Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clpo13 2

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Clpo13

Final (174/1/3); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 16:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 15:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

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

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I happily accept the nomination. clpo13(talk) 15:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm primarily interested in file work, such as files for discussion and moving appropriate files to Wikimedia Commons at CAT:COMMONS. I'm quite active at Commons as well as here on enwiki, and I feel I've got the necessary experience to understand the issues surrounding both US and non-US copyright. I also hope to expand my participation at articles for deletion and new pages patrol with the tools allowing me to close discussions with a delete consensus (as well as assess more complex discussions than allowed under WP:NAC) and delete new pages that are blatant copyvios and attack pages. With more experience as an admin, I'd move on to requests for page protection and the edit warring noticeboard, where I have some experience filing requests and reports, though I'm not planning on jumping feet first into protecting pages and blocking editors (aside from cases of obvious vandalism).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm quite fond of John E. Corbally, which I researched, started, and brought to good article status. It was a good opportunity to exercise my research skills and round out the list of Syracuse University chancellors articles on Wikipedia (I also created William Pratt Graham and Charles N. Sims). It was also my first experience with the GA process. While it's my only GA so far, I hope to get more articles to that status and maybe even start reviewing some as well. Aside from article creation, I'm happy to have contributed some photographs that are used on Wikipedia articles. I believe that every article that can have an image should have one, and I try to do my part to find or create an appropriate illustration for a subject.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I have been in a few, some quite heated. Most recently, the matter of infoboxes on featured articles led to negative interactions with some prominent FA contributors, some of whom are, regrettably, no longer active on the project. Looking back now, the whole situation was a good lesson on the importance of civility and respecting the work of editors who may make editorial decisions I disagree with. I've avoided the infobox area since (with the exception of starting an RFC on an infobox template), and I now try disengage from such stressful situations until I can come back later and take a fresh look at the situation.

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

Additional question from Ritchie333
4. You recently tagged a number of coin images (eg: File:Hannibal1.jpg) with WP:CSD#F4, all of which were declined, but then sent on to WP:FFD. For those of us who don't work with image copyrights too often, can you explain the context behind this? Do you still believe your tagging was justified?
A: The images lack any sort of source or photographer information. Were they taken by the uploader? Found on the web somewhere? Without a source, we can't verify the copyright status of the image. Nyttend declined the speedy on the basis that explicit source info wasn't required until sometime after these images were uploaded. My original tagging was done without being aware of that caveat. Now that I know, I would send particularly old images to FFD instead of speedying them.
However, with regards to these specific images (of old coins), I now believe my concern about copyright status was completely unfounded. I initially thought that, even though the coins are ancient, photographs of them might have their own copyright. That may not actually be the case (at least in the US), just as photographs of public domain art don't have their own copyright (see {{PD-art}} and Copyright of Coin Photographs). A source would still be preferred since the coins pictured might be modern reproductions or fakes, and other countries may apply the sweat of the brow doctrine, meaning that non-original works like photographs and copies of public domain works could have their own copyright due to the amount of effort put into creating them. If I could do these images over, I would tag them with {{PD-art}} and {{do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}} until more was learned about the provenance of the coins and images.
@Clpo13: It's a bit off topic here, but I think it's important to correct this point. The opinion of Mike Godwin, back in 2007 when he was still the WMF General Counsel, is that Bridgeman v. Corel does not apply to photographs of coins, as they are 3D articles (see here). Commons does not accept such images without a license from the photographer (see commons:Commons:Currency), and the English Wikipedia should not either. Reventtalk 23:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: Well, that clears things up immensely. Thank you for the correction. Knowing that, I would have sent those images to FFD for lacking source info that could be used to verify copyright. clpo13(talk) 23:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Andrew D.
5. There was a change recently so files can now be prodded. I looked at a bundle of the nominations and found that orphan images were being systematically deleted even though some of them seemed to have merit – files such as Aker bilk. It seems wrong to me that many thousands of good faith uploads should be deleted in this blanket way but what's your view about this, please? Andrew D. (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would prefer that orphaned files be moved to Commons, assuming they meet licensing requirements and c:COM:SCOPE. Even if an image doesn't have an immediate use on the English Wikipedia, it might be useful on another language Wikipedia or in a future article. This applies to images that don't work with Commons's licensing (e.g. public domain in the US but not in the source country). If an image is potentially useful on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be deleted solely on the grounds of being an orphan.
Additional question from Linguist111
6. A user, 0000, asks you to close an AfD they created four weeks ago. The article being nominated for deletion is an eight-week-old BLP about a one-time Miss Finland non-placer containing two paragraphs, and is unsourced apart from one statement. The nomination statement is "Non-winning Miss contestant who fails WP:N." The votes of other users are as follows:
  • Delete per nom. 0001 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N. 0002 (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cruft. Sources do not indicate notability and the article will only interest fans. 0003 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in the article suggests notability. 0004 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the creator - I am soooo sick of these crufty articles! They are only creating them for fun and are therefore WP:NOTHERE so we should delete all their articles and block them indefinitely!! 0005 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0006 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - not sure about notability, but the article is several weeks old and contains only one reference. We can't have a BLP this badly sourced. 0007 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - being a Miss contestant alone does not make someone notable, so this qualifies for CSD A7. 0008 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone above. 0009 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 0010 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: On a solely numerical basis, the deletes far outweigh the keeps, and the sole keep doesn't even have a rationale. Looking more closely, though, shows that most of the deletes fall afoul of WP:ATA. 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0008 have somewhat policy-based !votes. 0002 only mentions the policy without saying how it applies. 0008 misses the mark as A7 doesn't address notability; as long as an article has a credible claim of significance, A7 doesn't apply. 0004 judges the article on it's current state, not the availability of sources outside the article (WP:ARTN). 0003 at least argues that the sources available don't support notability, but there's no policy saying that articles must appeal to a wide range of interests. Overall the delete !votes are weak, but far better than any keep !votes. I would close this as delete on the basis that the consensus is the subject does not meet WP:N.
Additional question from Juliancolton
7. An AfD has been open for more than seven days, and has received no comments except for the filing editor's statement. As an admin, what are your options for dealing with this AfD?
A: If the article hasn't been proposed for deletion and declined before, I can treat it like an expired PROD and close in favor of the nominator's proposal. If deleted, it would be a soft delete that can be reversed on request at WP:RFU. However, if there is a declined PROD for the article or it might be a controversial action to delete, merge, or redirect it, I would relist for further discussion.
Additional question from JJBers
8. Let's say a IP address starts adding unsourced information on Montana, and when reverted, says it's true, and links a possibly unreliable source. How do you handle the IP?
A: I would advise the user that the source given may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (linking WP:RS for further info on what makes a source reliable) and recommend that they find another source. If the information is true, there should be a better source available. If the user insists on using the original source, its suitability can be discussed on WP:RSN or the talk page of the article where more editors can chime in.
Additional question from User:Bigpoliticsfan
9. Here comes a UAA question

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

  • BrooklynNetsSuck
  • BushdidKatrina
  • 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
  • New York University Langone Medical Center
  • Articles for deletion
  • Ritchie334
  • Chad Duell
A:
  • BrooklynNetsSuck – problematic per WP:DISRUPTNAME, though not something I'd immediately block over. However, such a name might make it hard to work well with other users, especially die hard Nets fans. I'd ask the user if they'd be willing to change to something less negative.
  • BushdidKatrina – this one seems immediately blockable per WP:DISRUPTNAME as it references a controversy (Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina) and would prevent collaborative editing.
  • 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043 – this is the address for Montclair State University. It's not immediately apparent that the address of a public university is disruptive, but it might fall under WP:UNCONF. It also might suggest a conflict of interest for the school. I'd ask the user to change the name.
  • New York University Langone Medical Center – clear case of WP:CORPNAME that implies shared use, which is not permitted. I would give them the opportunity to change names or with a note that editing promotionally on behalf of this organization is forbidden.
  • Articles for deletion – this one could be considered misleading per WP:MISLEADNAME, since it references a Wikipedia process, but it doesn't imply that the user is in any sort of position or power or has extra permissions. I'd wait and see how they edit before taking action.
  • Ritchie334 – very similar to the existing and well-established user Ritchie333 (WP:IMPERSONATOR). Since they haven't edited yet, I'd leave a note about the username and that it might cause confusion with an existing user, though I'd keep a very close eye on their contributions and block at the first sign of impersonation or other inappropriate editing. While there's a good chance it's someone up to no good, it could also very well be a well-meaning user who doesn't realize the similarity.
  • Chad Duell – there is a notable person named Chad Duell, so it would be best to keep a close eye on this account for signs of impersonation. WP:REALNAME says that such accounts can be blocked as a precaution, but I would wait until they edit before taking action.
Additional question from Linguist111
10. While patrolling the new pages log, you come across an unreferenced article which, in its entirety, reads, "Une jeune fille disparue en 1990 corps découvert la semaine dernière." What do you do?
A: Translated from French, the article is about someone who went missing in 1990 and whose body was just recently found. At first glance, this looks like it could be deleted under WP:A1. However, there seems to be enough material that I could find some information about the subject if it's true. I'd start by looking for some sources and wait a few minutes to see if the article creator fleshes it out. If I can't find any information and the creator doesn't add any more to the article after a suitable amount of time, even after a gentle reminder on their talk page, I'd tag it as WP:A7 for lacking any indication of importance, since going missing and turning up dead is not a claim of significance.
Additional question from SoWhy
11. I noticed you are not using edit summaries all the time. If this request is successful, would you be willing to turn on "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in your preferences?
A: I would be willing to turn that feature on. I explain my edits more often than not, but a reminder to do so when I've forgotten certainly can't hurt.
Additional questions from Mendaliv
12. You come across an article that has been tagged for A7. Upon examining the article, you conclude that the article meets the criterion, and that there are no policy reasons why you may not delete the article (e.g., no issue of notice to the article creator, no COI on your part, no ongoing active development). What would you do between making these determinations and deleting the article, if anything? Why? (If your specific response would depend upon facts not stated here, please discuss this and note the difference such facts might make.)
A: If the article subject looks interesting to me – that is, it's something I would consider writing about – I would take a brief look online to see if maybe there's some more information out there on the subject that previous editors and taggers might have missed that would allow me to flesh out the article and show not only a claim of significance but perhaps even notability.
13. You have been a Wikipedian for nearly twelve years. In this time, how has your perception of administrators and adminship changed?
A: I can't say that my perception has changed very much, though I don't recall how exactly I perceived admins in my earlier days on Wikipedia (beyond them never being at AIV when I wanted them). I suppose the main thing is that admins feel so much rarer nowadays. Not necessarily that I don't come across them very often, but rather that it's the same handful that I see around most of the time.
Additional question from Beeblebrox
14. So, since your an expert on images, I just used the "upload a new version" feature to update a corporate logo. I now realize that in nearly ten years of editing I had never done this specific action before. So, serious question that I actually don't know the answer to: should I now delete the old version of the file, and what policy explains why I should do so?
A: Yes, the old revision of the logo should be deleted. A logo uploaded under fair use is non-free content and must fulfill the non-free content criteria. So, if you upload a new version of a logo over the old one, the old one is no longer in use in an article and fails WP:NFCC#7. The file page should be tagged with {{subst:orphaned non-free revisions}} and deleted per WP:F5.
Additional question from BU Rob13
15. Interested in images? Have an inevitable copyright question! In each of the following cases, we either can't accept the image entirely or we can only accept the image on the English Wikipedia (i.e. don't transfer to Commons). Explain which is true and why. If necessary information is missing, explain what information you would need to make such a determination. Some of these scenarios are tricky, and "I don't know" is a far better answer than something incorrect. Good luck.
  • In 1952, an American artist painted a self-portrait. He posts the image on his website with the statement "I want this to be available on the internet!"
  • Same scenario, but the statement reads "I release this image under the CC-BY-SA license."
  • Same scenario, but the statement reads "I release this image under the CC-BY-NC 2.0 license."
  • In 1925, a French artist painted a portrait of his mentor and gifted it to him in thanks for his teaching. The mentor died in 1950. The mentor's sole heir releases the painting under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.
  • In 1904, a Mexican artist painted a portrait. It is not available under any free license.
  • A picture of a cheerleading uniform taken by an independent photographer is released under the CC0 license by the photographer.
  • A picture of a cheerleading uniform taken by an independent photographer is released under the CC0 license by the owner of the company that designed the uniform.
  • I take a picture of a new building created by one of the best living architects in France.
  • I hand my phone to a friend and have them take a picture of me. I release it under a license stating "I irrevocably allow anyone to use this image for any purpose."
  • I take a selfie and release the image under the following statement: "At this time, I allow anyone to use this work in any manner they see fit and for any purpose."
A:
  • I would disallow this image completely. There's no license statement that assures reusers that both commercial and derivative works are allowed. Without a clear statement of the terms the author is willing to release his work under, the work is presumed copyrighted. (WP:COPYOTHERS)
  • Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike licenses are appropriate for both English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. (c:COM:L)
  • This license disallows commercial reuse and is not appropriate for Commons. The image could be used on the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. (WP:NONCOM)
  • This is allowable only if the original artist transferred the copyright to his mentor when gifting the portrait. If copyright was transferred, then the mentor's heir inherits the copyright and can choose to release the painting under a free license. (c:Commons:Transfer of copyright)
  • If the painting was first published before 1923, it's public domain in the United States and can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia. It can only be uploaded to Commons if the work is public domain in Mexico, which depends on the year the artist died. Copyright term in Mexico is generally 100 years after death, though there are exceptions if the artist died before 1952, per the info given at c:COM:CRTMEX.
  • This one I'm not so sure about. A photograph of a uniform is a derivative work of the uniform and c:Commons:Derivative works suggests that utilitarian objects (like clothing) aren't protected by copyright. However, a design on the uniform could be subject to copyright, meaning the image would need a free license from both the photographer and the designer. I would ask for further clarification on Commons' Village Pump.
  • Since the photographer is independent (i.e. not contracted to the company), the photographer owns the copyright to the photo and only they can release it freely. As with the previous scenario, both parties would need to provide a free license before the image could be uploaded to either Wikipedia or Commons.
  • Per c:COM:FOP#France, there is no freedom of panorama in France, meaning that buildings are copyrighted for 70 years after the architect dies and photographs of such buildings are a copyright infringement. However, the image can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia using the tag {{FOP-USonly}}, since US law holds that photographs of copyrighted buildings are not an infringement of the architect's copyright.
  • There's been some debate on Commons about whether so-called "bystander selfies" are allowed (see c:Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Bystander selfie, c:Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie) but it looks like there's no consensus. Under current Wikipedia and Commons policy, the friend taking the photo would have to provide permission to OTRS that they agree to have it uploaded and freely licensed.
  • This is tricky. The statement suggests the creator is releasing their work into the public domain, but they're also saying that they might revoke that act in the future. I'm not sure if you can reverse releasing your work into the public domain, but WP:GPD says that there's controversy regarding whether you can even abandon the copyright in the first place, which is why copyright waivers like CC0 exist. I would ask for clarification on c:COM:VPC or a similar board.
Additional questions from L3X1
16. Do you believe an obvious failure of the GNG justifies the application of A7, or should it go to AfD? Thanks
A: As long as there's some claim of significance in an article, it should be safe from A7 deletion. Any issue with notability should go the route of WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead.
17 How will you treat foully uncivil comments from established users? Insta-24 if no sign of repentance? Or a long discussion re: their behavior?
A: If they're unrepentant and continue to insult or belittle editors even after multiple warnings, then certainly a short block would be appropriate per WP:BLOCKP. However, I would also like to see a discussion with the user or the community at large to determine how to deal with their behavior in the long-term. Unfortunately, I know from watching ANI that those discussions can run on forever without a clear solution, but I would at least try to get the user to modify their behavior instead of just going with escalating blocks.
Additional question from Northamerica1000
18. This is a bit in line with Question #7 above. So, lets say an AfD discussion based upon topic notability has been open seven days with no commentary, but upon checking out sources in Google News and Google Books (per the Find sources template atop the discussion), you see many news articles and coverage in books that could potentially demonstrate notability. What are your options for dealing with this type of AfD?
A: There are a couple ways I can deal with this. I could relist the discussion with a comment pointing to potential sources that could be examined, or I could register my own keep !vote detailing my findings and how they show notability.
Additional question from Forceradical
19. If you find a admin edit warring with another user what would you do?
A: Assuming this is a content dispute, I'd first leave a non-templated warning on the talk pages for both parties asking that they stop reverting and go to the talk page. Hopefully that would stave off any further warring, especially from the admin, who should be well aware of the edit warring policy, but if it continued, I'd protect the page and start the discussion on the article talk myself.
Optional question from Awilley
20. You have performed an admin action that for whatever reason has turned out to be controversial. Several editors, including a couple of administrators, say that you were wrong to perform that action, while other editors thank you and say that your action was absolutely right. You believe that your action was correct, and that you have investigated the situation more thoroughly than the people criticizing your decision. What do you do? (There's not a correct or incorrect answer.)
A: Administrators should be as transparent as possible in their actions, per WP:ADMINACCT, so the first thing I'd do is justify why I took that specific course of action, with diffs as evidence. I'll take any counter-evidence into consideration as well, and I'm open reversing my action if the counter-evidence is more compelling than mine.
Additional question from Karlpoppery
21. You stumble upon an article about "sheep yoga". The article is quite lengthy, and it explains in much details the holistic benefits of doing yoga with sheeps. The sources of the articles are scientific articles about the benefits of yoga; scientific articles about the benefits of spending time with animals; and a few blogs and health magazines talking about sheep yoga. The article has a short section at the end entitled "skeptical point of view", which briefly states that some people don't believe that sheep yoga works. As an admin, what do you do?
A: There's nothing I'd do as an admin here, but as an editor, it sounds like this article is in dire need of a review for sourcing and neutrality issues. Any claims about the health benefits of this practice need suitably reliable sources per WP:MEDRS, preferring peer-reviewed journals and statements by medical organizations over blogs and popular press articles. The lack of any cited scientific articles or journals discussing sheep yoga is a red flag. Combining a source saying "yoga is good for you" with a source saying "spending time with animals is good for you" to make the claim that "yoga in the presence of animals is good for you" is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Unless reliable sources that make that actual claim can be found (and presuming there are enough available sources to demonstrate the topic is notable), the article should be pared down to an overview of the practice of sheep yoga and its history without making any claims about its alleged medical benefits in Wikipedia's voice. Any pro and con opinions from blogs and magazines should be attributed to their authors.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
22. What is your view of Process is important?
A: I agree that process is important, though common sense should apply so that we don't get bogged down in it. While a lot of Wikipedia's processes can feel needlessly bureaucratic, they're intended to garner wider discussion and consensus, which is better able to stand up against criticism than a unilateral decision. Such discussions also provide a historical record to refer back to in later disputes. As an example, AFD discussion is often better than a single person blanking and redirecting since it allows for a wider variety of views that the redirecting editor might not have considered, but, on the other hand, the article shouldn't be sent to AFD (or spend the full seven days there) just for the sake of having a discussion if it's exceedingly clear what the outcome of the discussion would be.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
23. You encounter an article tagged for A3 (no content) whose sole content is "Song by <Artist> and <group> on <blue-linked album> recorded 1973." (specifics redacted). You recognize the artist as fairly well-known. What do you do? What do you do differently if you don't recognize the artist?
A: I would decline the speedy, since A3 doesn't apply if there's actual content in the article and notify the tagger of the declined speedy (thanks DESiegel). After reviewing the page history for vandalism or blanking, I'd then check to see if there's any indication the song is notable on its own, and if it doesn't appear to be, I'd redirect it to the album page per WP:NSONGS. I don't think I'd do anything differently if I didn't recognize the artist, though.


Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Sam Walton (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Excellent experience and no immediate red flags. --Joshualouie711talk 16:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Seen Clp013 around, I see nothing to make me think they would abuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: From the three questions, and the nominations, I can see this being beneficial. —JJBers 16:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Quinton Feldberg (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Seems to be a great user who answers every question on their talk page (that can be answered in a respectful manner). The speedy deletion log is great. No reason to oppose here. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Seen this user around, seems like a good qualified candidate, should be fine! Good luck. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Great answers to the questions to this point, respect the nominator. Would be a net plus. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per nom. Net positive for sure. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per nom. No red flags for me (from what I have found so far) and I'm satisfied with the answers given to the questions (so far). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No issues at all, good luck. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - With the editor's extensive track record, I already thought he was an admin. Very deserving of the tools. It would undoubtedly boost the project.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support based on answers to Q4 and Q6. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per answer to question 6. Everything else looks fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I've seen clpo around and am familiar with their work and judgement. No concerns. -- Dane talk 17:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Clueful and policy-fluent answers, trustworthy nominator, cleaned block log, good interuser interactions. Easy decision. FourViolas (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - great work and judgement; a no-brainer. ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Been around, seen around. No concerns. Widr (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No concerns: the candidate is experienced, competent, and trustworthy. The answer to my question was perfectly sound, so I have no qualms about the user's stated intention of working extensively with AfD. Best of luck for the remainder of the RfA and, presumably, in your new role as an admin. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Really liked the answers, well thought out and very competent responses. Actually learned something too, which is great because I want to get more involved in these discussions myself. Good luck with the nomination! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Happy with the answer to my question (the Monkey selfie is as good a reason as any to declare file copyrights as very complicated indeed). I am happy with the answer to Q3. No other concerns. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support FFD and other areas related to files is a place where we really need more admins, and the candidate seems to have good solid knowledge that could be put to good use. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support 40,000+ edits for 10+ years is about 4,000 edits a year. also, he has more than enough experience. The garmine (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support – Fully qualified for the role. Clpo13 has sufficient experience working in the janitorial areas of Wikipedia, and his understanding of these processes is shown through his contributions in the filespace, which often involve complicated copyright questions that he is knowledgeable about, as well as in the deletion process and in countervandalism. He also has experience creating and working with content. His ability to communicate this understanding is also apparent in his answers to the questions so far, and overall, he seems like a friendly user who would be a pleasure to work with as an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Well though out answers to the questions listed. They have my confidence. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26. (edit conflict) Support as you are in pillar 1! Linguisttalk|contribs 19:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I like the answer to Q4, also the experience is a plus. Easy to support. South Nashua (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  28. (edit conflict)Support: Have seen the editor a few times, no issues overall. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Fully qualified candidate. (For what it's worth, I'll mention that I found question 6 to be an easier "delete" call than the candidate did.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support as a clear net positive. Excellent candidate. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - a model candidate. No issues to speak of; a clear net positive. 65HCA7 21:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I'm impressed by the question answers, and could not find any problems in my review of selected contributions. Mamyles (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No concerns. :-) Katietalk 21:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Looks competent and worthy of a mop.  Philg88 ♦talk 21:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Good answers to the questions and well qualified. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, easily. Everything I look at lines up right for me, and we can always use more admins working with files. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I have no concerns. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Why not? -FASTILY 23:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Indeed, why not? Double sharp (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Sure. — foxj 23:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I have seen nothing but good things from this editor. bd2412 T 23:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. No reason not to. I've taken a look at their answers and their contribs and everything's fine. Good luck with the mop. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Overall good. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Very experienced and well-rounded editor who has helped me many times in the past. Sro23 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Experienced, interested in janitorial work on files. Sensible and well thought-out answers. Hand them the mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per nom. Good candidate. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support The candidate can delete files listed at FfD, for example, if he becomes an admin. He voted "delete" on one of the files I have nominated for FfD, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 April 7#File:Haroon Akhtar Khan 2016.jpg. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support net positive-hood likely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  49. support the good reasons are mostly taken. Looks trustworthy. Dlohcierekim 01:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I have no concerns. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Looks good! We do need more admins experienced in copyright and FfD matters. Nsk92 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Stephen 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Has established trustworthiness over a long time. Experience in several areas. Interested in work that needs administrator attention. Very good answers. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Babymissfortune 01:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Admins who are fluent in copyright structue will be a net positive to the project. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support No concerns. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 02:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support The response to Q4, even without the update, just about had me supporting. Clpo13's took ownership of a mistake without a lot of hedging or excuses, and moreover showed what he'd do next time. I believe this shows a high degree of professionalism commensurate with Clpo13's tenure. That it turned out not to be so much a mistake as a reasonable degree of uncertainty regarding a thorny issue of copyright law doesn't change the beauty of this moment. I went on to ask my own questions, Q12 and Q13, to elicit a bit more about Clpo13's thought process and attitudes. I was pleased not only to see responses that were not only thoughtful but concise. I found Clpo13's response to Q12 to be frank and reflective of a realistic attitude about adminship; an unsatisfactory answer to me would have been an effective commitment to do outside research prior to any A7 deletion, which would reflect an unrealistic attitude about the voluntary nature of our work here, as well as suggest a misunderstanding of the focus of A7 deletions on form rather than substance. I'm proud to support your candidacy, Clpo13. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - long time editor, will not likely abuse the tools. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - clearly qualified. I examined the opposes from the first RFA, and I'm satisfied that whatever grounds may once have existed to oppose are no longer an issue. Steve Smith (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Has gained much experience since 2008 RfA, and has proven reliable. The project will benefit if Clpo13 is able to use the tools. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support An all-around strong candidate. I made a note about the candidate's response to question 12 in the general comment section about the need to review page histories before performing a delete, but this is a minor issue for an otherwise stellar candidate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support most definitely. Hope to have the pleasure of adding you you in the WP:ANEWS new administrators section! Cheers, FriyMan talk 05:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  63. No concerns. I took a look at some of their content work, their AfD edits, and their posts to ANI/AN3. Their edits show them to be prolific, civil, and knowledgeable. The answers to the questions here reflect that. Vanamonde (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - appears to be very competent and well-spoken. --Jennica✿ / talk 08:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support No concerns about competence, I'm particularly impressed by the way Question 4 was addressed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Seems to grok Wikipedia well. Andrew D. (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support particularly in light of the excellent answers given concerning files for deletion, moving files to Commons and general outlook on orphaned images. It's an area where there are often no definitive answers, so to have someone who has a great deal of common sense and thoughtfulness, as I believe Clpo13 does, administrating in this area will be a benefit to both our project here, and across the way on Commons. Nick (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose, per ridiculous overlinking,[1][2] watchlist-clogging self-reversions,[3][4] and creation of unsourced biographies.[5] Sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mkativerata, why was the revert necessary? Your oppose is in the support section. It isn't vote-tampering if it isn't a legit vote. - TheMagnificentist 11:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheMagnificentist: It's a joke vote. The "oppose" isn't serious, the user actually supports the RfA. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ... - TheMagnificentist 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheMagnificentist: I think you're looking for {{facepalm}}. GiantSnowman 17:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh man, Mkativerata, that really shows how far I've come. Linking all the dates, what was I thinking? clpo13(talk) 17:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - I don't see any reason to oppose. - TheMagnificentist 10:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - not much more to say from me other than I have seen this user around and I think he would be a net positive. Patient Zerotalk 10:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Seems clueful, competent and knows his way around. Answers to questions are very good so far, a spot check of the AfD and CSD record shows no (recent) mistakes that would worry me and when pointed out, candidate seems willing to learn from past mistakes. I hesitated a bit since in answer to Q11 they said they would improve on using edit summaries and yet the last two edits to this page again contain no summaries but I realized that I had asked for the time after this RfA, so I cannot fault the candidate for that. Regards SoWhy 11:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Without any hesitation. Thank you for accepting the responsibility. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: No worries at all. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per nom.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Sounds like someone I would vote for YES Denver| Thank you and Have a nice Day! (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per nom. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - No concerns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, excellent answers to questions, no concerns in history. Good luck! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support net positive. Lepricavark (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Solid candidate with excellent record + no red or yellow flags= net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - there's a lot to like here. Solid contributions in many areas, both in content and maintenance. Positive interactions, see their talk page. Takes advice well. Great answers to questions. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - excellent answers to the copyright questions. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - Well-qualified candidate. Good answers to the copyright questions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support as the answers are great and I see no red flags --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Like the clear explanations about candidate's thinking. Glrx (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Very good record and no skeletons hanging around. Excellent answers to the questions I checked on. None of which was #15. My eyes began to glaze over as the second scenario was being described....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support as an excellent addition to the admin corps.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Sorry I didn't get around to co-nom'ing as promised, but Sam has said everything that needs to be said :) To add some brief words, Clpo13 in my mind is close to your ideal candidate. The contributions that stand out the most to me are John E. Corbally, an article they single-handedly brought to GA from scratch, along with three DYKs and over 10 years tenure. They also seem to be good with new users, and have a clear interest in admin duties. Easy support — MusikAnimal talk 19:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  90. A no-brainer epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Looks like a good analyzer, brilliant, level headed, good communicator, with a lot of Wikipedia experience and expertise. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support there are very few more qualified candidates that I have seen go for RfA. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 21:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - like Clpo13's thoughtful answers. Qualified. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per Mkativerata ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Although I have read many RfA's, this is the first time I felt strong about a user. So, I thought this would be a good first vote. I feel copyright knowledge is particularly important here and the user's proficiency in this area is the main reason for my support. Equineducklings (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Appears a good candidate. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - A good-standing account and have a lot of experience in Wikipedia. Looking forward to see more from this user! QianCheng虔诚 09:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Good nomination and good answers. Why not. Deryck C. 10:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support-User seems to have excellent knowledge of wikipedia policies and also as demonstrated by his answer of my question he does not let personal feelings intefere with his workFORCE RADICAL (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Good answers to the questions, a clearly defined use for the administrative toolkit and demonstrated competence all make it easy to support this candidate. /wiae /tlk 12:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support – I've met Clpo13 helping with LTA cleanup, and found him a careful and responsible editor. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per nom. Icebob99 (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 17:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support without hesitation. I already know this editor to be helpful, capable and responsible; for those that don't, the answers to the questions should be convincing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Seems very reliable and responsible. HalfGig talk 21:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - I cannot recall a single interaction with this user even though we have been around for a similar time frame, but I can see no reason to disallow the request.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support (though my !vote is probably not needed) Very impressive answers to the questions, and I can find no cause for concern. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - Highly experienced and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - Seems to be very experienced and responsible. NightlyG (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - I really like the candidate's thoughtful analysis of question #6, about the deletion votes. I believe the tools are a trust position, not a promotion, and I feel we can invest trust in Clpo13. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - Impressed with the answers to questions posed, and equally impressed that the candidate is accepting of constructive criticism. See also WP:TTWOA. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 08:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - I was impressed by the candidates qualifications and answers to the questions. Should make an excellent administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: Based on their answers and experience, I believe that Clpo will be a net positive as an admin. Thank you for volunteering. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Happy to pile on. Sole oppose, based on an arbitrary content-creation criterion, is not convincing. Miniapolis 14:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support convincing answers, good list of contributions and really no reason to oppose. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Will be a useful asset to the project as an admin. SpencerT♦C 15:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support based on a modest review of contributions and the Q&A here. --joe deckertalk 15:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Based upon my User:Mkdw/RfA Standards. No concerns. Mkdw talk 18:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - Clpo13 will be a benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. JMHamo (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support precious ("useless without images") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support (edit conflict) Not looking for content creation in an admin, but I do see the candidate as a net positive for the admin corps, and they have demonstrated a need for the tools. The only oppose !vote right now is unconvincing, even if I were looking for content creation; if all you look for is GAs and FAs then we ought to desysop hundreds of admins. It's possible to create or write lots of good articles without having any of them reach GA or FA status. Anyways, even if Clpo13 didn't write that GA, I'd still support them for all the other work they've done. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Their answers to the questions seemed suitable and they appear to demonstrate competence. I wish them luck with the nomination & future editing. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 02:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support overdue Gizza (t)(c) 06:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Given the good answers from the nominee, I trust the user can handle the mop. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. I don't suppose pile-on supports are really needed at this stage, but I'll add mine anyway (even though you only have one GA more than me ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support no reason not to support. Jianhui67 T★C 15:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  132. S I wish the user had more experience in content creation, but this is least a concern in this particular case.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - Excellent candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support – Good answers from an experienced candidate. Thumbs up. De728631 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Good contributions, good answers, no valid oppose reasons highlighted. Quite enough for me :) —Frosty ☃ 23:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  136. No concerns. Mélencron (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. Seems like they will be a good admin, no reason to oppose at this moment. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support - I find no compelling reasons whatsoever to oppose; answers to questions above suggest excellent judgement. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 03:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - cautious approach, balanced answers. We need more such people. — kashmiri TALK 13:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support - Everything I want to see in an admin and then some. Wise answers, understands policies, and experienced. Best wishes, this one's a landslide. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support - looks great! The Land (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support The nom is persuasive, and the candidate's answers to the questions above are dispositive. He demonstrates the knowledge of the rules, the careful judgment and the equanimity we need in our admins. David in DC (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support - a good user and dedicated to improving the process for all of us. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - happy to support - mop please! Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 16:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - looks great, good luck. TJH2018talk 16:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. Answers to the questions are really good, showing knowledge and thoughtfulness, and since it's like 146-1 at this point I'm going to take it on faith that the other vetting has checked out OK. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - a long-standing editor with lots of positive contributions and experience. GermanJoe (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support based in part on the answer to Q23. You might add notifying the tagger that the CSD tag was incorrect. (By the way, the actual page was 500 Miles high.) DES (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Great candidate who I am happy to support.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support I thought that Clpo13 was already an admin! Thank you for taking on the tools and godspeed :) -Darouet (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Strong support per answer to my question, as well as general competence and good temperament. Good luck! KarlPoppery (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Candidate is highly experienced and trusted. Great nomination. Daphne Lantier 22:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Cannot see a reason why not. Competent Wikipedian. Moriori (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Just piling on. More like this please. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Every edit from this editor I've come across has been a good one, and this RfA looks positively golden to me. Regarding the sole oppose !vote: whether or not an editor would make a good admin has, IMHO almost nothing to do with their ability to create good content. The only "content" bar for adminship which makes any sense to me whatsoever is that the candidate be able to recognize good content and parse sources. Clpo has that ability in spades, I have seen for myself. The real qualities which make for a good admin IMHO are: a reluctance to contribute to drama, impartiality coupled with a willingness to acknowledge one's own POV, a long temper and a great nose for bullshit. This RfA and my previous exposure to this editor satisfy those qualities quite handily. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support A clear positive. Glad they stuck around since the last RFA!--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support - impressive handling and answering of the questions, especially 15 and 9 in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. Much cluefulness in evidence, seems diligent. I can't find any red flags, try as I might. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Kurtis (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support - impressive answers to the questions, in particular the responses to the questions the candidate is not sure about. Impressive overall. I'm impressed, is what I'm saying here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support No concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Experienced, and shows a very good grasp both of the letter and the spirit of the policies and the project. Best of luck! Constantine ✍ 18:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  164. I like your article deletion answers - well thought through. You're too overcautious with the potential disruptive names, but that's not unexpected at RfA and I'd seek caution in your first few weeks with the tools anyway. You seem to have plans for the tools when you have them, so that's cool too. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support, no red flags from what I can see. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Seems trustworthy and sane. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 00:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Bit of a late pile-on. But I see no problems with this candidate. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support: of course. Jonathunder (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. Appears to be a good editor with a solid track record. No concerns. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support An excellent candidate who answered the questions very well. I have no concerns. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support Heck, yes. --NeilN talk to me 06:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  174. SupportIt's ridiculous the 23 core and multiple sub questions asked in this Rfa. Anyone willing to provide such decent answers to so many almost identical questions deserves to be an admin.--MONGO 13:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per User:GregJackP/Admin criteria. As far as I can tell, they have been here over ten years and have managed to create only one good article. I'm sure that they are a decent person and a good Wikipedian, but we need admins who understand content creation. GregJackP Boomer! 01:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    → Extended discussion moved to talk page. -- Dane talk 02:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Per my comments below. ~ Rob13Talk 16:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Rob13 and too careful responses, i.e. too often the reply is "I'd wait and see", where IMHO action would be justified. See above comment by Trey Maturin, in his support vote. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I agree with the concerns expressed here, and those of the lone-dissenter. I've been wavering between "oppose" and "neutral"; as there's little point in adding an "oppose" to a request that is clearly going to be successful, I'm here. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • With all due respect to the asker, question 15 strikes me as a "Multi-part questions disguised as one question". Should this be allowed? -FASTILY 01:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't bother me (aside from arguably being a bit too rigorous for the purpose of enwiki adminship, but all the better if the candidate answers well). As far as I can tell, it's no different from the hypothetical usernames questions. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same. I think it's just a straightforward policy quiz rather than an open-ended question asking for in-depth musings on policy, which strike me as more what the question restriction is aimed at limiting. I think the rigor is fine given the candidate as well, who professes an interest for and experience in copyright issues; not because those are specifically relevant to enwiki adminship, but because they provide a look into the candidate's ability to master technical rules. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who asked the question, I want to address a few things. First, I see no difference between my question and username policy questions. My question is multi-part, but it's all tightly related, with many parts having only minor deviations from each other. Second, I recognize my question is on the long side, which is why I've chosen to limit my total questions asked to one instead of two voluntarily. Third, the rigor requested is not below that expected of an admin dealing with images. Some parts are difficult, but if an admin closed things like this incorrectly at FfD, we'd end up hosting a copyright violation on our site in many cases. That's one of the worst possible outcomes of any process on-wiki as it opens us up to legal liability. It's also possible an admin who consciously chooses to retain an image when they've been alerted to copyright issues could be personally sued for infringement by failing to act. I don't know the copyright holder would win such a case, but they'd at least drive the contributor into the poor house through legal bills. Given the legal issues at play, it is highly important both for the community and the candidate that we ensure they understand copyright at a high level. ~ Rob13Talk 05:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think BU Rob13's question is fine. If Clpo13 has prepared themselves by reading through the last few successful RfA's they'll be aware that these types of "mini-quiz" questions are the latest trend, and it's no different to the highly predictable User Names thing. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike the multi-part question trend as much as the next person, but this is at least relevant to the areas of administrative activity that the candidate wants to take part in, unlike the ever-present UAA question. We've generally allowed this kind of question recently, unless they are truly excessive - lists of >10 usernames, for instance, have been questioned, IIRC. I think at this point if we want to stop these kinds of questions we need to formally sort that out as a general guideline for RfAs, rather than re-litigating it every time one comes up and failing to come to any broad consensus. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can definitely say I would not ask this lengthy of a question about copyright if not for the interests of the candidate. ~ Rob13Talk 11:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I see Rob's point, I do think it would be good to start a discussion about questions like these, as Caeciliusinhorto said. The usual UAA thing is getting silly, for a start. One question is one question and if something needs 10 separate answers, it's 10 questions. Yintan  14:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand BU Rob13's point that knowledge of copyright law and rules is important, but I think your concern about an admin's potentially being sued for an incorrect FFD closure is unrealistic. To the best of my knowledge, in the 16 years of En-WP and its sister projects this has never happened. If a copyright owner is upset enough about an upload to be considering a lawsuit, he or she would send a DMCA notice or equivalent to the WMF, and the issue would be handed off to the Legal Department. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newyorkbrad: I'm mostly thinking of a "patent troll" type situation or a situation where an article subject dislikes what is written about them and decides to use the image as an excuse to go after a contributor. Do I think it's particularly likely to happen or that they'd win in court? No. But it is possible, and the potential for liability (or at least large legal bills) is there. Plenty of stupid lawsuits, including related to copyright, are filed every day. Think about all the legal threats article subjects make. This is one they could probably take to a lawyer and not get laughed at. ~ Rob13Talk 12:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

A fair concern, though I'd point out my question was phrased explicitly to eliminate these possibilities. I intended it explicitly to focus on what the candidate would do in between properly concluding that policy allows for deletion and actually deleting the article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Minor nitpick rescinded. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this earlier. Rest assured that I will certainly check the page history before speedy deleting. I already make sure I do a quick check for further issues when fixing vandalism. clpo13(talk) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on with Mkativerata vote? There's already beeen a mini-edit war over keeping their oppose vote in the support section. It has been suggested that it is a joke. If so, it seems likely to just confuse other editors not 'in' on their own idiosyncratic sense of humour; whether it's also somewhat childish I make no comment on :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly when the poster deletes the comments of others when moving it, and describing one good faith move as "vote-tampering". - The Bounder (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mkativerata has done this at least twice before [6][7] - it's definitely a joke.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting it. I just doubt the need for it. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the belief that fake "humorous" opposes have no place within the already stressful climate of RFA. I endorse its removal (as well as a lesson in AGF for Mkativerata given their edit summaries). Patient Zerotalk 12:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse it's removal, and a custom warning to stop. —JJBers 13:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mkativerata could have made it more obvious that it was a joke, but it's not really harming anything. TheMagnificentist really should have known better than to move it to the oppose section after it had already been put back in the support section once. Besides, it's a stretch to describe this RfA as stressful. Lepricavark (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't even necessary to make jokes on RfA. What kinda of humor is someone going to find out of a serious-looking joke? —JJBers 14:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If, of course, it is even humour; their coment on their talk page also suggests some kind of psuedo-sociological group study. Should I now add WP:NOTPROSOPOGRAPHICALRESEARCH to WP:NOT...? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, lighten up, folks. Mkat is famous for this - a joke oppose listed in the support column. Personally I felt honored when they did it at my RfA. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What, y'all never heard of the joke oppose, made on absurd grounds, to make obvious that it's really a support? We used to do it all the time. (This is why we can't have nice things) 😋. Dlohcierekim 15:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: No-one is stopping you having nice things :) and yeah we still have joke opposes  ;) But there is a) some doubt as to whether this is actually a 'joke', b) curiousity as to how something can be a joke if no-one's found it funny, and d) ultimately too easy for those not in the loop to mistake- which is what has happened today- multiple times. And you will agree, that the moment something becomes even slightly disruptive, it's time to turn it off- WP:APRILFOOLS, for example. Cheers! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have against the letter 'c'? Lepricavark (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well since we are making jokes :) I wondered if anyone would 'c' that-! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since everyone likes to make jokes in small text, why not? —JJBers 23:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JJBers: Because it's funny to put it in small text as the letter "c" freaked out in one highway lane changing into another lane lol.KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 00:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm afraid this whole thread violates the well-established policy of WP:SERIUSBIZNIS. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With 74 support votes, and no serious oppose votes yet, is it time to close this as a successful RfA, per WP:SNOW? —JJBers 13:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC) (See below)[reply]

WP:SNOW is only for "not a chance" RfAs that have no possibility of succeeding. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Schwede66, which had unanimous support until right at the end. A snow close would have denied that single opposer their right to have their say. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your right. Striking out original comment. —JJBers 13:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW its 81/0. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's 103/0. This some kind of miracle basketball game? —JJBers 13:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
111/0. I didn't know grown men with beards attended elementary school. :) d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The unbelievable, 111/1. —JJBers 01:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on my copyright question. Clpo13, you should read this.

  • For the second question, that is incorrect. You should reject that image based on that statement because no CC-BY-SA license exists. CC licenses (except CC0) have version numbers, and some of the details change significantly between versions based on updates in copyright law. You'd need to ask them whether they were releasing under CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0, etc. If they included a link to the specific license in their statement, which many sites do, you could definitely accept that under whatever version number they linked to.
  • For the third question, this is somewhat incorrect. It depends on whether the image meets our non-free content criteria. An image that does not allow commercial use is the same as non-free under our policies. They can be used under fair use, but only if they follow all out other fair use policies. It isn't automatic.
  • For the fourth question, the answer is correct, but note that copyright transfers almost never happen outside of work-for-pay and should be viewed with a good deal of skepticism.
  • Good answer to ask when unsure for number six. The page about utilitarian objects is outdated. In Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court recently ruled that a design of a useful object is copyrightable (and therefore pictures of them copyright infringement) if the design would pass the threshold of originality if drawn, displayed by picture, etc. The specific example in that case was a cheerleading uniform, so these would be copyright violations without a release from both the designer and photographer.
  • For the last question, again good to seek advice. All licenses used on Wikipedia must be irrevocable, period. This statement lacks an irrevocable quality. You can't abandon copyright, but this statement is otherwise fine - you can write your own license, and it can be as simple as "I irrevocably allow anyone to use this image for any purpose without restrictions, to the extent I am able to under current copyright law."

Thanks for answering. Overall, I think this answer shows competence but not strong knowledge on the little details of copyright. I will likely wind up neutral. ~ Rob13Talk 02:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and corrections, especially on CC versions. For the third scenario, I should have said the image can be used with an appropriate fair use rationale. While I don't work with fair use files very often, I am familiar with the non-free content policies, especially the point about non-free files not getting an automatic pass. clpo13(talk) 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Template:Cc-by-sa *does* redirect to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. IMO calling Q15.2 entirely incorrect is not fair to Clpo13 given that our current practice is incorrect to begin with. -FASTILY 09:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: A redirect does not change copyright law, nor does it change the fact that even the license that CC-BY-SA redirects to has a version number. That redirect should almost certainly be deleted. ~ Rob13Talk 12:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think you misunderstood my comment. Many of our contributors will assume that policy/guideline pages and existing infrastructure are accurate, so it shouldn't come as a surprise when editors reiterate this information, whether factually accurate or not. -FASTILY 06:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fastily here. If we're going to get into this level of minutiae we might as well start calling out Clpo13 for failing to address the risk that an uploader would later claim unilateral mistake or something of that nature to seek to rescind his or her license. Even for a law school examination, "Ah, but there's no such license by that name!" would not be a credited response. You might not quite get laughed out of court with that argument, but it'd come close. Law disfavors "gotcha" situations like that, and though copyright law is one of those fields rife with gotchas, the areas that are managed almost completely by contract law doctrines (i.e., licenses) tend to be a lot more flexible. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:19, 9 May 2017 (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/Clpo13_2&oldid=1147961584"