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

Final (108/2/2); Originally scheduled to end 15:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC). Closed as successful. --Deskana (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial (talk · contribs) – Experienced editor, very involved in vandal-fighting. Immunize (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination statement I feel that Excirial will make a good administrator, particularly in the areas of dealing with vandalism. I also feel that although Excirial has less experience with creating articles/content additions, he will perform well in the area of article deletion, given that he has patrolled at least 5,235 pages. I also feel that he/she will perform well in the event that he/she (as an administrator) is confronted with a inappropriate or promotional username, given that he/she has made at least 348 reports to Usernames for administrator attention. Also ,he has an exceedingly high edit count, and I have never encountered him being uncivil. In short, I feel Excirial would make an excellent administrator. Immunize (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This was quite unexpected to be honest, but i will gladly accept this nomination. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly added this section to the RFA to provide a quick overview of myself. For overview's sake i split the overview in three parts stating positive, neutral and negative aspects which i based upon previous RFA discussions and comments. Do note that this is a subjective self-assessment - I have tried to be as unbiased as possible while writing this, but since it is subjective opinions and conclusions may vary.

• Registered editor for 2 years and 6 months, some minor edits on IP level before that.
• 67,544+ edits made, Which means i am apparently in the top-200 most active editors. (Note: a large share of those are vandalism / NPP patrol edits, and thus automated. Still, there are several thousands of manual edits. And i know - quality over quantity. Edit count alone says nothing. :) )
• Never been blocked in the past.
• Never warned past level 2, never subject of a WQA or involved in an edit war as an active party.

• Main area's of activity: Vandalism \ NPP patrol. Note that this line of work naturally includes frequent visits and reports to WP:UAA, WP:SSP and WP:AFD/WP:DELREV as well.
• Other (Frequent) activities: Geotagging articles, Cleaning up promising new pages (Wikifying, Stubbing, Sourcing, Spell checking and the like). Manning the Help desk \ Helpme category.
• Created 1 DYK article (Srizbi botnet)
• Previous failed RFA about two years ago ([1]). Note that it failed on very valid grounds, which i hope i have addressed sufficiently in the time in between that nomination and this one. I believe i did but who am i to judge that?

• No involvement in GA or FA creation or significant updates to those article's can be credited to me.
• Mistake ratio while on vandalism patrol: 0.25-0.75% of the reverts made. Note that this is a very rough estimate. A quarter to half of these mistakes are self-reverted within a minute, due to them being accidents on my side. The others are either not so obvious, or mistakes i didn't directly notice, such as reverting the wrong page - of course there are also some cases involving bad judgment, but i believe those are rare these days.

As a closing note: I presume that some people will find my month counts ([2]) quite odd. Due to my line of work outside of wikipedia i can be completely swamped with work one month while having excessive amounts of spare time in another. This is pretty much reflected in these counts as i can have 0 edits for a month or two, while the next month suddenly shows a huge spike.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The area's i intend to work on are the ones i have most experience in as a user, which are vandalism patrol and newpage patrol. This means that WP:AIAV, WP:RPP, WP:SPP, WP:UAA, WP:AFD and WP:SSP are natural targets for me to work on as i worked with them in the past. Given some time i will eventually try to spread out my activities to other admin-related pages that need a hand, for example the pages listed in the admin backlog. But initially i think it is best to stick with pages i already know quite well.

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

A: For some people this will obviously sound silly, but my favorite contribution was writing my only DYK article, Srizbi botnet. For most experienced article writers a DYK is fairly trivial and not exactly that special, but i somehow i kind of cherish it.

To explain this: Srizbi botnet is one of the few full-length article i created, and in doing so i made something that purely added value to Wikipedia. Most of my work involves is retaining value created by other editors, thus doing something that actually added value for a change was quite a joy - besides, researching and writing an article about the topic was quite a bit of fun. I created stubs before, and i wikified the occasional new page before, but besides the Primavera Systems article earlier i didn't write anything of such lenght before.

Even so, i prefer doing vandalism patrol over creating or expanding article's. Both jobs are interesting, but as a non native English writer i find myself making to many grammar and spelling mistakes to lift an article to GA or FA status. Besides, There seems to be a continuous shortage of vandalism patrols, as vandalism still slips trough at times. But to prevent derailment - i think my most significant contribution to Wikipedia is vandalism patrol, but the one im most fond of is that particular article, for above mentioned reasons.

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 think that i have been very lucky recently, since virtually every user on my talk page was either (very) civil, or a page blanker that didn't require any response other then RBI. As of such i don't believe i have been a party in any major conflict lately, other then a DELREV discussion and an edit war or two which i spotted while doing vandalism patrol. In both cases i wasn't directly affected by the outcome so neither caused any real reason for stress, let alone stress itself.

If we go further back i think there are two times where i lost my Cool, and both date from before the previous RFC more then two years ago. Both are actually mentioned in that previous RFC. Frankly i can still remember those discussions rather well, and im still not proud of the way i handled them back then. The first one was about a good-faith but technically incorrect vandalism revert i made, the second was just me being annoyed and snapping at someone in response. The solution to prevent this was rather simple though, and works quite well. If i feel that i am messing up or unable to reply calmly i just take a few hour break and come back completely refreshed and cool. This works equally well if i am goofing up a bit on vandalism patrol. A nice hot cup of coffee and a 60 minute break works wonders, as it refreshes tolerance and attention span. :)

Questions from  fetchcomms☛

4. When, if ever, should a vandal account who has not been warned be blocked?

A: Blocks without a prior warning should only be used in very rare circumstances. A block without a warning essentially means that a user doesn't get a chance to adjust his or her behavior before facing consequences. Even in cases with clear vandalism such as people adding swear words a warning can do wonders. I remember multiple cases where the user stopped after receiving his or her warning, and in some of these cases editing continued in a productive manner. One or two even apologized for doing so.

Sometimes blocks without warnings are justified in my eyes. Two examples are:

Long term vandals with a set pattern. Take long term vandal Willy on Wheels for example. The modus operandi is always the same for this user. They always vandalize using the sentence "Willy on Wheels". Often this vandal approaches near-bot like speeds in creating, editing or blanking article's with that sentence. In these case the vandalism is so clear and persistent that the user can safely be blocked without adding a warning first - even without a vand4-im.

Tag-Team vandalism. Sometimes two IP's in the same net block play tag-team vandalism on an article. This means that the first IP vandalizes it, then the second IP vandalizes this again and so on. Using rollback will revert it to a previous vandalized version, and a warning will be issues to just one of the two IP's. In these cases it is clear that both IP's are meatpuppets, which means that the second IP can safely be blocked as well.

The Blocking policy lists more reasons of course, but i decided to highlight two instances i encountered myself several times. As a side-note i would like to mention that in case of "accounts with inappropriate usernames" a user can also be templated with a request to change his or her username without a block if the username isn't clearly inappropriate.

5. Explain CSD criteria A1 and A10, giving examples of each as well.

A. Criteria "A1" applies in cases where an article lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. This is pretty much a memorized policy quote, so i would do better to explain it. In some cases (Mostly new) users create article's without realizing that other users might not have the same amount of knowledge on a topic as they do. An article stating: "John is a really cool guy that won a lot of prizes in boxing competitions" is an example of this. Due to the lack of a last name we cannot simply google for his name to verify the notability of these prizes, and neither can we check if this is an article about a subject we already cover in another article. Since it all depends upon context A1 article's tend to be rather short.

A10. Quite a rare one, i don't believe i have met these very often. A10 can basically be read as "We already have an article about that, and this new article doesn't contain any new information not already covered on another page." A made-up example of this would be a page called "Warmth and coldness in the united states state of Virginia", which would state something akin to "Virginia is a rather warm country, but temperatures can get under 0 degree Celsius at times. Sometimes there are tornadoes as well!". The article contains no new information, as everything is already covered in more detail at Climate of Virginia, and the unclear and long title makes it unsuitable for a redirect.

This CSD template should be used with care however. Sometimes these article's contain a few tidbits of valid information not mentioned in other article's. I would say that a PROD template is a safer way to go in these cases - and a friendly message on the users talk page explaining the situation might help as well. It is more motivational to be pointed to another article on the same subject, then to see your page being deleted with a huge CSD warning on it. A10's are good faith and productive article's after all. I prefer saving my "Wrath" for attack pages :).

6. What do you think of the current BLP policy? How could it be improved or changed?

A: The BLP policy is quite strict, and frankly i find myself agreeing with its sentiment. While we explicitly state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, many people regard it as being one, which means that they will also believe the content of BLP pages, with all due consequences. The combination of assumed reliability and the huge popularity of Wikipedia means that some people can feel quite a bit of feedback based upon their article. More then one individual or corporation has tried to lighten up their article to look better, and more then once has an editor (claiming) to be the subject attempted to blank or remove an article. While topics such as evolution and religion are sensitive as well, an error in those will not have the same amount of individual backlash as an slanderous or vandalized BLP article's.

Looking at this from a vandalism patrols perspective, i would argue that BLP is currently quite hard to enforce. Obvious vandalism such as swear words and the like are easily filtered out, but some changes are less obvious. Currently we do not have the manpower we need to man the vandalism patrol division up to 100% coverage of every edit, which means that we might miss non-BLP compliant edits. On the somewhat less known BLP's this might mean it could be there for months before someone takes it out. Policy wise i think BLP is quite sound, but execution wise improvements could be made, mostly based upon backlog checking and efficiency.

For example: - Say i check 100 edits with huggle and revert 10 counts of vandalism, The next user will check the 90 i checked before as well. The user after that as well and so on. It is good to double-check edits, but 10 patrol will be about as efficient as 2 or 3 (We can safely assume that if 3 patrols don't see vandalism in an edit, the other 7 also won't). If we would use a form of distributed computing akin to the Boinc project, we could divide edits between several users for more efficiency by sending the same batch of edits to only 2 or 3 users, and sending other patrols a different batch of edits. Apart from efficiency such a system could store edits on BLP pages that have not been verified as good by 2-3 BLP patrols. That way we can effectively check every BLP page edit afterwards if we would not have enough capacity to do so real-time. It would still require editors with a sound understanding of the BLP policy, but it would at least make work easier.

7. Do you plan to close AfDs often? Why or why not?

A: I tend to prioritize certain tasks above others. Vandalism patrol is mostly real-time, which means that to little capacity in that department must be filled first. If we have sufficient capacity there - or at least enough to keep most out - i tend to look if other sections need a hand. Activities such as new page patrol are much slower, and thus need less people to keep it manned. Unlike vandalism and new pages, AFD's don't walk away or snow under if they are neglected a day.

So to answer the question: It depends upon the circumstances. If AFD has a backlog i will move over there sooner then i will if it has just a couple of unclosed discussions. If i have only half an hour of editing time i may take it upon me to handle a batch of AFD's since 30 minutes is a bit short for vandalism patrol. Think of me as a glass of water spilled on a window. I might not always follow the most obvious path towards the floor, but most of me tends to end up in places with a lot of open space. Rest assured that i will be closing AFD's, but the rate at which i will do so depends upon capacity demands elsewhere. And as the irregular path symbolizes: It also depends a bit upon my own interest to do a certain task at a certain time. :)

Additional questions from ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}

8. I wish to understand your handling of a CSD issue on NPP. As an admin, you come across a newly created BLP which is tagged with a CSD template. The BLP is made up of ten lines. The first line contains the name, age and state of domicile of the individual. The remaining nine lines talk about various awards that the individual has obtained. The tagging editor has noted that none of the awards that have been supposedly won by the individual have actually been won as there are no reliable sources backing the claims. Therefore, the editor tagging the BLP for speedy has marked it as a Hoax. You check and find that although three blogs talk about the individual winning the awards, there exist zero reliable sources. How would you handle the CSD request? Do kindly mention the policy that you will be following for whichever action you might undertake... Thanks for the patience.

A: I must say this is quite a good question, especially since you managed to create a rather realistic case covering a truckload of rules in just 5 lines. But on to the answer.

First and foremost i would argue that criteria G3 might not fully apply here. G3 is a dual-purpose criteria that deals with both vandalism and blatant hoaxes, which means that any hoax must be on the edge of being vandalism to be deleted under this criteria. If i start an article about purple unicorns eating fairy dust it would qualify as vandalism. The April fools article stored in my userspace is an example of a blatant hoax (If it would be added to the article space that is). In this case we are talking about an article that isn't necessarily a blatant hoax - though that depends a bit upon the awards as these can be clearly nonsensical at times as well. Besides this i would keep in mind that the user might just as well have read one of those blogs and decided to create an article about it. A hoax is deliberate misinformation, not unintentional errors or relying on non reliable sources.

Going on. I will presume the three blog sources are indeed the only mentions whatsoever of this person whatsoever, and that i did a broad search to rule out any other form of referencing. In this specific case i think a bit of common sense can be applied as well. Most notable awards are recorded upon the pages of the group that handed them out, and with 9 awards the lack of any digital fingerprint would suggest that this claim to notability is likely false or trivial at best, as some companies are founded for the sole purpose of awarding important sounding prizes and awards. In this case i would say a claim to notability is present , but verifiability is lacking as blogs do not count as reliable sources. Blogs and self published sources may be used to confirm trivial facts, but the claim to notability is not trivial, as it will likely be challenged. Since BLP pages must strictly adhere to the verifiability policy i would remove the page as not being verifiable.

However, quite a bit is based upon details. Awards given prior to the pre-internet era tend to be less well covered online, as sources weren't digital back then. Depending on the case and the subject it may be wiser to decline the speedy and instead forward it to AFD. CSD should only be used in cases where there are no real doubts. I like to think of CSD as a Snowball clause which says an administrator may bypass deletion discussion if the outcome of this discussion is certain. However, seeing that we are talking about blogs in this case i assume that the example is set in a recent time period. It is after all unlikely that historical coverage is only added on blogs.

Optional Questions By Doc Quintana

9. When is IAR appropriate, and what is your overall opinion of it?

A: I believe that the best explanation on how to apply IAR is present on the snowball clause page, which states that:If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.. If we can, without reasonable doubt, be certain that a process will have a certain outcome, we shouldn't go trough the entire process just to conclude what we already knew. IAR is a bit broader then the snowball clause, as it doesn't limit itself to processes, but instead encompasses Wikipedia as a whole. A very important thing to note is the "without reasonable doubt" part. Anyone ignoring a rule should consider carefully if someone else might object. After all, the IAR policy isn't meant to evade consensus, nor a warrant to grow careless.

Therefor i would say that IAR is very similar to a double-bladed sword. You will sometimes need it to cut trough something, and at times it will be vital to do so, but when doing so you should be careful you don't start swinging around so wildly that you end up cutting down everything in your path - which is generally taken a bad thing. Stating IAR means that you say: "I know we have a policy that gained broad consensus, but i believe that this is an exception the policy doesn't cover well, or that the policy shouldn't apply to this edit for a very good reason." Ignoring consensus is something that shouldn't be done lightly, and as of such IAR on its own is never a reason - it must always have an explanation explaining why the rule should be ignored.

I think that Huggle usage is somewhat similar to IAR. A great deal of good things can come from using it correctly, but if man uses it incorrectly it will only cause a lot of damage. Still, i would say that both are an overall asset to the project, despite occasional mistakes and errors. For example, the CSD policy is technically an IAR example as well as page removals should technically be discussed at AFD. However, it would make little to no sense if we would start discussing every page which is just a bunch of swear words.

Optional questions by NuclearWarfare

10. What is your opinion of the the section of the blocking policy entitled "Education and warnings"? Do you believe that it is too lenient, too strict, or just right?

A: Before answering this, i should first reflect upon the level of challenge Wikipedia poses for a new user. We have our own interface to edit pages, we have a truckload of rules and policies and we should also consider not every person on the web is a savant when it comes to computers. Some users can be completely out of their depth, and can therefor make mistakes we can categorize as vandalism. But this doesn't necessarily mean that every IP or new user is a vandal. As i said in question 4, even some clear vandals repented after assuming a bit of good faith, so let alone the effect some trust and help might have on new non-vandalism editors.

That being said, i think that assistance is vital to help our new contributers get on their feet; Most times a pleasant chat and a few simple pointers are enough to make someone feel welcome while also giving him or her a few Water wings to prevent them from drowning due to not understanding what to do. A policy which would stimulate Carpet bombing new users instead is never a good idea, hence that i support this part of the policy restricting it. However, we should equally not fool ourselves into thinking that every new contributer is an asset out to improve the project. As mentioned in question 4 there are some circumstances in which we can block a user without trying to educate him or her and i agree with those, as these circumstances are only applicable in cases where the amount of disruption shows a clear intend to be destructive. If anything i would say we have to be a Sieve which filters the new contributers. Our net shouldn't be so dense that we will prevent half the good contributers from flowing trough, but also not so loose that the muck will fall trough as well.

What would think of a block like this one, an immediate one without warning of someone who is clearly around just to disrupt? I'm interested in just your thoughts; feel free to criticize my actions if you felt they were overly harsh. NW (Talk) 11:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this and this edits show that it was clear vandalism, but i would say it was rather harsh to block so early. The user made three edits of which two were clear vandalism, and he or she didn't receive a nudge not to do so. I think it would have been to early to block him altogether as the first edit was a level 3 at most, which means the second edit would have gotten him at level 4 - So i would certainly not block him without giving him at least one warning unless it was clearly a sock puppet of a previously banned user.

However, i would not go as far as labeling this a bad block - in retrospect that is. The account was just a few minutes old and started vandalizing, and still the user claimed that his account was "Hacked" for his urban reason which is very unlikely. But at the time of the block itself this wasn't clear so this might have been a case where a few warnings could have been given. Often this doesn't change a thing as editors who start vandalizing so soon after registering an account are beyond redemption, but some might change.

11. Do you see any useful scripts in User:NuclearWarfare/monobook.js that you wish to take? Do you know of any scripts that could be helpful for me?

A: I see a few interesting ones, though i would have to check them in a bit more detail later on. The close* scripts seems quite handy for handling deletion discussions, and the protection.js and spihelper.js seem to be quite helpful for the RFPP and SSP area's i wish to work in. I will definitely give those a whirl - if this RFA succeeds that is. (It would appear it is on its way to do so, but never sell a product you didn't receive yet).

As for suggesting scripts... Well, i only use 7 mono book ones when editing Wikipedia, along with a javascript bookmark for extracting coordinates from google maps while i'm busy geo-tagging. The ones i have are Popups (You already have it), Twinkle, Hotcat, friendly and two exceptionally handy scripts by TheJosh which shows new article's and users in the sidebar of Wikipedia with the same layout as Wikipedia itself uses. I also have Qui installed, but i rarely tack the "Online\Offline" switch anymore as i might be busy on the wiki even though im not editing.

Questions from DESiegel

12. What is your opinion of Process is important?

A: To start of rather bluntly: A process is but a means to an end, and not a goal by itself. Therefor stating that "It is in the process" is never a reason to take a certain action - it is the reasoning behind that particular process which should compel us to do something. Even so, we should also keep in mind that for a blacksmith a hammer is merely a means to forge a blade. I have never heard that any blacksmith just threw his hammer away because it was "Merely a means to an end" - unless he wished to replace it with a better version such as a Power hammer of course :).

Processes on Wikipedia tend to differ a lot from the average processes though. Unlike most processes used there days Wikipedia's processes are actively maintained, improved, widely known and used and above everything: They are written by a large group of people who knew what they were talking about - well, most of them at least. Because of the sheer size of Wikipedia it is important that we have a means to keep our noses pointing in the same way. Imagine what would happen if we had no baseline CSD policy to which both deletionists and inclusionists agreed, or which they at least grudgingly accepted. I think we could be pretty sure that without such a common grounds there would be chaos with a lot of people would loose their cool over the brashness of the most extreme members of the other group.

WP:IAR still applies though, and i think it is one of our most sensible processes in its sheer simplicity and sensibility. A process can never catch every single exception, and sometimes we should use common sense over blindly following a process. However, we should keep in mind that it is a process which prevents us from marching into different directions and slamming into each other. Walking a different way or taking a short route isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as man keeps in mind that they lied the main road somewhere else for a good reason. And if to many people do so, we should equally consider moving that main road.

13. You are patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. You find an article that has been tagged as "Patent nonsense". In fact, it is a short, unreferenced description of a village in Brazil, written in Spanish. The tagger has not notified the creator of the tagging, nor has anyone else. What action(s) do you take?

A: Ill will use a dotted format to respond to this one for readabilities sake, which means i might be less verbose then usual. Feel free to ask for more detail if more is required.

• If we are talking about an article written in Spanish it is possible that the article name is also Spanish. Before doing anything else i would do a quick check to see if we might already have an article about the same village under its English name, as that would influence any further steps and responses a bit. If it already exists i'll redirect it (After a quick check to see if the current article contains anything worth merging). Skip to step 5 if this applies.
• If it doesn't seem to be a duplicate i would make a quick check to see if i can find anything about the village on a Google search. If i find some references - even if they are weak - i would add them to the article. And i would remove the CSD template of course.
• The next step is using Google Translate to get a rough translation of the text which i will clean up manually. If it would be a long or complex article i would instead mark it for translation using {{translate|spanish}} (Listing it as stated on the template of course), after checking it it already exists on the Spanish wikipedia, though both don't apply in this case.
• After that i will give it a general cleanup akin to American Institute of Chemists which i created yesterday in a few minutes time. Spellcheck, Cleanup, Wikify, Referencing, Stubbing and if i can find it on Google Maps (Small villages can be quite hard though), ill add a geoloc as well. After im done the article should look like the ye-average sub stub.
• After that it depends a bit on the original contributers actions what i will do. If he or she has been making further edits - assisting with the article or otherwise asking help - i will answer their questions. Else i will welcome him or her and leave a short 1 line message that the article is a-ok now, with a pointer to the help-desk / helpme category / irc help channel (If not included on the welcome template that is). The exact time i do this may vary -- if a user has a question while im still busy i may react to that at any time in the process.

Last i will use my righteous vengeance to strike down the editor who dared to thwart an innocent newbie in such a way. I will threaten him with eternal damnation in the WP:STOCKS before permanently blocking him while requesting a check-user to make sure the cretin never ever edits again. Just kidding here of course :). CSD patrol is difficult to do correctly, especially if someone just starts doing so. I started out as a newbie in that area, and i made mistakes; at the start quite a lot of them. However, this is why we use a two tier deletion system in which any user can tag, and only admins can delete. Back then i received the occasional nudge from a friendly admin telling me he or she denied a CSD stating why this was done. I learned about the inherent notability of schools that way. I learned that professors are almost always notable. I learned that i was to overzealous while tagging things for removal.

So what i will do instead is quickly checking upon that editors contributions to see if there are more denied tags there (Just a few recent picks at random). If i see a lot of denied speedies i will leave a message on that and offer my assistance in preventing that. If i see a history of excellent placed tags i will leave a short note stating that i denied the speedy, and likely compliment the user for the rest of his work; No need to whine over one small error. The newer an editor is, the more verbose i will be in explaining the "Why" question - though if a long term editor seems to make a lot of mistakes i might get into more detail as well. Either way WP:AGF. This is really one of those area's were man learns by sometimes walking into a brick wall, and where swimming is difficult as a starter.

14. Again you are patrolling the CSD category. Someone has tagged an article as A7. It describes a Professor at a University in Yugoslavia, who is stated to have won an national award for teaching. No references are provided. What action(s) do you take?

A: I skimped across the WP:PROF guideline in my previous answer, but now in more detail: WP:PROF is a guideline separate from the other notability guidelines; Due to the nature of academics their research may have wide influence, while they themselves might be relatively anonymous. We often know about the invention, but we cannot directly name the person who invented it (Only rare cases such as Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell are different). Which scientist created the Laser, or the research that underpins it? I read an article about it just a few days ago and i cannot recall it without re-reading. Thus - we may all know someone's work, but we don't know the person himself.

The actions i would take are similar to the ones listed in the previous answer so i will not be expanding them again. Take care of the article, see if i can reference it (Technically A7 doesn't even apply as there is a VERY clear claim to notability, regardless of WP:PROF criteria 2 which it also quite obviously meets), clean it up, stub it and so on. If required i will welcome the user and i will stripe the CSD warning added to their user page explaining that i denied the CSD template, explicitly stating the user may remove the warning altogether if he or she wishes to do so. And of course i'll quickly check the taggers contributions and dropping a notice if required; In this case a nudge to WP:PROF might be good regardless of experience level as this example is about as clear as it gets when deciding on notability or wp:prof.

15. Again you are patrolling the CSD category. Someone has tagged as A7 an article on a band. The article says that the band has released three albums on the same label (not a one-band label) and has made two multi-state tours. Both statements are referenced to allmusic.com. There is also a cite to a review in an online music magazine. What action(s) do you take?

A: There are two separate criteria of the WP:BAND policy present here:

• Criteria 4: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country
• Criteria 5: # Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

I had to look this one up, but the WP:BAND article states that Allmusic is considered to be a reliable source par the WP:RS criteria. I would therefor say that the article should pass the WP:GNG and WP:BAND and therefor i would deny the speedy. Had these sources not been added i would have done a check myself. If these searches would have come up blank i would have likely declined the speedy after all. A7 and the CSD policy are only to be used in cases where there is community consensus for deletion without discussion. In that case there would have been a reasonable claim claim to notability, which means that it should be forwarded to WP:AFD instead. If in doubt: Discuss or ask for a second opinion. And of course: Same steps as in Q13 (If required). Though if it is a long article i may use maintenance templates instead.

16. Give you views on what constitutes a "claim of significance" sufficient to prevent an A7 speedy deletion.

A: A claim to significance mostly refers to meeting the WP:GNG which states the following:

• If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Besides this there are several specialist criteria which can be used to determine if the subject of an article is notable (WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:PROF and so on are all examples of these specialized guidelines). In order for an article to pass A7 it must either supply two or more references that meet the GNG criteria, or make a claim to notability present in one of the specialized guidelines. Note that A7 deals ONLY with the WP:N criteria, and not with WP:V. It is sufficient to make a claim - there doesn't have to be any proof of that claim (To meet a7 at least).

As a sidenote: Article's failing to meet WP:V are still subject to removal of course, but in these cases PROD templates are added or AFD's are started. A7 is - along with G11 - the CSD criteria where most mistakes occur because both rely heavily upon editorial judgment. Whereas vandalism and attack are mostly a clear-cut cases, A7's and G11's are often in the grey zone.

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Excirial before commenting.

• The link at WP:RFA is going to Excirial's first RfA... Tan | 39 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed that. ;)  f o x  14:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing stats posted to talk page.  fetchcomms☛ 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Support I was considering offering to nominate Excirial only yesterday, brilliant candidate, with great work in newpage patrol, also, I have always seen them to remain civil, which is a big plus. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You might consider writing a late co-nom. The nomination doesn't really give much to go on. –xeno^talk 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   looks like the nomination statement has since been expanded. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support - barring any (recent) concerns that might be raised, the candidate seems clueful enough and is a dedicated vandal-fighter. –xeno^talk 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Plenty of experience, plenty of edits, plenty of clue. The honesty in his statement is refreshing and I see this user being a Net positive to the project if given the tools--Jac16888^Talk 15:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support as nominator. Immunize (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Always found him to be very clueful and in general a great user.  fetchcomms☛ 15:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - looks fine to me, an experienced and diligent user who could make good use of admin tools. ~ mazca ^talk 15:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Very active; would make good use of the tools. -- Mentifisto 15:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seems fine. -Atmoz (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support will make a good admin, has my support. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Dang your userpage gets vandalized a lot Keepscases (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support I've seen Excirial around the place a lot, doing great work. Concerning the proposed admin areas, WP:AIAV, WP:RPP, WP:SPP, WP:UAA, WP:AFD and WP:SSP, I have no worries at all supporting the presentation of a mop. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Yeah, good work thus far.  f o x  16:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support can be trusted Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Per the barnstar I gave him for speedy deletion work last summer. He knows his stuff and has put in more than his share of time. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support Can be trusted with the tools... in fact the first oppose rationale gave me even more reason to support. He made a mistake and acknowledged that he made one, and apologized, and was civil the whole time in the face of an uncivil editor. These are the kinds of attitudes that an administrator should have. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Aiken ♫ 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Seems like a very clear case. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Per jak's comment in the oppose section. Acebulf (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Net plus for the project. Shereth 19:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - Delighted by this nomination. Like others, I find the first oppose commentary to be decisive. Fine overall contribution qualifications indeed. Jusdafax 20:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - I've seen this editor around and have confidence in their ability to wield the mop. Mjroots (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support The error rate is as low as can be expected, automatic tools or manual. It is reasonable to be concerned about someone making primarily automated edits, but his are of high quality. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support: Switched from neutral now I have time to investigate impressive mopping up operation. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support No issues whatever. G'luck! Ray^Talk 21:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Fine candidate. No problems. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong support Plenty of experience, perfect for being an admin. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Weak Support - I'm not as overly wild about this as perhaps others above are; I don't really like the "vandals reported" bit on your activity list on your user page for example. Maintaing "strict policies on personal attacks" are, well, perhaps something you need to reflect on - one man's personal attack is another man's honest critique. However on balance no likely misuse / abuse of tools. The oppose arguments (at the time of writing) are exceptionaly poor. Pedro :  Chat  22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Vandals reported" section is actually based upon the "Most edited article's" in X!'s edit counter. When i initially filled the statistics part it looked rather meager with only an edit count, so i decided to expand it a little bit with the most edited pages. I agree it is not exactly the most usefull content ever added to a userpage, and frankly edits isn't equal to vandal reports, but i cannot see it doing any real harm. If it does please tell me. I have nothing against removing that particular section.

    As for the NPA userbox, it is related to the attack page userbox just above it. In my eyes there is a clear difference between constructive criticism and unnecessarily uncivil behavior. Granted, it depends quite a but upon someone's own perception, but in general we can assume that anything similar to a personal attack page is not constructive. Frankly i welcome any criticism that is based upon something, even if the writing could be considered rude. Note that i only state WP:CIV very rarely in a discussion, unless i feel a few icecubes are needed :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A fair and honest response. I just have niggling concerns that a number of users these days are turning up just to play "whack-a-mole" against vandals and displaying such information on one's ability seems to be both against the overall aim (an enyclopedia) and aginst WP:RBI and WP:DFTT. I acknowledge (and admire) your content work and don't for a moment think that you're a "one trick pony" -just making an observation really. I fully accept your comment in respect of WP:CIV (number three on my list of most abused bluelinks ---WP:POINT and WP:LEGAL are the top two to stave of questions). At the end of the day I'm confident being in the support column not any other, and best wishes.Pedro :  Chat  23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

28. Strong support - Opposes are especially unconvincing. Shadowjams (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strong Support: Great with Anti-vandalism, quick, but careful with reverting. Pilif12p 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, a good candidate. I am unconvinced by the reasons given for opposition so far, thus feel that I can do nothing but support as a net positive. --Taelus (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support I like your responses to the opposes. Some people advise "don't badger the opposers", and many interpret this to mean they shouldnt respond to opposes at all. But your responses are helpful because they show us your point of view and yet don't try to make the opposing views seem invalid. —Soap— 00:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support, no reason not to. Tan | 39 01:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - Seems to have a clue. Work on capitalizing those 'I's though! :) Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Any enthusiastic, highly active, and reasonably conscientious user is bound to get into an occasional tangle with other editors. I don't think Excirial's history is a reason to oppose his nomination, but when (and I say 'when') he gets the tools, he will need to remember that he has become a role model. --Kudpung (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Nothing Little that worries me. —Dark 08:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a little worried with the comment on your userpage stating "While I am trying to keep the amount of mistakes I make to the lowest amount possible (since the RFA that's a top priority)." That comment just rubs off the wrong way. I presume you will keep the amount of mistakes to a minimum, even after the RfA? —Dark 13:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is actually a remnant from my previous RFA over two years ago. Back then one of the main failure reasons was that i made to many mistakes while doing vandalism patrol, and after some introspection and diffing i found myself agreeing with that sentiment. That section was - and still is - a visual reminder to myself that i should pay attention when patrolling. I don't change the content section to often so at times it can contain some truly ancient and outdated text. For example, that piece of text was added on July 13th, 2008, about two days after the previous RFA failed. I simply removed that specific part as it was quite outdated, and besides - accuracy is always important. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. —Dark 00:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

38. Support long working history with wikipedia. Good attitude on vandalfighting, I love the self assessment at the start. I wish more applicants would do the same, nice transparency. Strong candidate Good Luck!Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - I think he is ready for adminship. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 10:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - Though I'm somewhat concerned about the absences in editing, I see a strong editor who likes to fight vandalism and has the experience needed to do this well as an admin. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Nothing to oppose here except the fact that no edits were made in January and February this year, though the thousands of edits made in March kind of cover that up. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support meets my standards and per specialist admin rationale. I won't add a cliché, though 'tis true in this instance. Dlohcierekim 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    12,000 reasons for strong support. Dlohcierekim 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

44. Support. Hard-working, honest and approachable. Definite net positive. Rje (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support My eyes cannot believe temselves. You seem to be a great vandal reporter. Good lcuk, and have a nice time. Buggie111 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Your answers are appropriately put. Thanks for the patience. My support is offered. Best for your future as an able admin. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 15:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support TNXMan 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Has clearly gained a clear understanding of the areas he wishes to work in. Calm, careful, patient, ability to communicate, assist, and work with other editors, and understanding of policies and how enact them all pluses. Shows quite a bit of clue. No reason not to trust with the extra bit. Calmer Waters 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Goodness, how is it that this user not already an admin? Pile-on support -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Enough clue. Looks like he's already been doing plenty of clean-up work. Seems aptly suited for the job. -- œ^™ 16:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - I've only seen the candidate's antivandal work, but what I've seen there has been overwhelmingly in the correct direction. Has both the gorm and the cojones to do a proper job. --Alan (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support per nom.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 17:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support-Clearly qualified and trustworthy.Smallman12q (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Well-qualified. Opposes are patently unconvincing. Tim Song (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support, I see no reason to oppose only reasons to support. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support cos userpage gets vandalized a lot, plus other abovementioned. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Sole Soul (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support -- purely to counteract, to some extent, the more ridiculous of the two opposes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support- sure, why not? We need more admins, and this candidate seems reasonable and trustworthy. Nothing I've seen suggests Excirial will do the wrong hing with the mop. Reyk _YO! 10:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Seems like an excellent candidate and I have not seen anything even remotely persuasive to change my mind in either the Oppose or Neutral camps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support as an experienced, dedicated vandal-fighter. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support- a hard-working, experienced, clueful vandal-fighter--Hokeman (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support good candidate, I see no reason for concern about the proportion of automated edits as the number of unautomated edits is more than enough to demonstrate experience and ability to communicate. Whilst the automated edits are useful work that demonstrate a need for the tools and indicate they are likely to be used well. ϢereSpielChequers 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. Reliable new page patroller with a good track record. First noticed his good work as early as March '09. decltype (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Can't find a reason to oppose. "Automated" edits don't worry me at all. ThemFromSpace 21:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Has been around for a long while now. Has done lots of stuff which could go horribly wrong but hasn't caused any great wikitragedy along the way. A safe pair of hands I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - will make a good admin. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 01:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Strong support. Fully qualified candidate, very strong answers to questions. I find the opposers' and neutrals' concerns to be entirely misguided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. Sensible approach to issues. Responsible handling of the tools likely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Adequate answer to my question, around 20,000 non-automated edits so the automated thing doesn't concern me as long as the automation doesn't get into the way of the mopping, which it doesn't seem like it would, no reason to see concern at present. Doc Quintana (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support – yes! B.hotep (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support: I consider the answer to Q8 thoughtful enough to counter any impression that this is exclusively a "whack-a-mole" high-speed anti-vandal user. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Discouraging the use of semi-automated tools won't encourage higher-quality work, or more work, it will just result in less work getting done. This user uses such tools well. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Good vandal fighter, very helpful to others engaged in the same activity. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Heavy use of tools doesn't make the candidate incapable of discernment. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - The candidate is a hard-working and helpful contributor who has extensive experience with vandal fighting. Examining the candidate's talk page archives shows someone who is thoughtful and level-headed. This user most certainly can be trusted to use the admin tools responsibly and effectively. PDCook (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - Great candidate on all fronts. -- Atama頭 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Prolific editor who has significant experience with counter-vandalism and no problems that concern me. I'd say yes. Valley2city^‽ 04:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support - Plenty of experience. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support No problems that I can see -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
82. Uses the editing tools a lot, but seems to know what to do with them. Will make a good admin, I think. BigDom 06:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Uh... yeah? Are you kidding? I honestly thought that this editor already was an admin. Trusilver 07:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
84.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Excirial. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Veritas lux mea Mikhailov. (Always handy, such a list of latin quotes i wouldn't know otherwise :) ) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

85. Absolutely. I see Excirial all over the place, and have yet to see an issue that they've not addressed sensibly, and I see no reason why with the mop they wouldn't action sensibly as well. GedUK  10:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
86. Strong Support: Close to an ideal candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
87. Seems pretty clueful and well-versed in the areas in wishes to work in. NW (Talk) 11:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support answered questions with good explanation of why. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support friendly, helpful, learns from mistakes, trustworthy, and knowledgeable.  Chzz  ►  17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support--John (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including sufficient WP edits, interesting Userboxen, Rollback rights, Veteran editor, and article rescuer. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support - Clued-in editor that seems to know his limitations. I have no problems granting the mop. I trust you will use it well. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Seems a good choice...Modernist (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Haven't interacted with this editor before that I recall, But he seems a goo editor and i like his response to the questions, and a random sample of his edits all seem good. I would mention that the A7 bar is supposed to be significantly lower than notability, and I think his response to that question is slightly off. But I don't think he will mis-use the tools. DES ^(talk) 03:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support No indication at all that Excirial would abuse the tools but plenty of indications that he will make a fine admin. Regards SoWhy 12:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. Trustworthy and clearly here for the right reasons. — Satori Son 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
97. This guy is great – already an admin without the official ☑. I swear, it was just a week ago that I was noticing his work (probably speedy deletion) and thought "he sure needs the mop, and if nobody feels like writing a statement, I will". ;-) JamieS93^❤ 20:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. I've waited to see if any serious issues would come up in the opposes, and none has, in my opinion. I hope the community is moving away from opposing on the basis of not enough FAs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - I spent some time going over this editors contributions. It's a bit odd being so many automated edits. The non-automated edits however are rather good, gives an honest balanced opinion with reasons. A none natural English speaker that uses time constructively. I approve. :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support most helpful the other day and i like the boldness of the expanded nomination section. Cheers. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Excirial is a fine candidate. He's got plenty of experience in administrative areas, such as tagging articles for speedy deletion, reporting problematic usernames, reporting vandals, and working at AfD. He doesn't have a whole lot in the way of content creation, but what I see is good, and he has more than enough experience in the area of deletion to put me at ease. His answers to the questions show the appropriate amount of thoughtfulness and capacity for clear communication; the answers to the questions about responding to iffy CSD tags, in particular, have impressed me. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
102. Looks to me like a fine chap to use the mop correctly - full support. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support. Track record looks fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
104. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. Looks ok. SS✞^(Kay) 07:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support – no need for concern, especially because candidate know his flaws and what he has to work on. ^Pepper∙_piggle 11:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support I have no concerns. — Scientizzle 14:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Looks ready for the mop to me. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose per [3]. Crafty (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I think you've botched the diff there? Did you mean to link this, a comment about WP:DTTR/WP:TTR from almost 2 years ago? –xeno^talk 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, that was back in 08. Perhaps there is a more recent event on which to oppose?  fetchcomms☛ 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Even if it was recent I can't see how you could oppose based on that. Excirial made a mistake, apologised for it and gave a rational argument for why dttr doesn't always apply anyway, as well as being very civil towards an editor who was being anything but (and who is a blocked sock now I might add)--Jac16888^Talk 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   That particular edit is one of those i mentioned earlier, as it is one of two occasions i can recall where i didn't really keep my temper in check. This was partly due to not having made the edit myself, and because it was early in the morning during a time i wasn't exactly in a mood to handle criticism well. However as other users said before, the edit is two years old, and i cannot remember snapping ever since. Im not particularly proud of the way this conversation was handled - quite the contrary actually - but keep in mind that the other editor wasn't behaving civilized at all. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   If that's you letting your temper out of check then I would say you've very civil indeed--Jac16888^Talk 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   To be honest, Excirial, I find your comment there to be extremely civil, especially considering you were dealing with a sockpuppet who was probably just out to stir up trouble. That you took responsibility for the mistake and apologized about it displays that you are able to remain civil even in difficult circumstances, in my opinion. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak Oppose. Per weak nom, but mainly per high proportion of automated to non-automated edits. Per my RfA criteria, I do not support anyone with more than 35% automated edits. Best of luck to you, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC) While the percentage is more or less arbitrarily based on my own opinion, I do not believe in a double standard. Therefore, I respectfully recuse. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Further discussion moved to talk page. –xeno^talk 18:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Seems to be an intelligent and level-headed user, but, as he points out, doesn't meet my criteria of audited contributions, or significant content building therein. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   So you oppose the candidate? Immunize (talk) (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   One would think registering my opinion in the oppose section would make that clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Just out of interest, where does the candidate "point out" he doesn't meet your criteria David? I've read this RFA and at no stage can I see a comment to the effect of "I don't meet Davud Fuchs' criteria but...." or similar - or did I miss that bit. Pedro :  Chat  19:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   If I were to guess, he's talking about Q2. –xeno^talk 19:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   My own guess would be the "Negative" section i wrote in my self reflection which states No involvement in GA or FA creation or significant updates to those article's can be credited to me. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Ach, so. Ach so. Dlohcierekim 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Probably it I guess. Most "some people" refers to Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs in this context I suppose. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't formed an opinion yet. You appear to have over 12,000 deleted edits. Why so many? And how many of these would you say were quality edits? Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, a vast majority of the deleted edits are from CSD tagging. The fact that they are now deleted indicate "quality" speedy-deletion efforts. –xeno^talk 17:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Nods*. If a page is tagged for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted, the edit that placed the tag is removed as well, thus counting as a deleted edit. There is not a 1-on-1 relation between deleted edits and deleted pages though. Sometimes a page needs to be tagged twice or more times if the editor removes the CSD template. I would say that the vast majority of these edits are CSD related. Keep in mind that a non-removed edit adding a CSD template is technically a bad edit, since the CSD template is removed.

Personally i think that 99.99%+ of all my deleted edits are related to CSD and PROD templates. Other edits might come from article cleanups i did during new page patrol or from AFD's. The only article by my hand which was deleted is Model Storming, a stub which i created to fill a requested at WP:AR1. Personally i like to think that all these edits count as "quality edits", as i cannot remember i have been intentionally sloppy or nonconstructive on purpose in the article space - but feel free to correct me if i am wrong :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not the right person for the litigation sockpuppet front line, but it sounds like you would fit well as a mopper-upper. I like you civil attitude too. Will check a few edits when I get a chance, and unless I find anything disconcerting, will switch to support. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checked quite a few edits, and yes, you are very effective at removing vandalism. Switching to support. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. You're a good editor and I'm sure you'll make good use of the tools, but the areas you say you intend to work in feel like they were plucked from a guide to passing RfA rather than something a lot of thought has gone into. It's not nearly enough to make me oppose because I'm sure you're capable of working in those areas, but I'm more inclined to favour an admin candidate who wants to work in the areas with less glory. Also, your poor use of apostrophes bugs me! For example, in your overview "area's" does not require one!The latter point should be taken light-heartedly, and I hope this passes, but I also hope it will give you something to think about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   What are the areas with less glory? I wasn't aware there was any aspect to adminship that a person achieves glory for undertaking, just abuse--Jac16888^Talk 02:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I suppose "glory" is the wrong word. In fairness, it was 3:30am when I typed that. I meant that there are many areas where admins are required and not all are as well known as, for example, AIV, UAA, AfD etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You can hardly ask someone to get involved in an area where they show no interest. That doesn't seem fair. —Dark 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It isn't fair. Wikipedia is a volunteer site, and people should be able to choose where they want to work. Maybe HJ Mitchell was referring to working in more areas of Wikipedia :). Airplaneman ✈ 16:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral while I mull over 44.43% (30079) of his total edits being automated. With 48.34% (26619) of his edits being in talk space and 42.86% (23604) being in article space, I might have hoped that such a large number of article space edits would have reflected less automated policing work and a bit more by way of content creation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   That still leaves around 30,000 non-automated edits. I do agree the percentage is concerning, but he's no slouch when it comes to turning that stuff off it seems. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2010 (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.