Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salvidrim!: Difference between revisions

Salvidrim

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (?/?/?); Scheduled to end 02:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Nomination by User:Sergecross73

Salvidrim (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, I would like to introduce Salvidrim. We first started working together around October 2011, as we were both taking on similar goals; I was cleaning up and maintaining articles related to Sonic (series), while he was doing the same with the Mario (franchise). Ever since taking on these similar projects, we've worked together extensively at WikiProject Video Games in regards to solving problems and interpreting policy. He's always really impressed me in how he always caries himself in discussions, always remaining calm, interpreting the situation accurately and without personal bias, and handling things according to policy. Seeing his participation at WP:AFD, WP:RFCs, and WP:ANI shows that he has a firm grasp on policy and determining consensus, and equally important, whenever he makes a rare, minor error, he's always been quick to own up to it, and fix it, without any or attitude or hard feelings. We tend to follow each others edits and talk pages pretty closely, so I can say with relative certainty that this editor doesn't have any skeletons hiding away. He's got a clean history, strong admin knowledge, and a sort of humbleness that makes me certain we'd never regret giving him the mop. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Co-nom from User:TParis

I would like to nominate Salvidrim for adminship. He doesn't have 700 billion edits, but he has clue and I'd like to demonstrate that. Now, you'll notice that his recent activity hasn't been as strong as this time a year ago, but I think the graphs are misleading. You'll notice that during that period, he is an experienced content writer having brought Dr. Mario from this to Good article and A-class status. He also shows that he has clue as seen here where he offers advice to an experienced admin on how to close a discussion on WP:AN. He doesn't have extensive administrative experience, but he has shown clue at WP:UAA with [1][2][3] ect and clue at WP:RFPP here [4] [5][6]. A check of CSD tags shows not a whole lot of WP:CSD experience, but they do show accurate uses of A1, G12, and A7. He has participated in 84 AfD discussions with a 95% accuracy showing insightful arguments such as here, here, and here. You can say this candidate lacks edit count, but you cannot say they lack clue. I ask that before anyone oppose this candidate over edit count, they offer the candidate a question first. v/r - TP 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is an honor to do so. As TParis has aptly stated, I may not have the large amounts of experience that some other editors have, but I have faith that being granted the tools will enable me to help improve the encyclopedia in my own way even more. I am well-aware a number of you may consider it to be "early", however I've recently seen many lament the shortage of admins, or rather the fact there are much less additions than losses... I feel I could help, I want to help, and hopefully the community will trust me to do so. I may not be as frenetically active as others might, but I believe every bit helps. As can be seen in my editing history, I may spend a week with passively minimal contributions, then spend an entire evening clearing a whole months-old backlog; the rhythm of the contributions, in my opinion, do not diminish their worth. Salvidrim! 02:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I believe that for the moment, it is preferable for me to help in areas in which I have experience -- namely XfD, RMs, UAA and potentially PRODs. I also plan on taking on a more active learning role at RFPP and AIV, and slowly phase in clerking these areas. I will continue engaging in discussions at AN & AN/I, and will learn from them, but will likely refrain from performing more disputed actions until I feel it is appropriate. I will also start monitoring CSD more actively to grow more intimate with the process; access to deleted contributions is definitely a good way to learn. I will continue doing some predominantly non-administrative work which could benefit from the tools, such as Recent Changes Patrol, taking care of Edit Requests, and occasionally helping out at the Help Desk. In any case, I have had offers for mentoring which I intend to use to their fullest before doing anything I am not entirely confident about. I want to help, not to create more trouble through eager inexperience. Salvidrim!

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

A: That's a toughie, because I evidently tend to be more gnomish, so my contributions hardly stand out enough to be considered "best". As mentioned above, it is obvious that my large improvements on Dr. Mario probably constitute my best content contributions. However, while I believe content improvement are the most crucial way to contribute to building Wikipedia, I would have to say the work that I've done that I believe was the most helpful was all the help I've provided over the months at WP:VG. While I'm far from alone in this WikiProject, I have done more there than anywhere else. Salvidrim!

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 not someone who gets stressed. The last time I was stressed was in 1998, just before my first kiss... all joking aside, if there is one thing that I take for certain, it is my own ability to remain cool and collected in any situation, be it on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I believe being calm and frank can sort out practically any conflict, unless there is a desire for the conflict not to be solved. Perhaps it is for that reason that I can honestly say I do not recall being involved in anything I'd call a conflict. I've dealt with a handful of disruptive editors, some more... tenacious than others, but even there, I am having a hard time calling it a "conflict", at least in the way conflict generally happens on Wikipedia. I have not been in any content dispute that wasn't resolved peacefully. I have been reading AN & AN/I for a while now (although contributing for a shorter while), and nothing I have been involved in comes even close to some of the recent drama. As for the future, I do not anticipate that my behavior will change drastically, thus I do not expect that I will be involved in such conflicts -- however, if I do, I will make sure to do two things: remain calm and honest. Salvidrim!

Additional question from Theopolisme

4. While above you said that you doubt you will interact on pages like AN/I, your highest number of Wikipedia-space edits is ironically to that very page. Is this simply due to a lack of project-space work, or perhaps something else?

A: I am a tad confused -- in my reply to Question 1, I specifically mentioned I planned on actively interacting on AN & AN/I and learning from it (as a lot of different things certainly happen there!). What I meant was that I would refrain from taking administrative decisions in cases where the needed action isn't evident, and that I would wait before exercising administrative judgement on AN & AN/I threads that were more disputed until I felt I had enough experience to correctly analyze community consensus. I have to be part of the community before fully understanding it. :) Salvidrim!

Sorry for the misunderstanding; I was thrown off by your "thus I do not expect that I will be involved in such conflicts" in question 3. —theopolisme (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Although it may sometimes be a tad idealistic, I firmly believe it is possible to actively engage in discussions at AN & AN/I without devolving into intense conflicts. :) Salvidrim! 03:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from ΛΧΣ²¹

5. This is an inevitable situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

A: Obviously, no block is to be handled lightly. A common mistake that I've witnessed is punitive blocks. Blocks are meant to protect the encyclopedia from further disruption, not punish human beings. A user who had been blocked may not perceive it as such, for obvious reasons, and will probably be angered by what they see as an expression of distrust against them. This runs the risk that a contributor who, outside of the situation leading up to the block, helped improve Wikipedia, could become so angry and frustrated that instead of accepting the block and moving on to continue their work after its expiration, would continue the incident and escalate, feeling they have been treated unfairly. This is one of the reasons why clear and calm explanations are needed for every block, to ensure the user understand exactly the reasons why they're blocked; it may also be helpful to provide suggestions as to how to avoid repeating the situation. Personally I think a block should only be used when not blocking has the potential of having worse consequences; judging that, however, requires a great deal of wisdom, and no man is perfect. Cases of obvious vandalism, spam, or other evident cases where the user is not here to improve the encyclopedia at all tend to be more uncontroversial, however. But no matter the case, I would be disappointed to see any editor who has shown some measure of constructive editing blocked without the blocking admin attempting to engage him in a discussion about the incident at hand, unless it is evident from other recent discussions the editor has no intention to stop disrupting Wikipedia. Salvidrim!

6. Which is, for you, the main difference between CSD and AFD?

A: CSD constitutes a set of criteria for deletion for which community consensus has already established that if an article meets these, they indubitably fail all criteria for inclusion; as such, any article meeting one of the criteria can be immediately deleted without further discussion, since the community has already demonstrated they believe an article of this kind doesn't have its place on Wikipedia. AfD is a process where community consensus is being sought and assessed as to whether an article should be included on Wikipedia, because the nominator believes the article doesn't fall in a category of articles for which consensus is already established, but that it could still fail criteria for inclusion. Salvidrim!

7. You said that you have experience in UAA. So, what do you think of this username: MichaeltheScript?

A: It evidently falls under the category of inappropriately misleading usernames which could seem to imply semi-automated or fully automated editing, which is not allowed unless specifically approved. Unless it is evident the user is, in fact, using a script to automate edition without previous approval, I would approach the user about the username, explaining why it may be confusing or misleading to others and asking if he intends to indeed run a script; if not, I would make sure they understand why it is important that they modify their usernames so as to avoid any misunderstanding of their edits. Salvidrim!

It seems that Salvidrim would need more information about the user in question in order to most appropriately answer this question. —theopolisme (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe a lot of UAA cases are judged precisely when very little information about the user is available. :) Salvidrim! 03:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he did provide the type of answer I was waiting for :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Bbb23

8. Your edit count dropped dramatically in the last 6 months of 2012. Could you please explain why (I read TP's comments), and also give us a sense of what you expect your activity level to be in the future if this nomination is successful.

A: The short answer -- I started working fulltime (overtime even!), so the time window where I could edit was reduced dramatically; as you can see from Wikichecker, weekday/daytime edits are scarce, while 2AM on Saturdays is a busy period. However, I've recently been promoted to a middle management position that gives me more free time, and I feel that while my editing rhythm will continue to be slower compared to others, it is more than sufficient for my help to make a noticeably positive impact. As my userpage states, there may be a week or minimal contributions followed by a day of intense backlog clearing, and as such committing myself to any kind of consistency would be irresponsible. However I believe that even when doing little, what matters is doing it well, and that anything that's not unhelpful ultimately improves the project. I also do not believe my activity level in the future to be dependent on the result of this RfA -- adminship is no big deal; my interest on the project definitely will not be diminished if I can only contribute as a simple editor. It would allow some of my work to be even more helpful, and I might do work I might not do otherwise, but I don't expect that the volume of my contributions will be significantly less or more; I expect the nature of the contributions will be different, however: whether I spend eight hours straight clearing the RM backlog, or dabsolving everything on Wikipedia, does depend on the result of this nomination, obviously. Salvidrim!

Additional question from Webclient101

9. Hello Salvidrim. If the following usernames showed up at UAA, what would you do? Note that they have all been created in the last few days, and nobody has communicated with the users yet.

• User:CensorWebclient101, who has not made any edits.

An interesting case -- "WebClient" raises concerns that the account could be shared or automated; however since Webclient101 is an existing user, this account's name implies an intention to disrupt Webclient101's editing. While not expressly a personal attack, it raises doubts that the user is here to improve Wikipedia. If there is an ongoing dispute involving Webclient101 it might be wise to check if this is a sock; however, the lack of edits would be unusual. Webclient101 is a pretty specific username, and even while assuming good faith, it is difficult to accept this as a coincidence. I would wait until the user edits, but closely monitor.

• User:MarinInc, who has promoted "MarinInc" on the their user page.

Evidently promotional username; Block.

• User:TROLL101, who has has not made any edits.

No edits, but username could imply intention to disrupt; contact on userpage and monitor first edits.

• User:Trollolol, who has 1 vandalistic contribution.

The username coupled with the vandalism implies lack of intentions to improve Wikipedia; Block.

• User:Testicle, who has edited constructively.

No issue. It is not profanity, nor is it likely to offend. It is an interesting choice of name and further down the road, the user may decide to change it if/when it hampers discussion, but it is not a violation of the username policy.

• User:JasonProductionCompany, who hasn't edited yet.

Contact on userpage with questions about shared use -- is there a single user editing from this account ("Jason")? In that case, instruct user to read our policies and take the advice at WP:BPCOI; if there are many, block the account while requesting that the name be changed to reflect a single user, and that other accounts be created for other users if needed, in accordance to our policy on shared use. If there is no reply within a reasonable delay, I would preventively block but add explanations as to how the user should proceed, should he wish to edit Wikipedia.

• User:JadeBot, who has made edits to several articles.

Contact on userpage, explaining why the username can be cause for concern -- if the user is indeed running a bot, warn him to stop immediately and seek bot approval before resuming the automatic edits, as per our policy on Bots.

• User:TheSockIsBack!, who has has not made any edits.

A touchy case -- to us Wikipedia editors is seems rather ducky and implies intention to disrupt, but from an outside perspective is could be a totally legitimate account name; "The Sock" could be someone's nickname. It is uncommon for a socking editor not to edit. I would question the user and explain why the name may appear confusing to us, and suggest that a change of name may avoid further problems. If the answers indicate the user is a returning editor, I would either take it to WP:SPI if the master is readily identifiable or post on AN/I for further opinions. If there are no edits within a reasonable period, leave as is; it's rare for active sockpuppets to not do harm, and if he becomes active in the future, action can be taken then.

• User:Poop, who has has not made any edits.

While I am having a hard time calling poop "profanity", I seriously doubt it is going to enable constructive contributions -- block with clear instructions on how to request a rename.

• User:Rick&Ann, who has edited constructively.

Contact on talk page, questioning if the account is shared. If it is, request that this account be renamed and that a second account be created by the second user, explaining our policy on shared use.

A: I have inserted my answers in-line for clarity's sake. Salvidrim!

Additionally, could you tell me which accounts you would hard block or soft block? Webclient101^talk 03:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Always assuming no other problematic edits were made: Of the users I explained I could block, I would only hard block User:Trollolol and User:MarinInc, as only they have shown that they are not here to edit constructively. User:Poop, User:JadeBot and User:JasonProductionCompany could be soft blocked because while their current username is not appropriate, nothing indicates their edits would be unhelpful; coming back under a different name and editing constructively is encouraged. Salvidrim! ✉

General comments

• Links for Salvidrim: Salvidrim (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Salvidrim can be found here.
• Stats on talk, kudos to TParis. —theopolisme (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• This went live just about an hour after the last RfA ended. Good job on keeping the inactivity to a minimum! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Completely coincidental, I assure you. However, activity does help getting as broad a range of opinions as possible, so I guess it's all good. :) Salvidrim! 04:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• True, although I am speaking more about the concern with the low level of activity at RfA, compared to years past. Hopefully, the trend will not continue this year (congrats on being the first candidate to start an RfA in 2013)! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as co-nom.--v/r - TP 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Support - as nominator Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Weak support. I was hoping to give a strong support, but I feel that he is not sufficiently active; I haven't seen him do much anti-vandalism work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. He will make a good administrator based on his work in different content areas. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Support The low edit count does not concern me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Weak support - I would like to see more contributions in administrative areas like RfPP and UAA, however the work he has done is fine for me. Would be a net positive with the tools. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for the link to WP:NETPOS -- I debated linking to it in my opening statement, but I worried that doing so could look slightly arrogant. I do strongly agree with the spirit of the essay, however. :) Salvidrim! 03:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

7. Support - Rather low edit count, but not a concern to me. Pretty good worker over at WikiProject Video games. ZappaOMati 03:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Support The user seems to be trustworthy. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
9. Support. Excellent work at WikiProject Video Games; definitely has the maturity required for adminship. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 04:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Made over 6,000 edits. CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 04:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
11. Support Don't see how he'd be likely to start breaking things. Good point on the UAA thing, and we need gnomes as admins as well as bigtime writers of content — most admin duties are much more similar to what gnomes tend to do. I'd only ask that you make a single change to your userpage: please correct the spelling of "Philosphy" :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

     Done.... *facepalm* Salvidrim! 04:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

12. Support.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
13. Support Very good answers; thank you for taking the time to answer them. From this standpoint, you demonstrate to be a very well-prepared candidate who will surely become a great admin. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
14. Support Salvidrim's editing shows an appealing amount of elegance and clue. I'm impressed by their ability to dispassionately examine a situation and arrive at a sensible conclusion. Salvidrim seems to communicate well with other editors on talkpages and they meet my criteria. I'm confident Salvidrim's breadth of experience is enough for them to wield the mop and anything that is missing can be learned in situ. Pol430 talk to me 10:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
15. Support 'Only' seven articles? More than me. OK, the primary job here is content. As I've done before, I'll compare to a school. The primary job there is 'teaching'. But if the teachers have to mop the floors, fix the windows, sort the day-to-day finances, answer the telephones, cook the dinners, come in out of hours when the alarm goes off, the standard of teaching is going to drop. I've not seen Salvidrim around much, as we work in different areas. What I have recently seen looks fine to me. I think the answers here are good, and I detect a willingness to learn about unfamiliar areas. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
16. The signature seems vaguely familiar, Salvidrim is apparently a pretty well-rounded contributor with some solid content work under his belt, and I trust the judgment of both Sergecross73 and TParis. Why not? Kurtis ^(talk) 14:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
17. Support - My interactions with Benoit have been limited. However, I have always found his editing sound and I don't see any trouble in trusting him with few extra rights. Though his activity has reduced of late, I don't actually see this as a big issue here. I'd oppose if he had any bad track record which I don't find. — Yash ^[talk] 14:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
18. Support - meets my requirements. --Nouniquenames 15:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
19. Support per nom and co-nom. INeverCry 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
20. Support - He may not contribute as much as some would like, but to the discussions he attends to, his presence is invaluable. Given the admin tools, he would be able to do great good. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
21. Support Seems qualified to me. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
22. Support - looks great to me. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
23. Support (cautiously). In general I usually prefer to see a few more edits (9-10k these days), and to some extent I like to see a little diversity. (more than just Mario Brothers video games). What I do see however is very very good, and I don't like to be bound by "countitis". The tipping point for me, (to be honest), is the TParis nomination. TP has a known history of exhaustive research before jumping into anything, and his support carries a lot of weight in my mind. Best of luck Salvidrim. — Ched :  ?  21:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

    And I hate opposing, in particular because I think so very highly of both noms. In all honesty, I know he wouldn't intentionally break anything, it is just the unintentional things that worry me. I don't "count" once you get passed "some", but "almost none" is still a low number when looking at experience in key areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

24. Support - I have to respectfully disagree with Dennis regarding the concerns of inactivity. While he (he?) has hardly been making a couple hundred edits per month consistently, he's made at least 45, and averaged 380 edits per month discounting this month since September 2011 and I have to agree with TParis, he has a clue and I agree with Ched that if TP is willing to support, let alone nominate, a user for the tools, that that in and of itself is probably a decent reason to support. Go Phightins! 21:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
25. Support - looks like a good candidate for adminship based on questions and contribs. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 23:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
26. Support – I trust him, based on his interactions working with WP:VG. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
27. Support – I like the answers to the questions. Airplaneman ✈ 02:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
28. Support - AfD record seems fine, a spot check of the edit history reveals no concerns. The concern that they're inexperienced seems unfounded - one or two slightly problematic AfD(s) from over a year ago, just after they started editing. WilyD 08:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
29. Support...no evidence that they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 08:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
30. Support - Good answers to the questions, and everything else looks good to me. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
31. Support I'm happy with the answers and I trust he would use the tools well. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I am very very very sorry. I admire the candidate for throwing his hat into this horrible, horrible arena. I would not wish the RfA process on ANYONE. I feel doubly terrible writing the first oppose opinion. You look like a really good person, I just don't see the time, experience, and variety of work needed to be an admin. You are very clearly on your way there, perhaps in a year, or even six months? I'm sorry to have to oppose. You are braver than I to go through this. :) Be well.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   A lot of people keep telling me how brutally torturing RfA can be, but I personally take every bit of criticism as an opportunity to learn and grow. :) Salvidrim! 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)f

2. Oppose - In part because this editor does have not enough experience and background in many areas of Wikipedia. For example, regarding content creation, Salvidrim has only created 7 articles (see [7]). A significant amount of Salvidrim's editing consists of minor edits, routine edits such as tagging talk pages with project templates and automated edits, using Dab solver, for example. While Salvidrim has some experience at AfD, contributing to a total of 60 84 discussions (see [8]) as opposed to 84 as stated in the co-nomination at top, more experience here would be preferred, especially since he states that this is an area he plans to focus upon with the tools. This editor also may not have a firm grasp of the various pages of Wikipedia policies and guidelines relative to deletion on Wikipedia. For example, at this AfD discussion, which I also contributed to, Salvidrim's "strong delete" rationale was based upon COI issues regarding the article rather than WP:BIO, and he was unclear about deletion procedures in his question there, "As a side note, why is this at AfD with a current PROD?" At this Afd discussion, Salvidrim's rationale for deletion was based upon a lack of sources in the article, rather than the availability of sources, and Salvidrim stated that he would change his !vote if sources were added to the article, all of which significantly goes against the grain of WP:NRVE. Also of significant concern is that on Salvidrim's user page (see [9]), it is stated " I am not in favor of allowing IPs to edit but I understand the current consensus." While I respect that the person has posted their philosophy regarding IP contributions there, which appears to be within the context of vandalism on Wikipedia, the philosophy itself may conflict with administrative duties relative to matters that occur with IP editors, since he would prefer that they not be allowed to contribute. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   Per the page you linked: "Total number of unique AfD pages edited by Salvidrim: 84". You've added up the number that the script has successfully parsed and that have already closed, not the total participation pages. My number is correct.--v/r - TP 14:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks, I've revised my comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   For the record, I strongly agree with you that both AfD !votes you mentionned aren't correctly based in policy; they were done in my first few months of editing, over a year ago, and I was still early in my learning process. Luckily, it did not appear to have influenced the decisions of either closing admin, who obviously knew better. As for the last bit, I feel compelled to clarify that I am not biased against IP-editors, but I personally believe the benefits to the project of mandatory accounts would outweigh the downsides. :) Salvidrim! 16:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Oppose Lack of experience with editing articles outside of video games.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   • And this is relevant how...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

     We have too many administrators who misunderstand and misapply policy. Experience in writing articles on traditional encyclopedia content using reliable sources is one way of demonstrating sufficient intellect to be an administrator. As others have suggested, more writing will enable the candidate to succeed in the future. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

   Oppose An average of 110 edits per month over the last 8 months. Also, in "admin areas" his #6 most edited page is this RfA with 10 edits, showing a lack of experience in the WP: space. I didn't look too deeply after seeing this but he looked like a nice enough chap from what I saw, but nice only takes you so far. I would be happy to reconsider in the future after another 6+ months of steady (and ample) contribs, and some work doing actual admin like things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   How can you oppose someone who quotes you on their userpage? =D --v/r - TP 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   Ok, now I feel like an ass and will just sit this one out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose I definitely agree with Dennis above; a look at your edits show very little maintenance edits. Most of your work has been focused on article writing, which while is most certainly a great benefit for admins, should not be the primary focus. I'd like to see some more work in admin areas, such as maybe some non-admin AfD closures and some more CSD work. This user is headed in the right direction, but personally I would like to see a bit more experience in key areas. Vacation^nine 13:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   "Most of your work has been focused on article writing, which [...] for admins, should not be the primary focus." Please expand. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   Sure thing. I don't believe this user has a great amount of experience in technical areas of Wikipedia, and that's what adminship is needed for. The only reason article writing is needed for adminship is to get an idea of the work needed to create articles and to understand what other users are going through. Obviously, you don't need adminship to create amazing articles. The reason you would need adminship is if you were involved deeply and feel you can contribute significantly to admin areas like CSD, AFD, ANI, anti-vandalism, etc. Vacation^nine 21:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   Most people oppose adminship because there's not enough article writing. It seems admins need to be masters in every single field now. There is experience in admin areas, just not a tonne of it. Remember the aim of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, and content creation is an important part of that and demonstates knowledge of policies. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose. While the editor shows maturity, I do not feel he has enough experience with content building, per very limited article creation (only one of his 5 personal creations is above a stub), <2500 edits in article space, and almost total focus on a very restricted content area. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose Sorry but I am a bit skeptical about this user, only 2,500 of his edits have took place on article the rest have been elsewhere. Also with his recent contributions have been low. I think you just need to wait awhile. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

   I'm just wondering, how long is "awhile", and what's the (arbitrary) edit count cutoff needed to wield the mop? Airplaneman ✈ 03:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

   There isn't really a edit cutoff for admins, anyone can nominate themselves. Also, what I mean by in awhile is maybe in a couple months. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose Lack of experience Greatuser _(t@lk)^{My edits} 06:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Oppose - This would seem to be a NOTYET situation here. Keep up the good work in your area of expertise, no need to seek validation here. Carrite (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. This user is a good contributor, but I don't know if he would make a good admin and show signs of improvement. Cmach7 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
2. I would support him in a couple months. I think he'd pass then, and I'm comfortable supporting him now but I just need to see a little bit more patience & less eagerness for the tools at the moment. Tomato expert1 (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)