my opinions why an article has to be kept or to be deleted. And yes, I'm ok to do the AfD and CSD-related works. If you ask me any specific area, what I see lacking is the standardization in writing style in Wikipedia, and I wish there are mechanism to make things as standard as possible (e.g. refer more to all of the current existing Wikipedia manual writing style guide, or even updating the guide etc.
5: Your edit summary usage is sub 50% for the age of your account - and also very similar for recent activity - in your opinion, what is the important/lack of importance of edit summaries? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: If you are adding a section in an article (e.g. historical section, architecture section etc), then the edit summary you can easily write something like add more history etc. But if you edit because of an article is lacking some structure, e.g. lacking of infobox, lacking of photo, lacking of category, lacking of reference etc, then the edit itself is self-explanation already, same like when we add new property/statement in Wikidata, the edit itself is self-explanation already. But many of that "maintenance" edit in Wikipedia most of the time is small (yet important) edit, but if I keep writing the edit summary of it, the edit summary itself is 10 times longer than the edit I did to the article itself, so it is really a discouragement for people who wish to continuously improve articles (by doing some cleanup), e.g. adding coordinate type/region, moving coordinate inside infobox, rewrite URL format writing, etc. so even this one, we should have a special mechanism in Wikipedia on how we can continuously improve articles (on those small changes of edit, but not having our time spent too much on writing the edit summary which is far longer than the edit done in the article itself.
Additional question from Hog Farm
6. I know this runs closely to Lee's question above, but I have another angle to it. As recently as May 11, you stated on your talk page that you'd use edit summaries "on every change that I've made", in this diff. However, your edit summary counter] actually indicates that your use of edit summaries has decreased over this time, with the last two months below 40%. What role do you think openly explaining your actions plays in the duties of sysops, given that you're likely to make some controversial calls in a sysop role?
A: Lately I have been doing many edits in an article/category/template's talk page too add their respective WikiProject, because many of them are lacking of some particular related WikiProjects, and many category/template pages do not even have talk page (thus WikiProject) at all, so most of those edit I did was to add their WikiProject categorization. I did initially write on the edit summary "add its WikiProject", and I kept doing that subsequently. But then I've encountered so many pages which have no WikiProjects, so even if I were to write the edit summary, it will only just be "add its WikiProject" again and again (and it has become too much repetitive). From my answer previously, I did mention that my edit action is somehow self-explanatory already. Of course once I have started admin work and it involves controversial edits or it involves many parties, a more detailed explanation of edit summary has to be fully written. I have voiced out this concern (that we need to write longer words & spend more time writing the 'edit summary' than the actual edit itself in the article) to Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group, yet no one could really give a good solution for that.
Additional questions from PJvanMill
7: Looking at the article Hiroe Igeta, which you created a month ago, I have two questions for you. Firstly, how do you consider notability when creating an article?
A: Notability basically is publicly-known (not self bragging), publicly-listed (can easily found in search engine) and in public-domain (open to the public (not password-protected like some technical publications or engineering standards etc) and written by 3rd party sources (online news, but not our own Facebook page or blog)).
8: Secondly, how do you evaluate the reliability of a source for a given statement? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A: There are hundreds of different kind of articles, one from fully well-established entities (e.g. national museums, national parks, prime ministers etc) into some kind of trivial and contemporary things yet somehow it becomes 'notable' per se due to the general acceptance by the public (e.g. selfie, influencer, twerking etc). For those fully well-established entities, generally they will always have their official website, listed in the government websites (tourism ministry, local government etc), being written in the online national news papers etc, so such sources (especially the online news papers) are highly reliable, while those contemporary terminologies (selfie, influencer, twerking) for sure have no dedicated website on explaining what are those terminologies are. So in that case, we build up the understanding of those terminologies from more various sources (e.g. fashion media, celebrity media, start-up news related media etc). It involves more work to do to have solid understanding and background to support such terminologies. For people, for sure if it is a minister or governor, we can easily browse the government website listing those ministers, and their biography is generally fully well written (from education, early career, place of birth, voting result etc). But for less prominent figure (e.g. celebrities, movie stars etc), same approach should be done like those contemporary terminologies (selfie, influencer, twerking), where we need to get more 3rd party sources which keep mentioning their names.
Additional questions from Levivich
9. Hi! Thank you for your many years of contribution to the project! I noticed you are a member of the "eventcoordinator" group and User:Chongkian#Meetups lists many meetups. I didn't see any mention of this when you listed your experience above. Can you tell us more about your event coordination experience? Do you host a lot of events, are there plans for any virtual meetups in the future, and would having admin tools help with that?
A:Hi, yes. I have done in total 21 meetups in Malaysia (in 5 different states/cities), with co-organizing 2 meetups in Indonesia, 1 meetup in Singapore and 1 meetup in Taiwan. Why I didn't specify that because meetup organizer's job scope (based on my understanding) is that it is completely different than admin-related job. Admin do mostly online, while meetup organizers do mostly offline. So I wish to be very specific here for the RfA request. Of course if you want to know more about my Whole contribution to Wikimedia Foundation movement is, I am also very active in Wikimedia Commons (uploaded more than 2,100 photos), Wikidata, Wikiquote, Wikivoyage and into some certain degree also in other languages of Wikipedia (zh, ms, id, simple, ja). Me myself is the one who founded the user group for Malaysia (Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia) and also to have it registered here locally as an NGO organization under the Home Ministry. We have managed to get many new editors and newly written articles, and we list down every single MOM of the meetup in our meetup pages. From there, I can fully understand the obstacle faced by all of the newbie editors. Yes, so far probably around next week or 2, Malaysia user group will have its first virtual meetup. Interested to join? :) It will be done in English language. By having admin tool, I think the best way is to use the 'lock article from editing' kind of authority. Because during any meetup, new editors will take more time to write a complete article (content, infobox, insert photo, linking, coordinate, link to Wikimedia Commons, referencing, categorization, adding related WikiProject, grading the WikiProject class & importance). Although I have the eventcoordinator power to grand temporary autopatrolled to the newbie editors under my guidance, many times other editors will jump straight away to edit/revert/change/give warning etc to the newly written articles, in which I saw this as a complete 100% turn off gesture to all newbie editors, and as I expected, 99% of them do not long in into Wikipedia anymore afterwards, which is this is a very sad reality.
10. Hypothetical situation: Editor 1 changes "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" in an article. Editor 2 reverts with edit summary saying there is consensus for "Taiwan" and to discuss on the talk page. Editor 3 changes "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" again. Editor 2 reverts again. Editor 4 changes it back. Editor 2 reverts again. Editor 5 changes it back. Editor 2 reverts again. Editor 1 comes to you and asks you to block Editor 2 for edit warring with multiple other editors. If you were an admin, how would you respond?
A: During the peak of this edit war, firstly I will just remain silent first (while continue observing the article and talk page, just to make sure no one start to provoke one another (am I allowed to do that as an admin?). Secondly, I will try to find what are the consensus of that naming controversial (in which I am fully familiar actually due to my interest in writing Taiwan-related articles) which have been written in any talk page. If such page doesn't exist yet, then I guess it is my responsibility to invite all of those parties involved in the edit war to join and sit down together in that talk page to resolved the dispute. Those invited but never comment/write anything, their subsequent edit is the one which will be reverted first or their name/IP get temporarily blocked first (those who barely join Wikipedia and did only 1 or 2 edit for the sake of changeing/reverting ROC/Taiwan name only shall also be left out (this doesn't apply to newbie editors who have genuine intention to grow Wikipedia article contents), and those without username or with username but not registered or without talk page shall be left out). While for the remaining parties of that ROC/Taiwan naming dispute, I will tell them to list their argument why they decide to choose ROC or Taiwan, with up-to-date references/sources to back up their claim. Then I shall try to take out any trivial point first, and leave out the only main points. Again, I shall maintain neutrality at all time, and editors must be people of high-neutrality, matured-attitude and good edit history. Then we shall see if we can reach a mutual consensus (either by redirect, put the two names side by side etc) or do the voting. Of course during this course of discussion, I will also invite senior/experienced editors who normally edit in WikiProject Taiwan related articles to oversee and have their opinions as well.
Additional question from Mccapra
11. Hi you said that one of the things you plan to do as an admin is to delete articles with fewer than 5,000 revisions. Can you elaborate on this please and tell us why you regard articles with fewer revisions than this as potentially deletable/deletable on sight? Thanks
A: Hi, 'delete articles with fewer than 5,000 revisions' is one of the statement listed as one of the work for admin (based on my research/browse thru out Wikipedia). I am also not sure why they list down 5,000 revisions. Many newly stub articles written has less than 5,000 revisions, and many of them can exist as articles. Based on my understanding, I think what the original writer of this 'delete articles with fewer than 5,000 revisions' is to delete those poorly written articles (even less than stub, or maybe without referencing, or maybe with completely poor article layout). While request for deletion can be done for such articles, but what I've been seeing is that most editors will just simply redirect that article to another better written articles (start-class and above). So I think we need to tell to the original writer of this 'delete articles with fewer than 5,000 revisions' to re-phrase the statement.
Additional questions from CaptainEek
12. When would you unblock a user?
A: I need to see first what kind of vandalism a blocked user have done until it gets him/her blocked. If it is purely because his/her repetitive lack of understanding in writing Wikipedia style, then a mere 2-3 days should suffice (for the blocking period, before being unblocked), while at the same time I try to talk to his/her user talk page. If it is about things went from bad to worse due to heated argument in talk page resolving some disputed, then maybe a longer time is needed (maybe a week or 2), until that person cools down. When that person purposely messing up around (layout, vulgar words, changing photos to other nasty ones etc), then probably this person's username should get permanently banned.
13. Are there times an admin should not use their tools?
A: When there is a dispute but it can be solved automatically among the communities of that article article or WikiProject..
Additional question from Teratix
14. Some editors have highlighted that your answer to question 1 is copy-pasted from an information page about administrators. Would you like to take this opportunity to explain, in your own words, what activities you plan to complete as an administrator? (Examples: Closing AfDs, deleting PRODded and CSDed articles, helping at AIV, RPP and UAA, etc.)
A:
A:
Additional questions from Wugapodes
15. Since Wikipedia is not paper, why should we delete a page?
A:
Additional questions from Eggishorn
16. You've been a prolific article creator but the vast majority of your articles created have been stubs. Do you feel that articles such as Nandouya Mosque and Duoliang Station give you a firm understanding of the Core Content Policies and related standards such as Notability?
A:
17. You've mentioned you intent to perform deletion work and have been asked about AfD participation but I also notice a sparse participation in project areas. Do you feel that you understand the policies & procedures that apply to administrative tasks such as page protection, blocks, partial blocks, page moves, editng through full protection, etc. where the discussion about those tasks generally take page in project space?
A:

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. Support, meets my criteria. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. It could help them and I don’t see them actually harming people or breaking anything with it. Yeah, they’re not the most versed on policy, but long-term content creators with no blocks who seem open to feedback are low risk. It doesn’t look like they’re a Defender of the Wiki type who will chase off new users and/or delete things that are useful, and I don’t see them going around poking their heads in much more controversial areas where I’d want more experience. So, sure. Doesn’t appear to be a jerk and looks to know what they’re good at. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can’t support after Q10, unfortunately. Sorry. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...A long-time editor with a good amount of edits who doesn't seem like they will break stuff ... who is also gutsy enough to self-nominate. Okay by me. Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Going neutral... Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support based on the candidate's track record. On the content side, creating two thousand articles is nothing to be sneezed at. On the temperament side, I am impressed by the candidate's ability to remain calm under fire. A few years ago, there was an episode where, within the span of a month, about twenty of Chonkian's articles were sent to AfD by a nominator who didn't even bother to post notices on Chongkian's talk page. Many editors would have been overwhelmed by the torrent of AfDs or exchanged sharp words with the nominator, but not Chongkian. He never lashed out and worked tirelessly to improve his articles. About two-thirds of them survived AfD. I value admins who are able to handle criticism well. Chongkian is a workhorse who, despite coming under pressure, keeps calm and carries on creating content. I am happy to support his candidacy. Altamel (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Candidate expresses an interest in deletion in Q1, Q4, and opening statement. (Also most everything else an admin can do in Q1, but I'm going to examine deletion narrowly, since that's what I'm mostly involved in.) So I've looked through their deleted edits and recent AFD activity (2018 and later; those are: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13). I'm afraid there's no evidence there that they're qualified to be closing AFDs or pushing a delete button: there's zero CSD activity, and few of their AFD comments are policy-based. Some highlights are the plainly wrong call to speedy delete in 2 contra WP:CSD, the copy-pasted speedy keeps in 7 8 9 contra WP:SK, and the blatant WP:OSE vote in 13.
    I'm also somewhat appalled at Q7. WP:Notability isn't policy, and you don't have to agree with it; but as an administrator that's going to be deleting articles, you're expected to understand it, and - crucially - you need to be able to explain it to new users and how it differs from its non-Wikipedia meaning. You also need to know what public domain is, if not necessarily the specifics of what is and isn't in the public domain. It's a very, very different concept from "open to the public and written by 3rd party (not self Facebook or blog)" (which is what their answer was as I wrote this; they've gone back and changed it now to something that's just as wrong). —Cryptic 01:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per the rather poor answer to Q7. publicly-listed (can easily found in search engine) and in public-domain (open to the public (not password-protected like some technical publications or engineering standards etc). Publicly-listed is not a notability requirement (I use print sources all the time in articles I work on), and that is an extremely wrong definition of public domain. I'm not seeing any knowledge of good understanding of CSD, the speedy delete !vote in the AFD listed by Cryptic is not anywhere close to a proper CSD application. The AFD record isn't something I find encouraging either, mostly a bunch of copy-paste speedy keep !votes that rather obliquely address notability. Apparently considers IMDB], a user-generated source, acceptable for a BLP, when WP:BLP invokes the highest standards for BLP sourcing. The editor stated they'd work in deletion as an admin, but I'm not seeing any indication they're familiar with judging consensus or CSD applicability. Is autopatrolled, but their article creation log [1] is almost entirely stubs, with many of them, including this one from earlier this month with rather dodgy sourcing. There's a difference between content creator and sysop, and there are special skills for each one. I'm not seeing that this candidate, while they have created many many articles and I thank them for that, quite has the sysop competencies yet. With all due respect, Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even stronger oppose after reading the answer Q11. That made me think "Oh God no", and I personally take Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain very seriously.Hog Farm Bacon 03:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regretful oppose - I have no question about the candidate's dedication to Wikipedia, but I don't see a need for them to have a mop. To be blunt, I'm not convinced the candidate is sure what they want to use the mop for - their answer to Q1 was literally a list of things administrators are able to do, their answer to Q4 looks more to me like they are responding to the two examples (AfD and CSD) that Lee Vilenski gave them than actually responding to the intent of the question as a whole, and the other part of their response suggested an interest in standardization/MOS which is entirely orthogonal to adminship. Alternatively, they do know what they want to use the mop for but are not communicating it effectively, in which case I'd still be concerned with their ability to communicate as an administrator. If they actually do intend to work AfD and CSD, my thoughts align with Cryptic - no CSD experience and I'm iffy on their AfD participation. I am also concerned by their answers to...well, pretty much every question above so far, which is Q4 through Q8. In particular, their opinions on edit summaries and the meaning of WP:N are what I would expect from a fairly new editor, not from someone with 175k edits. Finally, no participation in the areas I like to see from admins (CSD, AIV/UAA, RfPP, etc.), but that's not the main thing putting this in the oppose column. I definitely think that adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL, but I still expect admin candidates to have some kind of use for the tools, and I don't see that here. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The answer to question no. 7 troubles me very much. I expect administrators, especially if they intend to participate in deletion work, to have a very thorough understanding of notability and the many notability guidelines. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose due to Q5. They don't seem to understand why edit summaries are necessary. From Help:Edit summary: Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. Having half their edits have no edit summaries because it is an inconvenience to them or because they feel the edit itself is self-explanation already is not acceptable. (EDIT: It does appear that their mainspace edits at least generally have edit summaries.) Having quite a few bizarre diffs like Special:Diff/965432506 (welcoming an editor active for over a decade, and not subst-ing a template they use regularly that requires subst) also gives me concern. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Based on the answer to #1 and #4, the user seems primarily concerned with page deletion, undeletion, protection, and circumventing protection. They have somewhat low (and concerning) AFD activity, little or no CSD work, no AIV reports, no RFPP requests, no patrolling. I expect to see at least some activity in these areas, it doesn't have to be a lot, not only to show the user is involved in editing that would need tools, but that they have demonstrated some sound judgement in requesting other admins to use tools. The answers to questions given so far are concerning. The answer to Lee's #4 mentions AFD and CSD briefly, but then shifts to content standardization and MOS, which is not work that needs tools. The answer to PJvanMill's #7 and #8 shows a concerning level of understanding for WP:N and WP:RS. As for the 3 standard questions... the answer to #1 is a list of admin technical abilities, which I've interpreted to focus on deletion and protection work. The answer to #2 is a list of their Xtool stats and explanation of topics they like, but nothing concrete being offered, such as a GA they're proud of or any particular article they've worked hard on. #3 is extremely concerning in that their approach to dispute resolution appears to be "wait till the other person goes away then revert again.", which coupled with the desire to edit through full protection raised my eyebrow. Their talk page has a lot of minor notices and warnings about things that don't overly matter, except I see some of them repeated several times with no change in behavior. Content work is to be lauded, and their work there is appreciated, but I have concerns with them having tools, especially in regards deletion, as more detailed by Cryptic's oppose. The stated desire to view and restore deleted pages along with the weak understanding of WP:N is also a concern. The answer to #10 was provided after I mulled over most of this oppose. This describes a basic process towards dispute resolution on a topic, and something that sounds akin to an RFC. But leaves me with an additional concern with how they describe giving out piecemeal blocks of anyone who doesn't join a talk page discussion, with no mention of protection options. And while pondering #10, the answer to #11 arrived, which shows a severe misunderstanding about deletions. -- ferret (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose – Promoting at at least 1 GA is a bare minimum for me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I suggest the candidate withdraw and come back in 6 months or a year, with a nominator to mentor them through the process. RfA is an open note quiz, thus I am dissapointed to see so many clearly wrong answers. I was holding off my vote until my questions were answered, and though I know they were a bit vague, the answers fell far short. #12 shows a misunderstanding of how blocks work, I suggest reading the WP:GAB to see what we expect when unblocking. #13 misses the whole point of WP:INVOLVED, which was also missed in #10 in a major way. The notability answers are very concerning too, which are compounded by their recent creation of a very poor stub article sourced to IMDb. Combined with the lack of experience in admin areas, this is unfortunately an oppose. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Awaiting responses and doing additional checks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now. On the one hand, the candidate is a good content creator. However, they seem to have little experience in the typical admin areas, and didn't express a clear need for the tools in their statement. I hope the candidate clarifies their stance, as the response to Q1 seems more like a statement of what's possible for them to do, rather than what they intend to do. epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now, until the candidate starts answering questions and affirm that they want this to go ahead. Best, —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 21:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (Moved from "Support".) The fact that Q11 had to be asked is bothersome. I mean, is the nominee aware of WP:BIGDELETE? Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • I dont see a specific need for the tools, but I have no issue supporting as long as they dont accidentally misuse the tools. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I can't vote, but I will point out that the answer to question one is a direct (or nearly direct) copy-paste from Special:ListGroupRights. That doesn't really inspire confidence. If the candidate cannot state in their own words what admin areas they plan to be involved in, I'd say that's a red flag. 2601:187:4581:7F50:DC90:B0C7:1B11:7C81 (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's highly likely in this case that this isn't a fully written out nomination, and this was notes. I suggest we await responses from the user. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Upon looking again, the Q1 response is not a direct copy-paste from ListGroupRights as defined on this wiki, but it is clearly a copy-paste from ListGroupRights or a similar page from somewhere, given the wording/style. 2601:187:4581:7F50:DC90:B0C7:1B11:7C81 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:MOPRIGHTS --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I chose some points from that (Special:ListGroupRights) to see what are the roles of admin I am interested in doing. Well, that's how I suppose to do my homework before answering that "admin works which I am interested to do" question, isn't it? It's not about copy+paste, but it's about answering to the question given to be properly. Or is there anyting I'm missing here? .. Or maybe let me re-phrase, is there any example of a good "template of answer" to this question? Maybe you can give me an example, and I can rephrase that giving my idea input. Chongkian (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chongkian: Just a note that you are required to disclose if you've edited for pay (you can add it to your nom statement). --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, me myself I have my full time job. I edit Wikipedia on my own personal time. If you see all of my contribution, it is fairly well distributed among many countries (Asian countries especially - of course some countries are more than the other, because that is my particular area of interest) and across many sectors (e.g. engineering, tourism, politics etc). And even (let's say) you see any of my article about politicians, the content that I write is really almost 100% objectively written (name, native name, date of birth, alma mater, infobox, early career, political career etc), it is just simply adding the full information package about someone (or entity). Of course I will add that statement in my nom statement. Chongkian (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was created today, and transcluded more than twelve hours later by a different user without, so far as I can find, any sort of request or prompting. Piling on at this point, when the answers to the standard questions are plainly still in an early draft state, seems pretty cruel. —Cryptic 21:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to oppose (with a possible later switch to support it things looked better as the RfA continued) as certain aspects of the self-nomination/answers are causing me concern but I've read Cryptic's note and candidate fundamentally seems an excellent Wikipedian and an early oppose might result in a pile-on. While self-nomination is allowed this candidate would have benefited from nomination by experienced RfA supporters in my opinion, which is not always right. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I did read the rules on this RfA before I nominate myself, and self-nomination is allowed. So is there anything I might have missed out? By all means, I can easily (and willing to) follow those extra steps if I need to if I want to do self-nomination. Chongkian (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: I see that you transcluded this, could you expound on why you thought it was ready to go? Were you in contact with Chongkian? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Ritchie333, is this statement directed to me or to someone else? If it is were for me, why I thought it was ready to do? The answer is because I have filled in all of the given answers. Or is there any point I am still missing before launching this? Thanks. Chongkian (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CaptainEek: Ritchie explained on his talk page. I reverted as a courtesy until Chongkian is back online and can give their input. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chongkian&oldid=973594322"