Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lee Vilenski

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

Lee Vilenski[edit]

Final (162/3/1); Closed as successful by ϢereSpielChequers at 08:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]


Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) – Lee is passionate about cue sports, and has improved several articles on the topic to featured article status including the 2019 World Snooker Championship. He has also improved numerous articles to good article status and nominated a number of Did You Know? candidates for the front page. On the administrative side of the project, he has regularly contributed to Articles for deletion debates, and the help desk. I've seen him around in conversations and he is always polite and courteous. He has just the right balance of skills I like to see in an admin candidate, and he has my full confidence in being able to use the toolset carefully and responsibly. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In addition to being a content creator, Lee Vilenski has been working at DYK for a long time, reviewing nominations and in the past few months promoting approved nominations to build preps. He is clearly committed to working at DYK, which is much needed. He's easy to get along with and doesn't cause drama, and I'd be very happy to see him be able to contribute more where his help is very much needed. --valereee (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination above from Richie333 and Valeree. I have never used an additional account, nor accepted pay for editing wikipedia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

1: What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am looking for the tools to help out more within did you know and articles for deletion, but would be willing to help out wherever is needed. However, I am a firm believer that the tools should not be used on a whim, and that I would ease myself into new areas only when I am completely happy with the current areas I was working on.
2: What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have worked in many different WikiProjects, but most of my best content is within cue sports articles, specifically snooker and pool. I have almost 40 good articles and 3 featured articles in an area which has traditionally not gotten much content to this stage; but also do work in video games, professional wrestling and football. My best article contributions include the 2019 World Snooker Championship, 2019 Tour Championship and Eddie Ryan. However, I feel some of my best contributions are in creating articles and expanding them to Did you know, such as 1985 World Snooker Championship, Ground billiards and Kristina Tkach. In addition, I like to offer my help on the help desk.
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: I am very easy going and not the type to receive stress regarding volunteering to update Wikipedia. Every user receives conflicts over editing, and I firmly believe in Bold, Revert, Discuss and good faith. I have even been around strong debates on content, including items such as the removal of move-lists on professional wrestling articles where there was drama, frustrated discussions and name calling. I reminded users to stick to policy keeping a cool head. In addition, I have also been involved with fixing MOS:FLAG issues on cue sport articles such as here. I always seek to fix issues, but be compassionate with other editors as we are all trying to build an encyclopedia. I am quite happy to comment on potentially controversial conversations, whilst trying to gain a suitable consensus without adding to the conflict at hand.

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 Reyk
4. In your opinion what is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?
A: To say there is one policy that trumps the rest isn't quite right. Verifiability and notability go together as it shows that we are building an encylopedia based on truths (or, at least what reliable sources publish as the facts) for notable subjects. In an ideal world, if the information isn't on a notable subject and isn't something we can check (or have previously checked), we shouldn't be including it. WP:BLP is also very important, but is more of a stringent version of regular articles. More of a guideline, but WP:GOODFAITH is so important to us as a community as our goal is to gain a consensus. I would like to hope that I use policy based on the situation, rather than hunt down things that do not comply to a specific policy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from usernamekiran
5. Hi. I am asking this question generally, nothing related to RfA, no matter what you answer. If you get the toolbox, in what area would you be the least active or not at all active, in admin capacity? (doesnt have to be your weak areas.) Also if possible to answer: why not? Please feel free to ignore the second part. Also, best of luck Face-smile.svg —usernamekiran (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: This is a surprisingly difficult question Usernamekiran. It's quite easy to say what things you'd like to do, but maybe not the other way around. As I have said above, I'm happy to throw my hand to anything that needs the work doing; but only when I was happy I was going to do it right. Right now, I wouldn't be touching things like WP:CSD or WP:RfPP as I have very little experience in these areas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from Leaky
6. Are there any aspects of WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT with which you disagree and why?
A:Not really. I think it's quite normal to expect admins to have a high level of conduct and be judged for how they use the tools. However, as it does say in admin conduct, we all make mistakes, so we should attempt to assume good faith for all users, even if the tools are used. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6A. You appear to believe that WP:ADMINCOND & WP:ADMINACCT relate only / primarily to Admins. use of tools, despite everything that has been going on relating to Admin. interactions with others / civility front this year? Do you want to have another go at answering this question, maybe following a bit of research?
A Sorry, I think I read not enough into the question. Apologies. No user should be acting in bad faith, not communicating, or especially engaging in harassment. However, as an admin, these are significantly more important things not to do. As noted a few times above, I wish to always act with civility and would like to lead by example. I realise there have been some issues this year, and whilst I do not wish to comment on them on this forum, I do not condone any bad faith editing, and especially attacks on other users at any time. Admin are - and should be - held to higher standards than the rest of the community at all times. I hope this answers the question a little better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Djm-leighpark
7. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile infantry (2nd nomination) the close analysis script [1] indicates you did a speedy keep close, though I am somewhat confused as you seemed to do a relist at that AfD and the script analysis may be wrong; but in all events are you able to detail the times when you are able to close an AfD as speedy keep ?
A: Sure. The AfD in question was not suitable for a speedy keep. The outcome of speedy keep is generally for deletion discussions that are malformed, bad faith, by a banned user, etc. It's also used for "nomination withdrawn" discussions. Importantly, this can only be used in cases where there are no other types of votes than keep, which is why it wasn't correct in this case. Once warned that this wasn't right, I self-reverted, and relisted the discussion. (You'll notice there is a little bit of time between the closure and the relisting, which was me checking how to do this correctly). It's important to know the difference between a speedy keep, and that of a snowball closure, which is when the article has next to no chance of the article passing the AfD, due to the arguments of the keep! votes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from Robert McClenon
8. This question is about content disputes, and disputes that are partly content and partly conduct. Do you have experience in resolving content disputes, or the content parts of combined disputes?
A: Sure! I set out a couple of disputes I was involved in regarding content in question 3. Particularly the removal of move-lists on professional wrestling articles which was (and still is) a wide reaching issue on already difficult series of articles. Whilst not resolving the issues personally, I pushed the topic back to policy based arguments from name-calling and WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues. I'd like to do more with closing disputes, so recently signed up for helping at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9. This question is about civility, which is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Can you clarify your concept of civility, and what do you think should be the standard for when editors should be cautioned, warned, or blocked for breaches of civility?
A: I take civility as a major ideal for my own editing. We are all volunteers and every edit should be promoting a good atmosphere between users - even if there is a disagreement. There is a difference between being strong on a point, and harassing other users. Cautioning and warnings should be based on how experienced the editor is, the size of the violation and also what previous warnings/cautions they had recieved. In my opinion, blocking should be a last resort as if the user is at least attempting to build an enclyopedia, then maybe the mentorship program, or otherwise could help them find a place to help. However, clear repeated vandalism, copyright violations or harrasment of other editors should be looked on with distain, where blocking a user is more suitable. Of course, we should always assume good intentions, unless it is clear. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Rosguill
10. Consider a hypothetical AfD discussing a stub article of a football player. The nomination statement asserts that the subject does not meet GNG. There are four additional votes, each of which asserts that the subject meets NFOOTY. The article itself has only primary sources, but they do establish that NFOOTY has been met. No one has provided any additional sources. What action would you take, if any, as an admin patrolling AfD logs?
A: Well, as a regular user, or as a newly promoted admin, I would leave edge-cases to more experienced personnel. However, AfDs are not a vote, but should also be a consensus. WP:NFOOTY (or any SNG) does NOT trump WP:GNG. However, they are supposed to be used in such a way that almost all entries that meet the SNG would also meet GNG, so finding sources before making an article isn't so restrictive. (The idea being in the football case, is that most of these players are brought up in local magazines, match programs, local radio etc.) However, in particular, NFOOTY is very wide in it's range of bios that it hits (it is every player who's ever kicked a ball in a professional match), which is why it is a little contentious.
At AfD, this is a little bit moot. The AfD should mirror local and global consensus; which in this case is that SNG can be used as a stand-in for GNG. Depending on the actual strengths of the argument, it's likely that it could either get relisted, or simply kept. As an aside, the best possible outcome for the nominator would have been a WP:NOQUORUM close, as they are the only ones making an argument for deletion in this case. As there has been opposition, this can't happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Can I Log In
11. Do you think to have Mainspace edits > 50% is important in RfXs?
A: Yes... and no. Judging on a percentage of edits is a little vague. Someone running with 50,000 edits could have a percentage of 40% but have more edits to mainspace than myself. However, it is important that any user looking for additional tools has a good understanding of content creation, and editing within the mainspace. That is what we are here to do, primarily, with most of the additional discussion to improve this. If you have a low mainspace edits, it's hard to understand the burdens and restrictions of what we are all here for. In addition, it might be worth investigating where the majority of someone's edits are, if not in mainspace. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12. Would you be willing to go for voluntary recall every year?
A: Yes. I would be happy to be open for WP:RECALL. Like everything in wikipedia, if there was a consensus that I was mishandling the tools, or otherwise no longer suitable for adminship for any reason, I'd hang up the mop. I'm not sure that a strict definition of "every year" is particularly right, as I'd like to think I'd have the support of the userbase at all times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Feminist
13. Comment on the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Buttigieg. What action would you have taken, and why?
A: Well, the closure was almost ten years ago, and I cannot see the version that was being discussed at the time. As such, I can only take arguments pulled up in the AfD at face value. I also generally don't work around politics and know nothing about the subject, but more than willing to look a this AfD. I would suggest it's likely that AfD has changed in the last ten years, but as a review in 2020 I would most likely have posted a delete. The biggest argument for deletion is that it doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, or at least WP:NOTNOW. There is a SPA using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and one that states N is met. However, due to the amount of other views that it doesn't infact meet N, I'd have deleted this one (as I see did the original closer.) It's clear that the subject is now notable, but that potentially not true when the close was done. I hope that answers the question as wanted. I see he likely ran shortly after/(before?) this so it's very possible he was notable at the time of the AfD, but would always avoid a WP:SUPERVOTE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hint: What option, other than "delete", could you have suggested? This may involve !voting in the discussion instead of closing it. feminist (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, once again, it's a little difficult to tell the state of the original article, but voting on an AfD would be different from closing it. When voting, I'd do a WP:BEFORE search but if the article didn't meet GNG (or POLITICIAN), I'd usually look for a suitable merge/redirect target. Of these, likely targets would be Indiana State Treasurer (for which he was in the running for the time), McKinsey & Company (where he was a consultant shortly before) or the election article for state Treasurer at 2010 Indiana State Treasurer election (which, didn't exist at the time of closing). Looking at the article, Indiana State Treasurer doesn't actually mention Pete by name (as he didn't win).
In some cases, I would request the article be userfied or drafted if it is likely to be notable in the future. As I understand it, WP:POLOUTCOMES says we should try to avoid draftifying articles in this way for this type of article. I'm certainly no expert in political articles and related policies; but without a suitable redirect/merge location, delete would be the next location per POLOUTCOMES. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Dolotta
14. What two areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
A: I suppose this is a better question for others as it's a little difficult to judge your own weaknesses. For what it's worth, my knowledge of images (specifically the Featured Pictures process) isn't something I'm particularly well versed; and I'm certainly not overly technical (I've written some templates on-wiki, but mostly editing other people's code.) I like to think I can throw my hand to anything, if given enough time, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Espresso Addict
15. Do you edit much outside the area of sports/video games? If not, how would you intend to use the admin tools in areas unrelated to these topics?
A: Sure. Obviously my full contributions can be found here. I'm assuming this question is meant to be only mainspace edits, as I do work in project space, DYK and FAC/GAN. Most of my work is indeed in a wide variety of sports (snooker, pool, football, short mat bowls), as well as video games, and professional wrestling (there's an argument as to where this actually fits). I also contribute to individual articles, such as William Pogue (astronaut), which I'm working on eventually taking to GA. As above, my main uses of the tools would be for DYK, and AfD and other tasks that I would look to picking up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from RexxS
16. I see that in answer to question 10, you state that "WP:NFOOTY (or any SNG) does NOT trump WP:GNG." Is that true for WP:NPROF? Please consider the proposition that some SNGs are designed to redress the problem that GNG disadvantages under-represented groups such as academics, who may represent an encyclopedic subject but lack recognition in mainstream media.
A: Hi RexxS, thanks for the question. I think the previous answer was showing why NFOOTY in particular (although, there are additional ones) is contentious. SNG's are at the forefront, a consensus that certain rules make the subject in question notable in theory. As such, we should keep to the consensus, or look to change the SNG if it is to restrictive/expansive. WP:ACADEMIC which you brought up, does do an admirable job of being inclusive of those people who are notable, provided we can verify those conditions are met. Passing GNG is the ultimate ideal for the article, but it isn't always possible for the reasons you described. There are other examples, such as WP:GEOLAND which has populated, legally recognised places as notable, even with just one source to prove it exists. In terms of AfD, we should respect the SNG provided it can't be shown it isn't notable (such as showing WP:1E, the claims are bogus/haux or otherwise). Why I said "SNG does NOT trump WP:GNG" is because something clearly passing GNG is notable, even if it doesn't pass the SNG.
Of course, articles should still be as well sourced as we can make them! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen the argument that "X may pass GNG, but not this SNG, so not notable" before.
Additional question from RadioKAOS
17. This is a followup of sorts to question 13. During a previous visit to RFA, I pointed out the case of Jesse Kiehl. The original submission on this topic was buried and deleted in draftspace amid questions (not definitively answered by the responsible parties) of whether he could be deemed notable at the time. The submission was also a properly-sourced biography of a living person. Kiehl has since been elected as a state senator and hence any questions of notability are moot. The entry which currently sits in article space is part of an editor's once-upon-a-time parallel-construction exercise about a political office (state legislator of the Democratic Party in Alaska) and neither the content nor the sourcing really passes any reasonable muster as far as BLP is concerned. The community has ignored my requests to merge the two pieces of content, apparently insisting that's it perfectly appropriate for less active contributors to the encyclopedia to have to start all over again from scratch who knows how many times. Kiehl is not the only such case I've witnessed in the eight or nine years I've been following what goes on with AFC and draftspace. How are we benefiting readers by engaging in such practices?


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

  1. Support All the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support as nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support, do not currently see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. The edit summary usage is still grim in bulk but has been at consistently adequate levels since May. Mr. Vilenski seems otherwise good in my book. All the best. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 08:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support - good chance of being net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support Trust Ritchie333's judgement. - FitIndia Talk Commons 11:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support Wonderful and dedicated content creator. Nothing holding back my support. 1.02 editor (T/C) 11:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support as nom. --valereee (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Content creator admins who have knowledge of policy are useful. No clear reason to oppose. Money emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 12:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support, found precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. (edit conflict) Support no issues that I can see. Meets my criteria. I see a need and trust this user. Content creation is great and is a clear evidence of working to improve the encyclopedia. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Have no evidence he would misuse the tools. --Jayron32 12:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support Great content creator + work at help desk shows good policy knowledge as well. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 12:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support Lee is an editor I've worked quite closely with at times and his attitude and demeanour are exemplary. I have no worries over his ability to be a good admin. Kosack (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support Always found him helpful and knowledgeable at DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Phenomenal editor, very trustworthy. JTP (talkcontribs) 13:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support I am familiar with their content work, which is great, and have no problem trusting this user with the tools.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support. No problems I can see. Additionally, I highly respect Lee as a content creator, as well as his work as DYK. epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support strong content creator with 56% of edits in man space and an admirable AfD record. Enthusiastic support. Lightburst (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support: A helpful and courteous editor. OceanHok (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support per Gerda. Agathoclea (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support only good interactions with this user. Will be a net-positive to the project as an admin. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support - Sufficient tenure, excellent looking contribution charts, no indications of assholery. Not entirely sure why tools are really needed here, but I'm more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt in this case. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Carrite, tools are needed to move a DYK from prep to queue, which is the biggest bottleneck in that project. Only admins can edit the main page. --valereee (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support per Carrite. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support. Model candidate. Great conent and solid record of tool use, no temperment issues (that I could see). Clear pass. Britishfinance (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support of course. Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 15:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support- I like the answers to the questions, and I'm not seeing any obvious red flags. Reyk YO! 15:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support Reviewing their answers to questions posted, I can see they will do an excellent job as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support - this is an easy choice for me. Good content creator, committed editor, and in my experience is a genuinely pleasant person on-wiki. Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support for excellent content creation and apparent clue-fulness. Even if they don't end up using the tools that much, still a net positive for the project that they have them. Enwebb (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. support all around good editor. Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support I've worked with Lee a lot, especially on GAN, where he has been a great reviewer and recipient of reviews on many occasions. I see no issue whatsoever with his communication skills. Good luck, but don't give up the day job (of writing and improving articles, of course!). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support I've always found him courteous and would have no concerns about giving him some extra tools. Nigej (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. (edit conflict)Support we need more admins working on DYK. Based on LV's hard work at GAN, I expect that granting him the tools would be a clear net positive. I have interacted with him a few times and found that he is always respectful of those with whom he disagrees. Working with first time GA nominators is difficult to do successfully; I know LV did a much better job with oppose #1 than I would have! buidhe 16:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support. Obviously. Lee is a very helpful user! Even has a featured article running currently on (Snooker of course) :D (edit conflict)MJLTalk 16:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support. clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support Absolutely! Clear positive content creation, enough experience to understand the areas of adminship, and I've always had a very positive impression of him. Calm and civil, which is what we need in admins. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support, meets content creation criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 18:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Best wishes for a successful RfA. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support, no issues seem to be apparent. Looks like a good addition to the team. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support - Very helpful to others at the help desk. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support As I don't see any major issues (might reconsider if something important comes up), and the candidate does quite a bit of quality content creation and is friendly and helpful. Best wishes for a successful RfA! GoodCrossing (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support a level-headed and exceedingly cordial contributor. No red flags. The oppose vote re the GAN is not convincing: see discussion below in general comments.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Seen them around plenty, trusted noms, no concerns. GirthSummit (blether) 19:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Nothing but positives to say about the kind of editor they are. Certainly trusted with the sysop toolkit by me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support. Trusted noms. Seen the candidate around, appears to have a clue both with regards to editing and behind the scenes work. Regards SoWhy 19:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support – Contributes good content and has never smashed a chair over anyone's head. On Wikipedia. Thanks for volunteering. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support. It will be good to have a sensible non-drama person who has expertise in the area of sport and games. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  51. Support I have seen Lee Vilenksi around the video game wikiproject for some time now. He is calm and civil with great content creation experience (and reviews) and has good experience at AfD.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support Based on nomination and answers. Thank you for volunteering for this responsibility. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support good content creation, seems to know policy, has a clue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. All indications are very positive. I see no reason to dispute the nomination statements. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support Based on my past experience, he is a lovely person and I don't have any issues with this person. I would be happy for him to have the tools. HawkAussie (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support per all of the above. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support Seems helpful, knowledgeable, and pleasant. I think he would be a good admin. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support Would make a very good admin have interacted with Lee in regards to video game topics and have nothing bad to say. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support Based on past experience with this user, I would trust him with the tools and I think he would put them to good use. BOZ (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. The GA review mentioned in Oppose #1 seemed pretty normal to me. Re Oppose #2: I'll admit I'm surprised this draft was declined, but that's one draft from over two years ago. If Lee really is a "tough reviewer", that just says to me maybe they should be reviewing FAs instead of GAs or AFCs. No concerns about them having the tools, though. Thanks for standing! – Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 05:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support – An exemplary candidate for adminship. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support, see no issues and a good track record. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Stephen 08:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support - He has a good attitude, having seen it through the Video Game Project. I think he can handle the tools. GamerPro64 08:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support - I've worked with him for a number of years, no concerns, will make a great admin. GiantSnowman 09:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support Good editor. I just dropped him one of these a few days ago. Humble, helpful, competent. Mop please. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support easily. – Teratix 10:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support I've seen no problems, and I don't see any from the couple of opposes either. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support. Excellent content contributions, and great communication skills. — Newslinger talk 11:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support -- valereee, FA, Best Wishes, Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support - No reason not to. SSSB (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support: respectful, constructive and honest editor; seems a nice person to boot. – Fayenatic London 12:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. This candidate for RfA definitely has my support. Quahog (talkcontribs) 13:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support Well-rounded, trustworthy candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 13:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support, and I hope to see Lee come out of this RfA as an admin. >>BEANS X3t 13:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEANS X3 (talkcontribs) Reply[reply]
  77. Support Zero concerns, good choice -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support Seems like a good pick. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support Agree with Levivich above. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support per nom. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support - well skilled candidate in multiple areas, no trust issues I'm aware of. Therefore, good admin addition Nosebagbear (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support - I've been aware of Lee for a while, mainly through their work at GAN and FAC. They seem level-headed and a good editor with the project's best interest at heart, and I'd undoubtedly trust them with the mop. Having looked over both of the incidents cited by the oppose rationales, I don't see any problem with LV's behaviour. The GAN seems perfectly reasonable, and I cannot see the "many differences between British and Canadian English" which apparently caused Flibirigit to become frustrated. There are a few turns of phrase that the nominator wasn't familiar with (e.g. "home fixtures" to mean matches played at home) but LV explained them when questioned and given that they clearly have good English, I can't see that "they sometimes use turns of phrase which I am not familiar with" is a useful oppose rationale. As for the AfC cited by Avatar317 – perhaps the article could have been accepted in the state it was in, but I don't think this is an egregiously poor decision by LV, and they did give what seems to me a perfectly clear reason for not accepting. Both of these opposes seem to boil down to "poor communication" and, frankly, I don't agree that Lee's communication is poor, and I don't agree that the particular instances cited are particularly convincing examples of poor communication. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. What Carrite said. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support - I wish you good luck in getting adminship. =) Meowzerz (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support no concerns signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. support per nominator statements, Caeciliusinhorto, et al. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support Excellent candidate. No concerns from me.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support a 'thought they already were' support vote. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support I haven't had any interactions with this editor that come to mind, but from what I can see they look pretty solid and I'm not seeing any red or yellow flags in their record. The opposes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support per valereee Wug·a·po·des 22:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support The candidate is highly qualified for this position. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support - from my enormous passion for snooker, and with not far off half the supporters up to now being admins, it would be difficult to say no. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support Outstanding content creator, great work at GAN and FAC. Constructive in behavior. Have only had positive interactions with this user. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support I've had good interactions with Lee, and they're clueful. Opposes mildly concerning (I agree with Beeblebrox below about the GAN process), but no reason not to support. Miniapolis 01:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support. No concerns. – bradv🍁 03:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support Excellent contributor, helpful and courteous, no concerns about handing over the toolset. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support on strength of nominators, meeting my minimum criteria, and no reason seen to oppose. Ifnord (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support Excellent contributor of content and in other areas. Good demeanor and interactions; courteous and helpful. It is unfortunate that in one GA review a few English phrases (such as home fixtures rather than the Canadian, and American, usages of home games, possibly even home matches) and Canadian and American phrases (such as farm team for a minor league affiliate which is expected to develop players for a major league team) caused a little stress and some discouragement. Perhaps a bit more explanation by both might have made the process smoother but I don't see this as more than an unfortunate minor misunderstanding, and certainly not part of a disqualifying encounter or pattern of disqualifying encounters. Neither discourtesy nor poor work is evident. Candidate should be a big help at DYK, which is needed. Qualifications and trustworthiness established. Donner60 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support wanting to go through an RfA appears to be an isolated instance of poor judgment. --Find bruce (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support no concerns. Tolly4bolly 10:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support, no concerns about this user. Strong support for RfA. -- JavaHurricane 10:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support - good editor, sufficiently qualified.--Staberinde (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Quite clear, in fact. Collect (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support Appears to be well qualified. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support I've not given the fullest scrutiny but gave a good answer to my question and but see no reason not to support.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support- At the risk of jinxing the RfA given my track record lately, I have no issues with this candidate.   Aloha27  talk  15:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support Yup KylieTastic (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support No problem to support here. Kante4 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Yes please, a candidate who explains his thought process clearly and is willing to address questions from other editors. feminist (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support. No concerns, only positives on their record. Loopy30 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support - I see no red flags or concerns here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 20:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support Helped me a lot and seems quite trustworthy and capable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support not convinced by the oppose reasons. Banedon (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support - Reasons to support and no reason to oppose. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Why not? Foxnpichu (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support I wasn't familiar with this editor, but I found nothing that suggests he cannot be trusted. Vexations (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support No issues. Bobherry Talk Edits 05:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support As part of his plans to beome admin is to assist in AfD, Q13 proves understanding in the category of AfD. As for procedures of being an admin, yup here's a support. As up to the 2 opposes, they are not sufficient enough to swing me to neutral or oppose. Their arguments are too weak. This RfA should be unanimous. To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 06:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. strong support even though the candidate fails my RfA criteria miserably, there are other numerous plus points, and no issues at all. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support as per nom. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 10:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support - Excellent contributor.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support. Haven't crossed roads with the candidate but am seeing no red flags. — kashmīrī TALK 13:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support as per nom. Have done exceptional work in WikiCup tournaments and assuring that he is well aware of policies and guidelines. Abishe (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support with no concerns. I'm happy with the candidate's answers, and I am not bothered by the issues currently being discussed in the oppose section. CThomas3 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support, Have not had much personal interaction with the candidate, but have seen them around, and had no negative interaction that I can remember, and he has done much to build the encyclopedia. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support. I also did not have much personal interaction with the candidate, but they're looking good and I'm confident they will make a fine addition. El_C 18:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support. I first became aware of Lee Vilenski in the summer of 2018 when a number of controversies about our coverage of professional wrestling were in full swing. He quickly impressed me as among the best editors working in that topic area, always level headed and with a good knowledge of policies and guidelines. I have looked closely at the two current opposes, and am unpersuaded. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support- I have great respect for Lee as a content creator and think he will make a good addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Very pleased to be weighing-in here with positive support for this qualified candidate. Atsme Talk 📧 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support no reason to oppose --DannyS712 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support - Excellent content creator, and knowledgeable committed editor. A good communicator. I read the dialog at GAN (oppose vote) and thought Vilenski was very patient and and willing to help the newer editor. Netherzone (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. I gladly support per my criteria. I don't recall if we've ever crossed paths, but Lee seems to be a level-headed and competent editor. I suppose that's just a longer way of saying "not a jerk, has a clue". :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support based on cue sport and DYK work. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support Solid work and a clear communicator. I rarely voice a view at RFAs, but having read the Opposes, and checked the candidates work on those pages, they are clearly a patient, experienced and effective editor. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support no issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support Lee has been an active and helpful contributor, he also has helped me grow as a newer wikipedian and communicates frequently on the wikipedia discord. I strongly support the nomination for admin. FlalfTalk 13:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support Lee is a great source of support and encouragement to me. He's knowledgeable, tireless, patient and friendly. I'm delighted to see him nominated, and strongly support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support No concerns regarding this dependable, reliable editor. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support - Appears to be a responsible user and suited to adminship. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support - I have reservations about some of the answers to the questions, but the candidate's track record speaks louder. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support - MrClog (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support. Not a jerk, has a clue, and has created stellar content. No concerns raised in the opposes, so I think we're good to go. Welcome to the corps.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support. Wonderful collaborator and editor all around. KyleJoantalk 17:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support V.I.Lenski will make a fine addition to the admin corps. --Pudeo (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support - After reviewing Lee's contributions, I feel he would effectively utilize the toolbox. Phuzion (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support Jianhui67 TC 03:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Pile on Support, having reviewed the nominations, the support votes, the oppose votes, answers to questions, and editing history of the candidate. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support pile-on L293D ( • ) 15:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support Happy days, LindsayHello 18:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support Welcome to the club! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support. Cheers! Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support Congrats! Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose. My past experience in trying to work with the nominee at GAN was frustrating to the point where I walked away and gave up. While Mr. Vilenski was knowledgeable in the GAN field, and was correct not to pass the article I nominated, I was left with a negative experience and felt I was not supported as a new participant to the GAN process. I was very frustrated in communicating with MR. Vilenski due to many difference between British and Canadian English. I felt it was hypocritical to ask that articles be written where the whole word can understand, and yet Mr. Vilenski wrote in British English that I could not understand despite asking for multiple explanations. When I asked for an example of an existing article as a guide, no specific example was given but rather generic answers. I found this not helpful towards newbies. I expect better communication from an administrator who will encounter a lot of new editors online, and I fear that they will be driven away as I was. While Mr. Vilenski may be helpful towards others, he was not helpful to me. Sorry, my opinion is that he is not ready to be an admin at this time and needs better communication skills. Flibirigit (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Flibirigit, could you provide a link to the GAN? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it was Talk:Baltimore Skipjacks/GA1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, that is the review. Flibirigit (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Flibirigit, IMO, I think Vilenski was quite helpful here. The only parts where I can see anything related to Canadian vs. British English is you asking for clarification on a couple words and Vilenski explaining a bit further. I don't think there was any problem there - from any sides. GoodCrossing (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't plan to vote yay or nay on Vilenski, but that Talk:Baltimore Skipjacks/GA1 exchange doesn't stimulate me to request a GAN. Verbal torture.Smallchief (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, could you elaborate why? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that it really doesn't seem like that to me, so I must've missed something. I do admit I'm unfamiliar with GANs but I don't see anything that I think comes off as rude or unhelpful. GoodCrossing (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nothing against Vilenski, but the tortuous process of getting to a "Good" article seems far too complex and time-consuming for both editors and reviewers. The word "good" to my mind is closer in meaning to "adequate" or "okay" rather than it is to "perfect" or "outstanding." Thus, the review process for "B" articles is probably adequate for designating an article as "good." Demanding too much to achieve a "good" rating discourages editors (such as yours truly) from ever bothering to request a good article review. Rating systems are always somewhat arbitrary and it's best to keep it simple.Smallchief (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, I see what you mean. I think a GA should be judged to a high standard as it is just below FA status, but besides, I had initially understood your comment as saying Vilenski had been too harsh on the GAN, instead of what you meant. GoodCrossing (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree that long reviews are pesky- it's why I've not submitted any GA's this past 10 years. It doesnt have to be like that. Per the instructions to the reviewer: "if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself." Here's how I did my 10 or so reviews that I was able to pass. 1) make an edit with all needed fixes , 2) After checking all the sources I'd sometimes have ideas for additional improvements, which I'd flag in the edit summary as being fine to revert if any didn't agree they were an improvement. Then Boom! , the review is complete & we have a GA. Nice and easy for both parties. On the other hand, at least back when I worked in that areas, most reviewers leaned more to Lee's style of reviewing. And indeed, many times I noticed them being thanked by the nominator for their thorough review. So not to badger, but IMO this isn't a strong reason to oppose. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FeydHuxtable, The reason why I (and other reviewers) often prefer to suggest changes rather than be bold is that it can be easy to cross over the fuzzy line from minor copyedits into being WP:INVOLVED, or simply not objective enough to evaluate the article, and then you have to request a third opinion thus burning another editor's time. I find it is much easier to maintain critical distance by suggesting rather than making changes. buidhe 22:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Flibirigit, I don't see anything out of the ordinary with Vilenski's GA review. Your comment was: I have lost interest in this. Please close. I understand your frustration but IMO although this was your first experience with GA this is an isolated event, no way a pattern of poor reviewing - and poor it wasn't - and not a reason to oppose any more so than the minor deficiency in your knowledge of British English, for one thing, you were expecting readers to understand what a Farm Team is (I had to look that up). Forgive me for saying so, but WADR I think you are being a little over-sensitive here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We're going off on a tangent here, but "one step below" FA is supposed to be A class. Some observations after coming back to Wikipedia after 10+ years away: GA was a step up from B and used to be fun to participate in as either an editor or a reviewer. The reviews were informal, the reviewer would often make a few changes themselves, and the process was often done and dusted in a day or two. Now that GA seems to be FA- one may as well skip it (as an editor) and go straight to FAC. As a potential reviewer this week, I gave up when the first article I looked at was basically an FA candidate with over 100 citations which would take me days to review. I believe this so-called "raising of standards" is counter-productive as it makes it harder for editors to get a nice badge as a reward on their way to (hopefully) FA and thus is demotivating, is too time consuming, has lead to a ridiculous backlog at GAN, and is overly pedantic about articles which are a cut above the average whilst ignoring the original concept that a good (not brilliant, not perfect) article deserves to be given some recognition as better than the average garbage article. None of this, however, is the fault of the RfA candidate. --kingboyk (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose - The one interaction I had with this editor was as a rather new user, when I had an article creation declined, with a reason of "Submission reads like an essay." That lack of constructive criticism (and also receiving no more comments after asking) make me feel that this editor is not very good at helping people understand how to contribute and/or articulating specific problems with articles or edits, which I feel is very important in the process of resolving disputes. ---Avatar317(talk) 20:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Avatar317 is this the exchange you're talking about? --valereee (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Valereee : Yes, that is, and I still feel that "encyclopedic style" and "you can't say things like" and "it doesn't read like a regular topic" are too vague of criticisms to be of much help to anyone. His statement about not attributing claims without sources as to who stated something made no sense; there were three references supporting the statement "fundamental cause"; again, as I said in that post, I don't believe he spent much time or thought considering the issue/article. But he was congenial, so I have no personality issues with him as an admin. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Avatar317 I get where you are coming from, but is it fair to call yourself a new user at that point (i.e. 2018)? Your contribs how you as joining in 2011 and you had about 1000 edits or so when you interacted with Lee Vilenski. Maybe he was just using a little shorthand jargon, treating you as a somewhat experienced user?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Avatar317, I haven't tagged it because I am no longer concerned with NPP ort AfC, but if I were it would have been ' written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay'. I don't see how this demonstrates a pattern of poor AfD reviewing or biting a newbie, in fact Vilenski was being quite helpful. At the end of the day, AfC is a voluntary process for both creator and reviewer and theoretically the onus is on article writers, whether new or experienced, to publish articles of reasonable quality - Wikipedia is awash with tutorial pages and guidelines. Your isolated experience is possibly not a well founded reason to oppose an RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose, even though this seems like whistling in the wind, per this edit. Wikipedia has, very clearly, a problem with editing on articles about mixed martial arts and professional wresting, but Lee Vilenski chose to blame the messenger and to circle the wagons rather than address the actual problem. I don't find the response at all convincing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC) And can someone with some technical knowledge look into why the numbering was reset to 1 in this oppose?Reply[reply]
    The indentation in the preceding thread was not done properly, which The Rambling Man corrected. – Teratix 01:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Phil Bridger, Could you provide some more context? Not sure I'm understanding what the issue is, but probably because I don't understand sports :P CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Context. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Most people, including Lee Vilenski, have no obligation or reason to respond when uninvolved editors slam on Wikiprojects without even providing diffs. But even if diffs were provided, it is not Lee Vilenski's fault for other people edit warring/not building consensus just becuase they happen to edit in similiar topic areas. See also Guilt-by-association. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nobody has any obligation to respond, but Lee Vilenski chose to give a dismissive, ad hominem, response, the day before this RFA was started, to what is obviously true: that many reports go to WP:ANI about MMA and pro-wrestling but very few, if any, about boxing. Most Wikiprojects have matured enough to mean that their regular editors adhere to similar standards to editors in general, but it appears that any criticism of editing in this area is met with such closing of ranks as you demonstrate here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From what few diffs were provided and what little time I have to look for and read any background, the issues surrounding this oppose are centered upon ANI drama in recent weeks. I pointed out the problems I saw with WP:PW nearly a decade ago, which at the time were met solely with snarky derision. It seems as though the admin corps may be well behind the curve here, so let me attempt to explain. It became obvious from the start that certain WP:PW participants are there solely to push the POV that their favorite website(s) = the only reliable source(s) in existence on the topic of professional wrestling. I busted that myth quite a long time ago. It's also too obvious that there are participants who push their biases towards Canadian pro wrestling in general and Stampede Wrestling and the Hart wrestling family in particular. The neutrality of Bret Hart was one of the recent ANI topics I came across and I don't believe one of the participants in that thread possesses any neutrality when it comes to that group of articles.
    Prior to the whole contrived controversy over intricacies of how pro wrestling biographies are formatted which led to an RFC at one of the Village Pumps, I read discussion asking why WP:PW's favored sources have never been properly vetted at WP:RSN. Several years before that, there was the case of an article in which a recent New York Times story used as a source contained an item which was in conflict with decades-old academic book sources. As a courtesy, I initiated a discussion at RSN. The regulars there chose to ignore all those sources and instead look for anything they could to turn the whole discussion into a drama-filled shitshow. On that basis alone, I wouldn't recommend having anything to do with RSN. Still, the topic of those same few sources used over and over again in pro wrestling articles hasn't received the discussion it deserves. How much longer are some of you going to keep kicking the can down the road and keep introducing red herrings and avoid that discussion? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An initial rather banal answer to Q6 needs elucidation. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I won't oppose because the editor has such a good history, but I didn't like some of the answers, particularly to #13 asked by User:Feminist. The problem with that AfD is that, while delete was a defensible close to that discussion, no consensus was also defensible: the keep !vote made 3 points not treated treated entirely satisfactorily by the other !voters, first, the existence of unlinked-to significant coverage in local news, second, that the subject had claim to notability other than as a candidate (hence failing WP:POLITICIAN is not sufficient grounds for deletion), and third, that the subject was running for major election (hence it might be prudent to defer the AfD until after the election). With the benefit of hindsight, we see the cost of the delete outcome: the then clearly GNG-passing article was recreated by a user who apparently was not aware of the existence of the deleted content, whose quality was not criticised during the AfD. Given that the stated grounds for wanting admin powers is to execute deletion policy, the apparent lack of awareness of alternative courses of action here (!voting instead of closing, closing and listing at DRV, &c) bothers me somewhat. Charles Stewart (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Chalst, you mean closers list at DRV? I thought the objectors of close were the ones do that. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Chalst: (1) Indiana State Treasurer is not a major election. (2) Despite what others may believe, we don't sync are AFDs to the election cycle. (3) Generally, closers should try to avoid a no consensus close if possible. (4) Closes should only reflect the arguements made in a discussion and not new arguements. (5) This candidate's primary reason for requesting the tools is to promote DYK hooks. –MJLTalk 23:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I could argue about the significance of the points you made with regards to closing the AfD, but if I was mistakened about the reason the candidate sought admin powers, my criticisms rather lose their point and I retract them. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is why I asked for a follow-up response regarding possible alternative actions. I trust that Vilenski will respond to editors kindly when they ask why he performed a certain administrative action that they disagree with. feminist (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I do not feel qualified to vote. Eschoryii (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Eschoryii, then why even edit the page to "vote" neutral?... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Probably because they were "invited" via their watch list. This just happened on another recent RfA. At least they are honest; someone give them a barnstar. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • The GA review mentioned in the first oppose was tough, but very cordial. I don't think opposing an adminship because the candidate is precise and thorough holds a lot of weight in terms of their suitability for adminship. The contrary might be true.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have to agree. The GAN was perfectly normal, and in fact was nicer than some GA's I've seen. GAN is inherently a tense process, and I get the vibe here that Filbirigit just didn't realize how intense it would be. I read through it, and I saw no anger or terse words from Lee, or even any tendentiousness. I don't buy the British/Canadian English difference, they are quite similar, and the nominator only raised one issue that I could see regarding language. Lee gave a complete and thorough GA, showing he clearly understands our policies and what makes a good article. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Concur with both of the above. GregJackP Boomer! 18:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      GregJackP, yeah, me too, that looked like a fairly normal, helpful review. It's a shame the nom lost interest, but I don't think Lee was being in any way uncommunicative or unhelpful. GirthSummit (blether) 19:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The fact that it is fairly normal for reviews to be that nitpicky is the problem, the GAN process turns off a lot of users the first time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Which is why admins need experience with the GAN and FA process. GregJackP Boomer! 01:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't think it amounts to grounds to oppose the candidate, but I have to agree that the GA process has become increasingly off-putting to new users, and even many experienced users. Many reviewers demand a standard that goes well beyond the GA criteria, and when challenged, the nom will often be met with hostility and refusal to pass the article. While this review was nothing but good natured, it is still daunting for newbies to be faced with a long list of trivial points, much of which it would be hard to justify inclusion against the GA criteria. As I say, it is not grounds to oppose, but administrators of all people should have the ability to follow guidelines. Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not should be compulsory reading for all reviewers. And before someone starts looking at my own reviews, mea culpa, I have frequently fallen into many of those traps. SpinningSpark 14:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you give me some examples? I'd like to have a closer look at this. Some people may be put off by Eric Corbett and The Rambling Man's detailed reviewing style (eg: Talk:Woolwich Ferry/GA1, Talk:A82 road/GA2), but I personally welcome it because it results in a better article overall. As a notorious example I remember looking at, consider Talk:Queen (band)/GA1. The initial review was slapdash and the article didn't meet the GA criteria (and indeed has had two further failed reviews). Eric (aka Malleus Fatuorum) rightfully objected to the review and asked for it to be redone. Ultimately, the reader is told that a green blob means "this is a good article" and there are certain standards that they expect - they're not going to be bothered if getting it there was a bit of a slog. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My experience is that there are some people who want detailed feedback to improve their articles, and others who just want a quick pass (assuming it actually meets the criteria). Of course, as a reviewer it is impossible to find out which camp your nominator is in without asking. And of course there are different interpretations of the GA criteria, which are pretty vague. buidhe 00:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are definitely two styles of GA reviewing; I have more of a problem myself with the perfunctory than the detailed. The problem is that if one sees many perfunctory wave-it-through reviews and then receives a detailed one, it can feel challenging or exhausting, but ultimately if reviewer & reviewee see it through, the article is improved and the project is better served. I can't see how being a detailed yet polite GA reviewer would be an obstacle to being an admin. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with that> Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When I do academic refereeing, I divide the criticisms I make into 'issues' and 'quibbles', with only the points in the first group being of the kind that my recommendation depends on. Perhaps having a recommendation to make some such distinction would help prevent conscientious reviewing from being discouragaing in GAs. I did not do so in the couple of GA reviews that I carried out. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We probably want to shunt this discussion to WT:GAN, but just to pick up on kingboyk's comment - with the obvious exception of MILHIST, A-class is more or less defunct because nobody is around to do the review. The only one I have attempted, Dartford Crossing suffered from a complete lack of interested reviewers and sat around for about a year. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with having this kind of conversation at GAN is that those of us who have moved away from nominating articles for GA review, for various reasons, don't tend to go there much... Espresso Addict (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm satisfied with the candidate's answer to my question (Q10), but I would note that NFOOTY is actually even more permissive than he makes it out to be, as NFOOTY does not require a player to have touched a ball, just the pitch. signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rosguill, as was explained to me once, in not particularly cordial terms by a member of WPP:FOOTY, soccer being the world's biggest fan base and with close on 800 members the Wikiproject will make sure they get their own way at AfD and other debates.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My experience exactly. Smallchief (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hey, RadioKAOS, it sounds like you've had a frustrating time with that article and seen cases that make you think others are having the same frustrations. Your question sounds rhetorical; obviously it's not benefitting readers if editors get frustrated with our bureaucracy. Can you clarify what you're asking for here? --valereee (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.