Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Solarra 55 20 2 73 17:56, 5 August 2014 5 days, 12 hours
no
report
Armbrust 3 34 32 9 52 16:13, 4 August 2014 4 days, 10 hours
no
report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 05:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged, and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Latest RfXs update
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N
AlanM1 RfA Unsuccessful 29 July 2014 47 33 14
Arumpostasest RfA Withdrawn 12 July 2014 0 12 2
StringTheory11 RfA Successful 04 July 2014 84 17 7
A.Minkowiski RfA WP:NOTNOW 25 June 2014 0 13 3
Deor RfA Successful 16 June 2014 95 16 0
Grfr12345 RfA WP:NOTNOW 4 June 2014 1 0 0
Go Phightins! RfA Successful 29 May 2014 138 0 2

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and being trusted by other editors, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant contributions to the encyclopedia are low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RFA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages.
Expressing opinions
While every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Every Wikipedian—including those who do not have an account, or are not logged in ("anons")—is welcome to write in the comments section and the questions sections. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfA, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The 'requests for adminship' process attracts many Wikipedians. Some editors may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA !voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and give more weight to constructive comments over unproductive comments.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Nominations remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Consensus at RFA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. While the Neutral comments are ignored for calculating the RfA's percentage, they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. They may also close nominations early if a promotion is unlikely and leaving open the application has no likely benefit. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination.
A list of procedures to complete to close an RfA may be found here.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait several months before reapplying.


Current nominations for adminship


Solarra

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (55/20/2); Scheduled to end 17:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Solarra (talk · contribs) – I've had an eye on Solarra as a potential administrator for some time now, but since I'm apparently notoriously slow I've only just gotten around to nominating her. Solarra is excellent prospective admin material; she has a substantial editing history which features a reasonable variety of work, from content cleanup to anti-vandalism. She's spent time in admin related areas such as AFD, AIV and ANI, and has demonstrated a good understanding of policy in these areas.
More importantly, though, Solarra possesses one of the coolest heads I have seen on Wikipedia. She has weathered fairly persistent vandalism and abuse without batting an eyelid, and has been the voice of reason in every dispute I've seen her get into. She's never been afraid to ask for help or advice, and displays a degree of caution that would put many of our most active administrators to shame. In short, her temperment is ideally suited to admin work, and I'm convinced that once she has the mop, she'll quickly become one of our most respected sysops. Yunshui  09:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination: I agree with Yunshui and am happy to add my support. Solarra is indeed cool and courteous and while she hasn't created many articles she displays plenty of content knowledge, and seems to know her policies and guidelines very well. Most of all, though, I support her because of her demeanor: she strikes me as someone who doesn't push people around, judges fairly, is willing to change her mind, and genuinely tries to improve the atmosphere by seeking consensus through diplomacy. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept the nomination. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 10:37, 29 July 2014 (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: They type of Admin work I look at doing is quite honestly the work I've been doing already, without the mop, just with the tools needed to actually impact some of the backlog that exists on various admin boards. I see the tremendous backlog, at RPP, often AIV, SPI, AN3, etc and I feel like I could be a tremendous help to the project if I were granted the tools by the community to do so. CSD is something I will probably become involved in as well as AFD. As far as AFD goes, if the community endorses me as an admin, I will be taking it slowly at first, like Yunshui notes in the nom statement, I am very cautious when it comes to things that may be even considered controversial, as such I will never supervote. To conclude, I wish to help out in areas I feel the help is needed.
Addition: I wanted to add a tad bit here, right now there is a huge backlog SPI. One of the most specific areas I plan to look to become active in is specifically becoming an SPI clerk. I note 6 active clerks at this time, and I feel this is one specific area I could give some assistance in.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This is a tough question to answer to be honest, I have been active in a large number of areas over the years and it is really hard to narrow it down to even a handful of individual contributions. To start I'd have to point out my long work at AIV, over the years and especially recently I have worked closely with some well known vandal-fighting admins to fight abuse by some of the more notorious LTA puppetmasters. I take much pride in the work I've put in to that particular aspect, primarily because of how important the project is to me, and I hate to see the work of others destroyed by the foolishness of malcontents and I try to resolve such issues as quickly as possible to protect the work others have often put many hours into.
Secondly, I'd have to point to copyediting and cleanup of various articles over the years. I really enjoy this sort of work, I'd love to do more of it, but sadly my free time has not always allowed it. When I do get to do it, I feel that the improvement to the article in specific, and the project itself more generally, are better as a result of it.
Lastly, I'd have to point at my contribution in the area of mentorship/coaching. This project is nothing without the efforts of thousands of active editors, and any opportunity I can take to 'teach newbies the ropes' I jump at the opportunity for. I love the process of it, I love the interaction, and I love seeing their completed work. The whole process is an absolute joy for me and it is something I am quite fond and proud of.
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 can say with impunity, that I have never became angry over something on the project. One of the most paramount things important to editing an encyclopedia, is having a cool head to look dispassionately at the facts. Given that doing so is literally my job, I try to bring that same collected and unbiased thought process to serve me here. That is not to say I don't feel when things get heated up, I just make sure to realize that I am being affected by a situation and recognize that as such. That being said, I have been involved in misunderstandings in the past that I feel could have been handled better by me. For example, a couple months ago on ANI, I noticed what I felt was a personal attack by a user on another user, and removed it. That user and a couple others and I argued the merits of the disagreement and eventually reached a common understanding. In the end, that editor is one of those I greatly respect the opinion of quite strongly now, and I feel they are a great asset to the project.
There was one particular AFD I argued quite energetically on, but it never got into the realm of anything resembling an edit dispute. Honestly I try to treat the project as that, a project. I feel that it is of utmost importance to keep a level head here in all things.
Additional question from Lucas Thoms
4. Before May of this year, you were inactive most of the time, with a few random months of high activity. Out of curiosity, why? Do you plan to be here more steadily now (especially if/when this RfA succeeds)?
A: I love Wikipedia, and in the past I have been active when I could, but honestly I would get involved to the point where it would affect other real life concerns, especially school. So when I noted I needed to, I took extended Wikibreaks for a time then came back when I could. A couple of times I'd post an edit or two here when I noticed something that needed improvement, but I purposefully kept myself away from the project to prioritize other things. As of May, those other issues are resolved now, I can fully devote my time and balance it with other ongoing 'life stuff' as it were and plan to continue to be involved with the project as much as my free time allows. If accepted as an admin, there will be plenty of pink to go around :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from ArcAngel
5. Let's put you in a hypothetical situation. Let's say you have the mop, you made a !vote on this AFD. Based on what you see in the comments, how would you have approached the closure of it?
A:I'm going to take this in two pieces, first from an involved admin that !voted on an AFD (as I believe the intent here is). If I !vote in an AFD, I am not qualified to close it, as someone who has expressed an opinion on an issue, especially here expressing it multiple times, I would be WP:INVOLVED and cannot close it. Both out of policy and good conscious, it would clearly be out of line. This is an instance where another admin would have to close the discussion.
Going to take this on the second path here, the hypothetical where I am the patrolling admin looking to close the AFD I am not involved in. On first sight, this is an obviously controversial AFD, there are a myriad of opinions all citing valid interpretation of various policies. The insight given by several editors here regarding the possible connection with the author and some of the sources is particularly troubling. Frankly, without a clear consensus (as was the case here) as an admin, I'd let this run as long as possible to get as much consensus as possible, here, barring the nominator withdrawing his nomination, I'd eventually have no choice but to close this as no consensus reach. I would also follow up with personal attention on the article, to work with the whole group of individuals on trying to make this controversial article as sourced as possible to everyone's mutual agreement. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 19:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you nailed it - the first situation you mentioned is what I was after.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from GraniteSand
6. A week ago you nominated an article about a battle in the present conflict in Gaza for deletion. At the time of the nom the battle was about two days old. I'm curious as to the logic behind your nomination and your understanding of WP:GNG and the generally excepted criteria for notability in relations to battles. Could you elucidate further your reasoning for the nomination and clarify, in light of both the unfolding AfD and topical coverage, whether or not you still support the article's deletion?
A:Again, gonna take this in two places, first why I nominated this for deletion. I nominated this for deletion because there was a discussion on the talk page where notability concerns and deletion possibility were brought up. As an AFD was the correct placement for the discussion I put it up for deletion per policy. On a personal level, at the time I felt that the article was a minor skirmish in the greater ongoing Gaza conflict and did not warrant its own article based on the quoted policies I named in the nom. When the article was nominated, the majority of sourcing was done from some of the more dubious sources I have seen. I have since changed that view since the article has matured, and can see the lasting impact of that particular battle, I have also withdrawn the nom per that view. The sourcing is much more neutral and the article itself more in line with the various applicable Wikipedia policies.
The second place I want to take this is on my understanding of WP:GNG. The guidelines exist for the establishment of sourced content for articles. The purpose of the GNG is to allow an article to reflect what the sources say on the subject. If the sources do not exist, or are extremely borderline, an article fails GNG because of the fact that it is impossible for the project to reflect that particular subject in a neutral way. In some cases, eventually the sourcing will exist, and the article can (and has been on multiple occasions) be created using proper sources. To put it simply, GNG exists so that neutrality can be established and confirmed and the article's content can be verified. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 20:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from Jim Carter - Public
7. (I'm a bit sleepy now, can't think about question. I may add few questions later, hope you will not mind)

How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

A:Taking this in two pieces. First an involved admin on a block is an admin that has a history of disputes on either with the editor in question or in the topic area in general. As I touched on above with the AFD question, I am a very strong proponent of what I callzero doubt, I want absolutely no doubt as to the basis of my actions as a hypothetical admin. If there is a question that I am WP:INVOLVED with the editor or have a history of dispute, even if said dispute was amicably resolved in the past, I will not take admin action on the editor in question, I will reach out to my fellow admins for review and/or action.
Secondly, on page protection. A very similar guideline applies. I want my actions as an admin to be viewed as an impartial action by an agent of the community, as I believe all admins are. If there is even a hint at a perceived conflict of interest where that intent might come into question, or worse, draw attention away from the reason for the protection (vandalism, edit-warring, etc), I wont take said action. Every action I take as an administrator is an extension of the trust the community places in me, I firmly believe that every action I take as an administrator should reflect that. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Addition: Jim Carter and to anyone else that has questions for me: Please do not hesitate to ask, I am more than happy to answer. This process is to verify trust that I am asking for in adminship, I am here because I am asking for your trust. I do not mind questions in the very least, especially if it answers concerns a user may have. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from Noyster
8. As an admin patrolling AIV, how would you deal with this edit treated as vandalism and reverted four times? See also the article talk page
A: As an admin, I have to take the entire situation into account and dispassionately look at all sides of a dispute, which this clearly was. Coming upon this in AIV, I would recognize it for what WikiDan61 did in this case, a content dispute and not an obvious case of vandalism. In this case you have an established editor, reverting what another editor with no edits to any other page other than that one, tagging the new editor's contributions as vandalism when they are clearly not. First thing's first here, I would tag both editors on their respective talk pages and let them know that this is a content dispute and that further reverts would be classified as edit warring which could culminate in a block. On both I wouldn't template them per say, but in gentle language still strongly worded enough to grab attention. Next, I would begin a discussion on the talk page of the article (honestly similar to what WikiDan did here) and try to establish a dialogue between the two editors. For the duration of the dispute, I would work with both editors and closely watch both the article and the talk page. I don't think protection or blocks would be needed here, as long as the editors involved give it a good faith effort to try to work with me in resolving the dispute.
Two things would concern me, one the complete lack of contributions from the new editor on any article other than this one, makes me think this may a single purpose account and while that is not always negative, in this case it would strike me strongly that this editor is trying to push a point of view, I would additionally message this user and point out why it is inherently important to follow Wikipedia policies on sourcing, BLP, and NPOV. The second thing here that would grab my attention is the reversions of the established editor, this is not clear case of vandalism. I would message the user, likely as a part of the previous message, that additions of things like radical feminist are not always vandalism, telling them to double check the sourcing of the article to the content of the reversion, especially given the re-addition of the content by the new user reminding them that is what talk pages are for.
On a side note here, this was an incident I learned more from than a great many others. I am human and this proves it; not everything I do is correct and I make mistakes. One of the things I cherish more than any other here is the patience of a lot of users and their efforts to teach each other, WikiDan61 taught me a great deal with how he dealt with this. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from Jim Carter - Public
9. Thanks for your answer to my above question. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Solarra, what are your faults? Due to these faults how may they effect your usage of admin tools? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you with admin tools??
A: Like I touched on in my closing comment for Q7, I am very human and have a great many faults. I'm headstrong, often self-righteous, impulsive, and quite frankly I can be downright arrogant at times. What is of paramount importance is recognizing these faults and how they can affect me when I interact with others and make decisions. When using the admin tools, being headstrong and self-righteous can be a huge detriment. If I go around thinking I'm always right, can do no wrong, and that I am God's gift to Wikipedia, the damage done could be profound. The same could said about being impulsive, if I rush into a decision, especially on a more controversial issue, the damage done to the project and the mutual trust it is built on would be catastrophic. Arrogance, is no better, thinking I'm better than new editors, just because I have a couple years under my belt, will do nothing but lead to absolute rubbish decisions and compound the problem the project already has with attracting new editors.
Thankfully, I recognize these faults for what they are and I know how they affect me. I recognize when I am being headstrong, self-righteous, or arrogant, and I make a conscious decision to change my thought process. To prevent acting on impulse, I hold myself back and ask myself what others would do in a similar situation. I was taught to recognize when I'm acting on auto-pilot and when my faults are influencing my actions. In a very similar way I prevent myself from acting in anger on the project, I attempt to prevent my faults from controlling me and what actions I take. It is for this reason I ask for your trust with the tools, I have the ability to push through my faults and recognize them for what they are. I'm not always successful, I am human and sometimes I can still be headstrong, self-righteous, impulsive and arrogant, and when that is the case, please feel free to slap me with a trout accordingly. What I can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that given the tools, I will not misuse them, I care way too much for the project. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from LindsayH
10. Hi Solarra; thanks for allowing your name to be put forward. I want to ask if you can be a little more specific about one portion of your answer to Question 2: You point to "copyediting and cleanup of various articles over the years", yet i noticed several grammatical errors or questionable usages in the answers to the first three questions alone. Can you please point me to an article or some articles where you have done some copyediting you are proud of?
A: In 2012, I was more active in the copy-editing side of things. There are also a few other articles I've coached others through editing both on IRC and via the project proper. While I really enjoy this type of work, historically I have placed protecting the work of others over doing work myself. I would love to do more work in content creation, but with all of the other work I do, it is difficult to find the time to dedicate that I feel is needed to do it properly. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 21:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from Stfg
11. Hi Solarra. I'm slightly uneasy that on a couple of occasions you have removed a posting ([1]) or part of a posting ([2] amended to [3]) at ANI on the grounds that they were personal attacks. (The former seems ambiguous to me, and you omitted to put {{RPA}} there.) When challenged on the latter, you mentioned the NPA policy ([4]), but these are at best marginal cases in terms of WP:RPA and the idea of removing them seems to me rather, so to say, parental. Could you tell us your thoughts on when and why it's appropriate to intervene in such a way in interactions between other editors, who I assume to be adults (ahem, at least chronologically speaking)?
A: This was exactly the dispute I mentioned in Q3. I reverted that edit after it was brought to my attention by a couple of users expressing concern over someone being called a pig, it was for that direct reason I intervened here. I had a lengthy discussion with the user and a couple others, and changed the way I use to remove personal attacks to using the {{RPA}} template as a result.
I intervened in this because the direct complaint was being called a 'prick' and I felt repeating a near identical attack during the discussion on that attack at ANI was at best disruptive.
Now That I've answered the individual incidents you referenced, I want to touch on my understanding of WP:NPA in general. I realize, we are all adults here, adults swear, insult, make dirty jokes, and all the thing adults generally do, but the policy is extremely clear. Directly insulting someone adds nothing to a discussion. It simply escalates matters and makes it so compromise is that much more difficult, because personal attacks often lead to increased anger and frustration. For small time stuff, most of the time I just ignore it and move on. However, if I see something that is clearly disruptive, I remove it for the reasons above. For me, it is not about being parental, it is about fostering communication and effective on-topic dialogue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 21:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Addition I wanted to add something here, as I felt the answer is a bit incomplete. As many are aware, this particular policy has been discussed ad nauseam recently. The first case named here was a significant learning experience for me, something I am extremely grateful to both Mendaliv and Beyond My Ken for. If a similar situation happened again, I wouldn't repeat the same actions. In all honesty, I was wrong here, but I felt answering my thought process as to why I did it at the time was what was sought.
The second case, the user was literally repeating the same attack he was being reported at ANI for. In this case I would probably do the same thing. I agree 'prick' is childish and honestly not worthy of an {{RPA}} template, but in this specific instance, because of the surrounding factors, I feel it was justified.
I am not here to be anyone's mother. We are all grown adults, and frankly the last thing I want to do babysit every comment made on Wikipedia made. It is not the role I am asking for, and it is not the role I desire. For childish things like the first instance named here, I see no reason to get involved in the future.
Additional question from Hawkeye7
12. Can you tell us about your content creating work? While content creators need the tools, many of us are extremely reluctant to trust or endorse an admin without a solid record of content creation, especially in areas like AfD. Do you understand the reasons for this and can you put our minds at ease on this matter?
A: To start, I want to say I fully understand people's reservations when it comes to content creation. I fully acknowledge it is my primary weakness on the project. I also fully understand why some feel that strong content creation be a paramount part of any RFA proposal. I only have a handful of articles I've created and/or directly improved upon, and I see where that raises concern. Content is Wikipedia, it is what people come to Wikipedia for, and it is what we all work together to create. Admins are trusted to be the vanguards of content and demonstrate care, good judgement, and be accountable for their conduct. I fully recognize that without a solid record of content creation it is very difficult to gauge an editor's knowledge of policies and guidelines crucial for adminship (Some of my contributions are linked above).
To make up for this, I strive to read and understand every policy page I can get my hands on. I stepped up participation in AFD in May specifically to strengthen my knowledge on content policies and guidelines. Like I said in a recent RFA, AFD is a outstanding place to learn content policies. I'm human, and I may make mistakes into how I interpret various policies, but I can promise that I will be accountable for them. Like Yunshui said when he nominated me, I am cautious, especially when it comes to something as critical as content deletion. Each and every article made can represent hours, sometimes days of work put in by editors who often times feel passionate about what they are writing about.
That being said, I will be extremely cautious in dealing with the tools when it comes to deletion. It is honestly not something, aside from obvious violations (vandalism/attack pages/etc), I plan to undertake a big part of, especially right away. If trusted with the tools, when I delete something, I will respond to every objection made and I pledge to be fully 100% accountable for every action I take.
To conclude, I absolutely understand the concerns raised with content creation. I don't feel I can convey in words how seriously I take this role I am asking for, but I am asking for your trust and support. Believe me when I say this, I take this trust I am asking for extremely seriously. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

General comments


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

Discussion

Support
  1. Strong Support — A wonderful editor with more than one heart Always ends her sentences with a smile :-)  NQ  talk 17:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Strong support times a million - Already acts like an admin. Plenty of edits (almost 5000 non-automated), involved in everything, doesn't let stress get to her, and is incredibly helpful. She needs the tools, and she can be trusted with them.—LucasThoms 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support A good candidate from a good adminator (admin + nominator).--Jetstreamer Talk 18:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support An excellent candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Should be an excellent addition to the admin corps. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. ///EuroCarGT 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. SupportLesser Cartographies (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support excellent nominator. Yunshui  19:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    You're talking about Drmies, right? Ha! (also, Drmies, nominators should !vote too!) Ansh666 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support Very patient when explaining policies to users embroiled in disputes and exactly the front Wikipedia should offer towards newcomers. I've seen Solarra take frustrated users step-by-step through the notability guidelines on AfD without losing her temper. Altamel (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. 100% Support - Until recently I wasn't even aware Solarra wasn't even an admin!, Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support- why isn't she already? Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint? 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  12. Strong support - one of the strongest vandalism fighters on WP. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support Qualified, no concerns. Answer to #5 was great. Best of luck, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  14. Support I can understand the concern about content creation but that is not a huge issue to me as long as there is a history showing they do such work. I see great potential.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  15. I'm not familiar with this candidate so I checked a random sample of her contributions. I found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  16. Support On balance this looks like a great future sysop. Content creation is a tad weak but I weigh that a bit less importantly than experience in the adminny end of things. I am also impressed by the things being said about this candidate by other editors whose opinions I respect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  17. Support - previous interactions and above comments give enough confidence for me. Ansh666 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  18. Support. I mean, if Drmies co-nominates, who am I to disagree? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  19. Support - For the short time that I've known her, this user has always struck me as admin material, and while I'm surprised that she has only created a single article (and I hope she creates more), she more than merits becoming an administrator. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  20. Support Fine user, will make a fine admin. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  21. Secret account 22:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  22. Support - experienced and helpful editor. Agree with Sturmgewehr88. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  23. Aww I wanted to be a nom.--v/r - TP 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  24. Support Absolutely and without reservations. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  25. Support – With Drmies as a co-nom and a good track record, it would be hard not to support. United States Man (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support This user is by far the most frequent editor to edit conflict me with huggle. Been around for years with thousands of edits. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  27. More AIV admins is always a great thing. I've seen her name pop up numerous times and have no doubt that she'll use the tools wisely. Connormah (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  28. Weak support Solid candidate overall but the CSD diffs provided by Valenciano below are a legitimate concern. Pichpich (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  29. Strongest possible support I've bumped into Solarra multiple times while patrolling new editor contribs. I've been impressed by her helpful behavior towards new editors and her humility while being corrected. She is more than willing to talk things out with other editors to explain her reasoning in a calm fashion, which I believe is a very strong skill for an admin to have. Even with a lack of content creation, Solarra offers input in discussions and is quick to jump on malicious edits. I absolutely believe that giving the mop to Solarra would be a net positive to the project. Ishdarian 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  30. Support; I've got absolutely no reservations here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  31. Support Well dedicated and active. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  32. Support I think Solarra has the right temperament and judgement for adminship. Mike VTalk 04:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  33. Support While unfamiliar with this editor, I like the answers I see to most questions, didn't find anything concerning in random spot checking. From checking the opposes, a number of deleted edits are a good sign if there are no warnings or blocks to go along with them. :) The CSD issue ( Valenciano's oppose and Q6 ) is slightly more concerning, though some of the noms mentioned are understandable. I understand that she has been getting guidance in preparation for running for admin, I would hope that the mentorship continues for a bit afterwards especially in the case of speedy deletions. The signature stuff doesn't bother me and the guidelines only says to be sparing with subscripts and superscripts, but does not prohibit them outright. While content creation is a very important thing, content preservation and management is important as well so the balance of contributions does not bother me. PaleAqua (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Support After careful consideration, I see no reason why this candidate would misuse the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)After new information is revealed about the candidate's policy knowledge, I moved to Oppose.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  34. Support I knew this was coming... I've worked with Solarra in the past and can certainly vouch for her reports at AIV, RPP and other vandalism-related noticeboards. Solarra breathes passion, a general desire to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. She may not have prolific content contributions but I trust she won't dive head first into any administrative areas she's not comfortable with. A friendly, adept janitorial asset with a clear need for the tools. I am happy to support. — MusikAnimal talk 04:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  35. Support While I've seen some imperfection from Solarra, I'm confident that she's the right person for this job. I'm glad to see more attorneys looking to pick up the mop, not because they're prone to wikilawyering, but because they know how to cut through it when other people try. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  36. Strong Support. Solarra is a great user and should definitely be an admin. Her contributions as well as antivandalism work are significant and this is why she should be an admin. 電子888說-TALK 08:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  37. Support would make an amazing sysop. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  38. Support. Great contributions to anti-vandalism work. Helpful. Good temperament. Should do well as an administrator. I trust that having been advised that some of her deletion work has been hasty that she will give more consideration to claims of notability when working in this area. With her background, I also would like to see a little more content creation but in view of my conclusion that she will be a net positive and a big help in some admin areas, I am confident in my !vote to support. Donner60 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  39. Support When you're tagging articles for CSD, there can be an element of "OK, let's see what happens...". When actually deleting them, you worry more. And think longer. Mistakes can get made, but can be put right very easily - and lessons learned. Not much article creation - probably got more than I have anyway. No matter what some people think, you don't have to be an artist to hang pictures in a gallery. How many book critics have written great books? (Before giving up the critic's job...) I like the current version of her sig, but nearly opposed over the user page. 8-) Peridon (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  40. Support – Absolutely yes. Solarra is a tenacious anti-vandalism crusader, someone whom I've had the absolute pleasure of bumping into now and then on the project. She is very level-headed, easy to approach and will no doubt operate admin rights with absolute distinction. She's had long breaks, of course, but I believe her contributions speak for themselves. Solarra, all the very best and good luck! —MelbourneStartalk 10:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  41. Support Why not? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  42. Support. I rarely comment at RfA these days, but having seen this one I have to offer my support. Solarra might not have done a huge amount of content work, but looking around her interactions with others I see someone with strong policy knowledge, and who is calm and friendly and shows empathy with other people - and empathy is one of the things we don't have enough of round here. (I'm also looking forward to the appointment of the first lesbian Pope - the world will be a better place that day) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I can't resist asking -- did you read Oppose #1 and click the links provided before stating your opinion that the candidate possesses "strong policy knowledge"? Your answer could well be "Yes," I'm just genuinely curious about your perspective on that oppose rationale. Townlake (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Fair question, and yes I did - and the concerns are justified. However, CSD can seem deceptively simple, but its nuances can throw even very experienced editors. I've supported a number of candidates whose biggest weakness has been CSD, and they have gone on to become excellent admins. Any CSD misunderstandings are easy to rectify, and I don't think should stand in the way of a candidate who clearly has excellent people skills - lack of people skills is, in my view, the biggest single failing amongst admins these days, and when we find someone who is strong in that respect we should rope them in as quickly as we can (before they fully understand what they are letting themselves in for!) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks Boing. I certainly agree that the candidate's people skills deserve praise. Townlake (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  43. Support --Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  44. Support - Mlpearc (open channel) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  45. Support I don't find the oppose rationals convincing, and my interactions with the candidate have all been positive. Monty845 13:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  46. Support This user helped me out right from the start when I joined Wikipedia, therefore I'm supporting on this RfA. Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 14:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  47. Support Well qualified user! JayJayWhat did I do? 16:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  48. Opposes are unconvincing. --Rschen7754 17:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  49. Support I'm convinced the user is competent, and I'm extremely convinced (primarily by the interaction with SagaciousPhil on her talk page, which everybody ought to go read as a good example of 'de-escalation 101') that they are good under pressure and can deal with people well. Chuy1530 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  50. Support Seen often around, no issues with what I've seen. The opposes don't change that Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  51. Support --j⚛e deckertalk 20:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  52. The evidence -- in particular the dodgy CSD tagging or two and -- shows that you're about 2-3 months behind where an admin should be on the learning curve of deletion policy experience. But that's not far enough for me to oppose. And hell week accelerates that learning curve to the extent that it probably counts for 2-3 months itself. Take care, because there are few more chastening experiences as an admin than getting the shit kicked out of you at DRV! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  53. Support For me, RfAs boil down to trust: do I trust the candidate to "do the right thing". That means doing the right then when clicking the buttons and also doing the right thing when they click the buttons by mistake. I think that Solarra will do fine with both. Sure, some mistakes will be made (nobody is perffect), but I think Solarra has the temperament to acknowledge and correct any mistakes. I think granting the bit to Solarra will be a net positive for the project. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  54. Support I only ran across Solarra a short time ago, but she's always seemed an adminlike sort of person to me, and poking around this RFA and her contribs has confirmed my suspicions. I don't find the opposes convincing particularly since her answers to the questions indicate that she recognises her shortcomings and is willing to change her behaviour in response to criticism. Cathfolant (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  55. Obviously. → Call me Hahc21 04:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose with regret, a lot of good qualities, but she states an interest in working in deletions and that's a right I'm not so comfortable giving her at the moment. Just yesterday there was this declined speedy, a government minister seems a clear enough claim of notability disqualifying an article from A7 criteria. Similarly this nom last week: elected member of the Romanian Academy and Moldavian Academy of Science "the main scientific organization of the Republic of Moldova" is clearly not an A7. Two weeks ago, an A1 nom of Central Library Cape Town (seems easy enough to identify) and added the same minute the article was created, despite explicit instructions at WP:NPP not to tag for A1 and A3 moments after creation. State Medical Faculty of Bangladesh at the start of this month was not an A1 and ended up redirected. AFD looks mostly fine, though there was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vinod_Kumar_Binny, a politician in a sub-national legislature explicitly meets WP:NPOL. I could be more forgiving if there was some content creation, but she appears to have created a single article in her time here: Habitable Planets for Man, a stub. Valenciano (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Good contributor with an ideal temperament, but I think this RFA is a couple months too soon. Editor's only been active for the last three months; there was about a year of extremely light activity before that. I get it, I've taken long breaks multiple times, but I'm not asking to be accountable for admin responsibilities. Also, a minor irritant that I'm sure will be blown out of proportion but I'll mention it anyway: the vanity signature doesn't contain an obvious link to candidate's talk page, which is a problem when I'm on my mobile. Townlake (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Just wanted to let you know, was the first time someone raised on issue with my signature characters. I have since resolved it, let me know if you still have any issues :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 20:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Well, the links were obvious if you could read Japanese, but... ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    And they made sense if you know Chinese as well (though I think there might be a PUA character being used as a separator). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Haha of course! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 11:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, as not now. I am impressed with the candidate's thoughtful answers to questions, but their lack of experience shows through in several areas. First of all, almost no sign of content creation, and whatever experience an admin has, I now regard it as essential that they have extensive experience of the core activity of Wikipedia.
    Secondly, Townlake sets out a series of recent misjudgements on deletion policy, all of which are fairly basic mistakes. An admin needs to be doing a lot better than that in an area they particularly identify as wanting to work in.
    Thirdly, an apparently minor point: even the revised sig still breaches WP:SIGAPP, by its use of sub- and super-script. This is only a minor thing, which will be easily fixed; my concern is that when it was raised under the scrutiny of RFA, I would expect someone ready for adminship to take a few minutes to check the relevant guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    WP:SIGAPP doesn't forbid superscript or subscript. It says to "be sparing" with it. I personally would consider a couple links to be pretty accurately described as sparing.—LucasThoms 00:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed it doesn't forbid them. But it does say "in some cases, this type of script can also affect the way that surrounding text is displayed". That is the case with Solarra's application of them, which has the effect of increasing the line height both above and below the existing boundaries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Does it? I don't seem to see any difference - Windows 7/Chrome/Vector and iOS7/Safari/Vector. Ansh666 05:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Nope, no difference made by sup or sub. Look especially to the right of each line: evenly spaced.—LucasThoms 05:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    This is one of those curious situations where some say yes and some say no. I have Opera, and it looked like it was creating a taller line space for me. I magnified the page, got out a rule and measured, and the signature does increase the line space. Interesting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    SilkTork is probably right. I think superscript always affects the line height for me, even on refs and the like, but it's a small enough difference that it doesn't bother me. I don't notice any difference with subscript, though it may or may not be pushing the text down farther, or something. (I hadn't noticed anything before running across this RFA.) I'd also like to say that plenty of other editors have both superscript and subscript in their signatures (and some of them seem to have made it through RFA--just look around this page), but I don't know how much water that holds. (Also, this is why I use a default signature. With a custom one, it seems you're bound to run into trouble sooner or later...) Cathfolant (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, regretfully. The core of this sprawling place is still the addition and deletion of article content, areas the nominee shows little experience and dubious judgment, respectively. Being pleasant and having a good grasp of the technical underside of Wikipedia isn't enough for me; I need to see a demonstrated understanding of how to build an article and the recent absence of faulty logic in deletion, the latter being evidenced in both Q6 and by Valenciano. I hope for a reapplication in six months. GraniteSand (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose- Articles are the heart and soul of Wikipedia. It's the only thing that 99.9% (exaggeration) of visitors to our site see, and I can't find any evidence of at least even a B-class article she's been a major contributor to. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, a depressingly large percentage of readers read articles that have been vandalized. Wikipedia needs both content writers and people who devote significant time to defending that content against malicious editors. Pichpich (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    What does that have to do with my comment? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose; not now. An impressive user page, but... top edited article is Legal status of Hawaii, the editor is a practicing lawyer in Hawaii, yet edits involve fixing typos and formatting using AWB and another tool, tagging for {{POV}}, more references, weasel words, removing a dead link (which can be found at archive.org), adding a citation needed, then some adding and fixing references. I'd like to see more substantial content additions; maybe work on some physics articles too? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose- This user has over 1,000 deleted edits, which shows a 99% certanity of vandalisim in the 1,262 deleted edits.Gerry.y.ma (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Do you understand what deleted edits are? They're edits to now-deleted pages, which is usually a result of deletion tagging. This is a sign of a good editor, not a bad one. It's not the same as reverted edits. AFAIK, there is no count of reverted edits.—LucasThoms 03:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Having access to the deleted contributions, I can confirm that a great deal, if not nearly all, are normal CSD-tagging edits. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, we're allowed to support / oppose for any reason or no reason, but I hope Gerry will reconsider his rationale here, as it holds no water. Townlake (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Gerry.y.ma: If you remove an inappropriate apostrophe from an article, and later on the author of the article successfully requests deletion, both the apostrophe remover and the author will have 'deleted edits' on their lists. No vandalism. Likewise, anyone who tags for CSD or PROD or AfD will have deleted edits as well as the creators of the tagged articles. I notice you haven't any. That suggests you haven't tagged anything for deletion yet or have been unsuccessful. (I've got 7000...) Peridon (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I suspect that the user in question is a not-yet-fished-out satirical account. The logic behind the !vote is demonstrably incorrect, I suspect the closing editor will so no reason to count it and therefore we have no reason to spill anymore pixels over it. GraniteSand (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    As people have said above, this "Gerry.y.ma" oppose is quite frankly unadulterated rubbish. I hope the closing 'crat takes no notice at all this uninformed and unhelpful contribution. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Not enough overall experience in my book. If the Rfa fails, suggest you work hard and try again in 2015. Best wishes! Jusdafax 06:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I agree completely with User:Valenciano. CSD is something I will probably become involved in as well as AFD - you wrote in your response to Q1 but the examples in the first oppose show that you don't have sufficient experience and/or careful judgement to be trusted with the right to delete articles. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose with sincere regret. All Solarra's !Supports are right about almost everything, and I would strongly support her next RfA. I would trust Solarra with every aspect of adminiship right now - except speedy deletions. The CSD nomination of Awadhesh Narain Singh less than a fortnight ago was, I am afraid to say, quite clearly wrong. In the state the article was in immediately before the WP:A7, it included the text "chairperson of Bihar Legislative Council". The Bihar Legislative Council is the equivalent of a State Senate. This was like nominating an article about the current lieutenant governor of California for speedy deletion. (If you think this is an exaggeration, remember that California has about 1/3rd the population of Bihar.) If I had a userspace "my opinions of qualifications for adminship" it would be "Ten articles rescued from speedy deletion by the addition of references from reliable sources that verify their notability". In short: Solarra has everything it takes to make a great admin almost now, but just not right now. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Oppose Sloppy CSD noms is a particular beef with me. I've opposed nice people at RFA before over this issue -- unsuccessfully -- and must do so again. I really don't get why this seems to trip some people up: CSD is not rocket science. Just read the criteria and approach each stub article thoughtfully, with mentality that rushing to delete someone else's work is not the desired outcome. Right now, the way this editor should become 'more in involved in CSD' is not through adminship, I believe. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I hate to badger oppose !votes, but I'd recommend that those opposing due to CSD concerns take a moment to look through Solarra's CSD log - the percentage of red there is not unimpressive. I would suggest that Solarra is already "more involved in CSD" than most editors, and whilst she, like anyone, can make mistakes, it is apparent that the overwhelming majority of her CSD nominations have been accepted and actioned by existing administrators. Yunshui  14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I don't know what happened with those three recent bio articles but overall the record is fine. Strike oppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Tirumalapudi, an article (presumably) about a village in India created by an obviously clueless new editor, has been tagged as db-nocontent (admins only) by Solarra at 04:47, 11 July 2014, the same minute it was created. It is now a red link in the CSD log so everything looks perfect. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Nikita dutta, an article about a Bollywood beauty pageant and actress [5] playing in a notable film, was nominated 7 minutes after creation. It is also a red link in the CSD log. The subject doesn't have to be necessarily notable, but hasty CSD noms like this one or those mentioned by Valenciano tell me that the candidate doesn't look around carefully (I mean checking Wikipedia links or doing at least a basic Google search), which is what I expect by an administrator deleting work of others. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    But there's no reason to believe Tirumalapudi wasn't no content, even if it exists. As for Nikita Dutta, was it CSDed A7? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    .As for Tirumalapudi, there was no content, only a link pointing to Ojili. But why not to ask the creator what is his intention instead of slapping him with db-nocontent template the same minute he has managed to save the page? I've fixed Nikita dutta, it was uncapitalized. Yes, deleted as A7. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Shawn, the advice to new page patrollers is very clear: don't tag pages for no content or no context moments after creation "as not all users will have added full content in their first revision." That's very basic stuff. Yes, I know it's called speedy deletion, but with the exception of things like vandalism, hoaxes, copyvios and attack pages, there is no mad rush to delete and certainly not without doing WP:BEFORE. In this case, one of the mistaggings that I've pointed out happened the day before this RFA went live. It's clear that the candidate started preparing for adminship in late May and got into CSD tagging as a result, but they still seem to be learning the ropes with that and so I'd rather they went away, spent another six months sharpening up their game in the deletion sphere and then presented themselves again. Regarding the amount of red/blue in the log, if you look at the history of the candidate's CSD log, you'll see that she occasionally removes some entries from it. One was another misplaced A7 tag from 19 July that ended up deleted at AFD instead. Valenciano (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Strong oppose - Sorry Dr. Mies, but your nominee is much too inexperienced (only three months here, aside from extremely sporadic earlier appearances), and much too fast on the trigger. Her CSD log, quoted somewhere above, has too many blue links (result of incorrect tags) and besides the 4-times-revert mentioned by Noyster in Q 8, there is a 17-times-revert here. Holy cow, seventeen times reverting instead of asking for page protection and being patient enough to wait for it being done? Also, and that's actually my greatest concern, there's absolutely no content creation. Her top-edited article contributions are things like ref-fixings and punctuation, her second-most-edited is an epic edit-war. I quote myself again from a previous RfA "The last thing Wikipedia needs is another non-content-creating-vandal-fighter-admin." I suggest the candidate writes at least one article, and comes back in a year. Kraxler (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I know she's addressed this in Q4. There were thousands of edits in the summer of 2012, then it dropped off, then picked up again in April 2013, etc. Personally, I wouldn't characterize it as "only three months here." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    According to her edit count (click on "monthly stats" there), there are five months of bot-running edits (several thousands each) June 2012, April 2013, and May to July this year, the rest of the time since February 2010 is either plain zero or nothing much to speak of, like 1 edit or 4 edits in a month. Besides, all these edits are maintenance, no content creation at all. Kraxler (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Shawn's statement is misleading. "Summer of 2012" is really "one month of 2012", and there is no "etc." aside from numerous months of extremely light activity. This can all be verified at the edit counter. Townlake (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    There was a little activity in July 2012 but yes it tapered off quick. Then 1000s starting again in early April 2013. The "etc." was simply a short way of referring to the latest round of editing activity, which is currently taking place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose as too soon. The candidate has a lot of potential, and I like what I've seen at ANI. However, while I'm not a stickler for tons of content creation I see a lot more reliance on automated editing than I like and not enough real work on articles. It's easy to run up your edit count with AWB. Miniapolis 18:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I have to echo the previous sentiments that this RfA is taking place too soon. I would recommend the candidate devoting more time and achieving better results before asking for an elevation to the administrator level. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Drmies is the admin I trust and admire the most here. That said, I see two problems with this nomination. The first is a lack of article creation vs judging which articles should be deleted. (In full disclosure, I have not created any articles except on Simple English because I am allergic to the process here for getting them accepted, but this is why I am a lowly editor). However, one of the primary foundations for adminship is article creation, ISTM. Especially because one does not understand how to judge article declination or deletion until one has created a large number of articles, in my opinion. Secondly, X!"s tool above in the RfA template reflects stats that an astounding percent of Solarra's edits (82.5%) are with Huggle, Twinkle and AWB. Out of 27,039, 22,317 have been clocked up with semi-automatic tools. This is just not enough experience in composing actual text prose for article content. Sorry. Fylbecatulous talk 22:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I believe Solarra has great talent and could possibly be a stellar admin one day, perhaps sooner rather than later. But the answer to Q11 is most disturbing. She overlooks that interfering in interactions between other editors for the purpose of "fostering communication and effective on-topic dialogue" is exactly what I mean by "parental": it is moderating the behaviour of the naughty others. She also appears to overlook that calling people "swine" (if anyone actually was being called that) or "prick" is mere childish name-calling, not the toxic kind of personal attack that gets under the skin because it actually says something about the person attacked. This is particularly important if someone who doesn't profess to be a content creator aspires to moderate the behaviour of significant content creators, because content is what we're here for, and nothing else. I know what the NPA policy says about personal attacks, but is also has something to say about when to redact other editors' remarks, and I linked it in Q11. We've all seen in the not-too-distant past what happens when someone gets ahead of themselves with supervision of content creators. Let's not go there again. --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - Insufficient experience, specifically in content creation, per the comments above. BMK (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Same reasons as above, such as the relative recency of most activity by the nominee. Epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  18. Regretful Oppose ~ Solarra seems to have a good temperament, is largely knowledgeable about policies and practices (although the CSD questions raised above are somewhat troubling), and clearly wants to help people as they make their way on Wikipedia; i suspect at some point, perhaps fairly soon, she will be a good admin. For the present, however, i am troubled by the timing (not very long as an active contributor and, forgive the cynicism, a great deal of recent activity at AN/ANI which might be taken as attempting to raise a profile prior to RfA), by the points raised in Stfg's question and comments above, and by the response to my question: While i don't hold content creation to be such a requirement as some, if a candidate points out a specific area of it they are proud of, they should be able to point out why, whereas in answering me Solarra gives at least one diff in which she introduced a very simple error into an article. Cheers, LindsayHello 04:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  19. 'Oppose on the basis on the CSD problems raised above. Everyone makes errors, even the seemingly unambiguous criteria at speedy require interpretation. But the nature of the errors cited here are such that either the candidate does not understand the criteria, or the candidate is not actually reading the articles but goes by an inaccurate first impression. Whichever it it, it demonstrate an irresponsible approach to what is a serious responsibility in an area where a mistake an cost us an essentially good editor. Even if the candidate were to fundamentally disagree with them, they would still need to enforce them--or at the very least to avoid the area. There is also a basic misunderstanding about GNG--the candidate says " GNG exists so that neutrality can be established and confirmed and the article's content can be verified". Basically, that's plain wrong. GNG exists as a rough measure of whether the subject is sufficiently important that people outside pay attention to it, and therefore might reasonably come to an encyclopedia to find information on it. (It may not be a very exact measure, but it's still considered by very firm consensus the most helpful general criterion.) It is not the same as Verifiability --Verifiability does not require truly independent sources if the plain facts are what's at issue, nor does it require substantial coverage. Mentions or indiscriminate but accurate coverage that address the material provide adequate verifiability of what they support. Nor is it the same as NPOV: biased sources can perfectly well meet the GNG, as long as they are independent. NPOV requires a search for sources over a range of possible biases if the subject is potentially controversial--meeting the GNG requires only finding the necessary two or more substantial sources. Anyone working in deletion areas must understand these differences. It takes paying attention to details. I suggest that some participation at deletion review would help in understanding~~it's not an admin-only area and wider participation beyond us regulars there would be very helpful. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Admitted ongoing errors in judgement; I don't trust you with the tools. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per DGG's explaination of the candidates policy knowledge on the general notability guidelines. This is an important policy to have good knowledge on not only at CSD, but across the deletion board.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral I can not oppose because Solarra has good pre-admin experience (I see lots of good work at AFD, CSD, RFP and SPI) and I will just copy and past from Dennis Brown to say that "overall, I think your participation in a number of places has been very positive and helpful". But, I can not support because I personally do believe that admins should be content contributors —reasonable people may disagree—, which I see basically no evidence of here. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Neutral usually the bad CSD taggings would be enough for me to oppose, but I'm familiar with Solarra, I know she's been around for a while, and I have faith in her to take the advice into account and take it very slowly with deletion. The thing that bothers me more is apparent lack of content creation. Anyone who doesn't name an article they've worked on in their answers to Q2/3 raises a red flag imo, as people who don't create content don't know what it is really like to be in a dispute, so I would also advise to know your limits when it comes to intervening on content disputes. Good luck. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'm curious what other people think of as "been around a while." I've been bewildered throughout this RFA by people who cite the candidate's experience... she's had three recent very heavy months of editing, and two far-past months of heavy editing. The vast majority of her bursts of activity have been automated vandal-fighting. She doesn't create articles and she hasn't demonstrated consistent familiarity with policy, which is a little scary for someone like me who dabbles in obscure Italian film topics. Am I missing something significant about this candidate's positives? She certainly strikes me as a kind and polite person, but are we at the point where kindness-and-hearts combined with three months' recent experience is good enough? Townlake (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Armbrust

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (34/32/9); Scheduled to end 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Armbrust (talk · contribs) –

Nom statement
I would like to nominate Armbrust for adminship. Over the past couple years Armbrust has fulfilled a great demand at Featured Picture Candidates, regularly closing nominations and nominating his own (and, in accordance with FPC rules, letting others close them). His judgment is quite good: he has yet to be wrong in one of these closures, and knows when to ask for further clarification before making a decision. He's also expressed a willingness to do the less glorious administrative duties, such as archiving and CFD. Although the articles he's created are not featured quality, they do indicate a good understanding of referencing and notability guidelines (example). All in all, I think Armbrust would be a great addition to the admin corps.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Co-nom statement
I first came across Armbrust (talk · contribs) at WP:FFU, a few years ago, where I started assisted with processing requested uploads. At the time, Armbrust was the main contributor to WP:FFU (a place where we see a lot of new editors) where he patiently yet expeditiously processed requests. His high quality of work, his knowledge of procedure and his interaction with all sorts of editors, caused me to identify him as someone I'd like to learn from. He may not know this, but over the next few months, I WP:WIKISTALKed him (in a good way, methinks). I followed him to WP:FPC and then to WP:ANRFC, both places where he clerks. At WP:ANRFC, I saw how he would assist by performing non-admin closures and I tried to learn from him how to best handle situations. Although, we did not directly interact much at that time, I learned many skills from Armbrust, skills that led me have the community trust me with the mop this past March. Since then, Armbrust is quick to help clean up any mistakes I make (we're all human, right?) but does so in a friendly manner with helpful advice. Since I've known him, he's been a dedicated editor, taking on administrator-type tasks, including clerking WP:FPC, WP:ANRFC, WP:FFU, WP:CFDS and WP:PERM boards.
Since his last RfA he has taken the community's advice to heart. He has grown significantly as an editor, and shows he has a great understanding of our policies and procedures. He has the skill set that it takes to be a great administrator. I wholeheartedly believe that if the community gave him the mop, it would benefit the project tenfold. This being said, I am happy to co-nominate my friend Armbrust for adminship. TLSuda (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:54, 28 July 2014 (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 will begin my work at areas that I have experience with: speedy deletion of files (including orphan revisions of non-free files) and the closure of XfDs and RMs. I'm already actively closing discussion as a non-admin, but the lack of the bit restricts my activity to non-deleted outcomes for XfDs and need ask for assistance after some RM closes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's quite difficult to choose your best contributions if you have made over 230,000 edits. I have created over 380 articles on the English Wikipedia, my most recent creation is the 2014 Shanghai Masters (a scheduled snooker tournament) and brought the Ronnie O'Sullivan article to GA status. I have also created some intricate templates, like {{POTD category header}} or {{64Teamx2RoundAnd32TeamX2RoundBracket}}. I have been actively closing WP:FPC nominations since December 2012 (successfully nominating 14 images to reach FP status) and archiving the various subpages of WP:RFPERM since December 2013.
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 have been in comparably few conflicts in the recent months, probably because I edit a mainly conflict-free topic area. However, if I encounter conflict during my editing than I try to remain calm, and solve it through discussion. If the situation makes me too angry/stressed out, than I withdraw from the discussion for a while to cool down and be able to reassess the situation. Going forward I will try to use the same approach, and will not use administrative tools if I'm involved.
Additional question from Beeblebrox
4. Let's just get to the elephant in the room here, your close of the Media Viewer RFC. Upon reflection, do you think the close appropriately reflected the consensus reached there? Also, is there a specific reason you are not participating in the arbitration case that came out of the resulting blow-up?
A: Unfortunately I have missed to add the two words "by default" in the original closure summary of the discussion, since then fixed. But except that I think it completely represented the discussion. There was overwhelming support in the discussion that "disabled" should be the default state of the Media Viewer. The closure didn't contain anything about the implementation of the result, because that wasn't discussed in the RFC (AFAIR, too long to read it through again). Since then I have seen many times, that the subject of the RFC should fall under WP:CONEXCEPT. I have no opinion about that, except that if it indeed does, then the WMF should have informed the community about it sooner and not just after the RFC came to a conclusion they didn't like.
I didn't comment in the recently accepted ArbCom case mostly because IMO I'm just marginally involved in the case, as the user who closed the RFC, and I don't want to get more involved with it. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the wording in WP:CONEXCEPT came about from this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Consensus/Archive_14#Developers. The discussion didn't attract much attention (four people commented - for what it's worth, none of them WMF staff or admins), but the wording apparently hasn't been challenged or questioned. Given the flow of the discussion, the intention appears to have been to indicate that one Wikipedia community does not hold influence over another, so consensus on en.wp does not mean consensus on commons or mediawiki, so the community on en.wp cannot induce the mediawiki developers to do something that they don't wish to. However, I don't think from the discussion that it was ever intended to suggest that the mediawiki developers can ignore consensus on any project and enforce their will or preference against wide and legitimate disagreement. I think the point that was being made in the discussion was that no project can force another project to do something, unless it is an office action. For the avoidance of doubt, an office action is a legal imperative - a software adjustment that changes the way images are viewed is not an office action. As such, the RfC did not fall foul of WP:CONEXCEPT, and your close appears to have followed consensus and been appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional questions from Solarra
5. Going to point at the other elephant in the room, your block log. Fifteen months is a long time since your previous block, in that the time since your last block, what have you learned?
A: First I have to say, that every block for edit warring or breaking the 3-revert rule is valid and deserved. I have no excuse for either of them, and they are the result of my own bad judgement. What I learned from them is that there is no acceptable reason to edit war, and it should be avoided every time. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
6. The majority of your historical blocks are for edit warring. How do you understand the three revert rule and why is preventing edit warring important?
A: The 3-revert rule says that no editor can make more than three reverts to a single page in a 24-hour period (with some exceptions). Preventing edit warring is important because it hinders the resolution of conflicts via dispute resolution, and unnecessarily floods the recent changes. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from Salvidrim!
7. A significant number of opposers during my own RfA indicated concerns about edit-warring. (The situation is different, as you have history but nothing recent, while I had no history but violated 3RR during the RfA.) I agreed to a self-imposed WP:1RR restriction to help reassure the community I intended to pay particularly severe attention to my conduct in editing disputes in the future. Would you agree to the same self-imposed restriction, for at least the first year or your adminship?
A: Yeah, I would agree to it with the usual exemptions. If desired it could be logged at WP:RESTRICT, and any violation of it would also mean automatic desysopping. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from Mark Miller
8. Many of your answers in regards to your blocks and edit warring are very short and seem almost lifted from our guideline pages. As an addendum to those answers could you tell us in your own words about an actual conflict/dispute you have had and how you resolved it (Please refer to any editor as Editor X, Editor Y and so forth).
A:
Additional question from Trevj
9. Was there anything in particular that caused you to consider earlier this year (or sooner) requesting adminship this time? If this RfA is closed (perhaps undeservedly) as unsuccessful, what do you think would be the main areas you'd focus attention on before running again? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
A: There are two reasons why I didn't run sooner. The first is that I wanted to have a one-year clean block log (I thought that would be enough, but looking at the oppose section, it seems some want to see more time passed since the last entry). The second is that nobody offered to nominate me after April and I don't really want to nominate myself. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from BrownHairedGirl
10. In your answer to question 3, you say that your recent avoidance of conflict is "probably because I edit a mainly conflict-free topic area", and that if a situation looks conflictual you will withdraw. That is a very good strategy for an editor, but it is often unworkable for an admin who has used tools and is required to account for their use. When editors object to a deletion, a block or the closure of a discussion, some of them can be quite vociferous and even abusive, so it is not unusual for an admin who has acted in an apparently calm area to find that they are required to carefully explain their actions whilst under unreasonable attack.
Since your coping strategy is to walk away from trouble, doesn't your answer mean that you will be unable to cope with the heat of the admin kitchen? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
A: I think I will be able to cope with it. Mostly because the conflicts came usually from topics where I'm emotionally involved (every block is for something snooker-related), and using administrative tools in this cases (or topic-area in general) would be completely inappropriate. Also as a non-admin closing discussions, there were some users challenging these closures on my talk page (like User talk:Armbrust/Archive 15#Loomspicker topic ban, User talk:Armbrust/Archive 13#Premature closure of Sila-Nunam RM or User talk:Armbrust/Archive 13#Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Male impala profile.jpg), and I remained calm in every case. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


General comments


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

  • Comment I see many of the "opposes" are coming on the basis of Armbrust's block log. Most of those blocks (possibly all of them) have been in relation to snooker articles. WP:WikiProject Snooker does not have many participants and when there is a televised tournament there can be a massive amount of disruption to the articles and Armbrust is usually on the front line. He tended to just revert and obviously he got hammered a few times for it. However, Armbrust has made a sustained effort to change his approach in heated disputes and I can vouch for his increased participation on snooker article talk pages, and given that he has been block free for well over a year it seems to be working. I can appreciate why his actions as an editor are coming under scrutiny, but IMO the block log doesn't fairly reflect the efforts he has undertaken to reform his conduct. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Support
  1. Support - Armbrust's tireless work patrolling areas that few admins take on (MfD, ANRFC) convinced me that him not being admin is detrimental to the project. I agree with the concerns about edit warring raised lower, but I have faith that Armbrust has moved past these issues. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per my nominating statement. Armbrust has had no blocks in more than 15 months, and his self-control continues to improve. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support- Armbrust would be a net positive to so many different areas of the community including MfD, ANRFC, FPC, CFD, RfR, FFU, and the list just goes on, that despite the concerns that will probably make success in this RfA very difficult, he would be such an incredible asset to the admin corps that it would be self-destructive to keep him out of all these areas he would be able to help out in. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Armbrust has a block log, and a weakness when it comes to snooker articles, but that is a singular failing. I've followed him for two years, barnstar'ed him once, and always been impressed with his willingness to mop up. He has a good attention for detail and knows more about the paperwork and procedure here than probably 80% of admin, myself included. I've gone out of my way to pay attention to his actions because I knew he would run again and I wanted to have an educated opinion. When using the tools, can I trust his judgement? Absolutely. Will he be fair to all comers? I think he will. Is he perfect? Of course not, but no admin is. If we want more admin that actually know how to use the tools and can be trusted to use them to benefit Wikipedia, I think Armbrust is a safe bet. Dennis Brown |  | WER 17:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Used to seeing Armbrust at MR all the time, and from my interactions seems like would make a good admin. PaleAqua (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Since a great many of the oppose votes seem to be concerning the block history and granted there were 7 real blocks if I count correctly - one was a mistake, there was self-requested extension, and one other appeared to have a time adjustment, just wanted to note that I consider the commitment in the answer to question 7 to be reassuring and still support. In addition it has been over a year since the last of the blocks. PaleAqua (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Suppport as Co-nom. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support While the concerns raised in the oppose section are reasonable, I think the candidate's positive contributions in some undeserved areas will be a big enough net positive that I am willing to take a chance that those problems may reoccur. Monty845 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support I don't have an issue with supporting this candidate. I like the answers for 5-7 and feel that edit warring wouldn't be an issue during his adminship. I also like his file and XfD work. Best of luck, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. I expect that this RfA will not be successful, but I've watched the very good work that the candidate has been doing at the requests for closures noticeboard, and I want at least to register a "moral support". I think that Dennis Brown makes some good points above, but I also acknowledge the valid opposes from Salvio, Kudpung, and Hahc21. I've looked at the close of the Media Viewer RfC, and the ArbCom case that came of it, and I'm not seeing the candidate doing anything particularly wrong – the ArbCom case really concerns other users, and the RfC close seems OK to me. My comment should not be taken as a strong support, but instead as a friendly statement of appreciation for the candidate's extensive and helpful service. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support Adminship isn't a prize for being a model citizen, it hands an editor a few extra maintenance tools. Apparently I opposed your 2011 RfA but I'm comfortable supporting this one. benmoore 20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support; I was thinking about this for a bit, as the candidate is certainly qualified to be an admin, but the edit warring was a very legitimate concern. However, then I saw the answers to questions 5-7, which alleviate the concerns that I had. I trust the candidate's word that if he violates the 3RR he will request a desysopping, and the candidate clearly recognizes that he messed up, which is important. People can mature drastically in a year's time, and I trust that the candidate will avoid further issues. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  12. This request clearly isn't going to pass, but I'd like to give my input, anyway. While I agree that the reasons for opposing are concerning, I think that Armbrust does excellent work, has the necessary experience to be an administrator and I don't think that he'd be abusive. I've only observed positive actions from him; I don't recall anything negative. Like Kudpung below, I am hugely appreciative of Armbrust's contributions to the various PERM pages. I also really like the answer to question five. Acalamari 22:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support per Dennis Brown and others above. This is an earlier vote than I would normally make because I'm off to sun myself in yet warmer climes, but I've been editing at WP:FPC where he closes a while now and I'm pretty sure he will be a safe pair of hands. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  14. Can't speak highly enough of the guy, knows pretty much every admin area like the back of his hand and is always helping out in a multitude of areas. His work at RM, where I'm active, is particularly appreciated – it is a process that is almost permanently in backlog and we need all the help we can get, especially so from editors like Armbrust who have a strong knowledge of WP:AT and its many subject specific guidelines. I have no doubt when I say Armbrust becoming an admin would have nothing but a positive effect on RM. But sadly this RfA is unlikely to pass and it seems to me it's because, like last time, you got yourself too easily talked into a nomination. You have to 'play the game' at RfA or you end up with pile on opposes from (well meaning) editors who have no real idea but just want to jump on the bandwagon. I would strongly suggest next RfA if you want to pass, plan it out weeks in advance (don't let yourself get talked into it after a day or so), get yourself an experienced RfA nom (by that I mean they have both successfully nominated plenty of candidates at RfA and you also see a lot of "per X" at various RfAs and WT:RFA), preferably someone who opposed here or at least didn't support so they can give the spiel about how much you've improved since last RfA. Kudpung is an obvious example, but others also spring to mind. Seek out the person(s) you want to have nominate you and start a dialogue with them, don't just wait until someone drives by your talk page. Make sure when you start your RfA when there have been no recent dramas that involved you at all even if you were not to blame (e.g. Media Viewer RfC). There are probably several other things you can do simply in terms of planning to make an RfA more likely to pass and I would suggest in a few months following up with some RfA 'heavy hitters' to see what advice they have. Lastly, I'm sorry if this sounds preachy, overly critical and/or cynical about the RfA process, but places like RM (and from what others have said, many other parts of the project) could use your help as soon as possible. In addition to that, you seem like a great guy and I wouldn't want to see you go through another unsuccessful RfA when it seems so avoidable to me. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  15. Support. I have only ever had a good impression of his dedicated clerking and discussion closing. Seems intelligent and capable. Disagree that the block log is so extensive, and it is not so recent. So he had trouble with patience in editing conflicts? Adminship will not give him a looser rein, but require him to adhere to a higher standard. I have no fear that he will misuse the tools. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  16. Support. Armbrust is extremely knowledgeable regarding Wikipedia policies and procedures and has excellent attention to detail. He does lots of high quality work and access to admin tools will help him to do more. The block log is long, but the most recent block is well over a year ago, so it's not a deal breaker for me. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  17. Support The fact is Armbrust takes on many administration duties already and fulfils them competently from what I've seen. He has a thorough knowledge of the policies etc and I think he's an asset to Wikipedia. Would make a great admin IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  18. Support I have no problem supporting Armburst.--v/r - TP 06:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  19. Support does a lot of useful background work in the admin related areas. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  20. Does lots of administrative work already. Should do more! No blocks for more than a year, too, so no worries there. (One year is enough experience to become an admin, so one year clean block log is enough to forget about it). —Kusma (t·c) 09:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  21. Support While what the people in the oppose section mentioned is correct, I still feel that there is trust. Looks like adminship will be a net positive. Jianhui67 TC 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  22. Support I see know reason why he cannot be one. The blocks are minor, and he has not been blocked since April last year. — Spydar007 (Talk) 13:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  23. Support Experienced and active. Like Northamerica1000, he has done great job in performing non-admin closures. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  24. Support mainly per Dennis above. Despite the bad history, his answers show a level of maturity and temperament I'm more than comfortable with. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  25. Support - Also per Dennis, Armbrust contributions to this project can only get better with a mop. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  26. Support Has a great temperament for adminship and is unlike to supplicate before trolls. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  27. There is a long blocklog, though the first block was a complete mistake and should be disregarded. The edit warring blocks are clearly worrying to many in the oppose column, but not sufficiently worrying to bring me to oppose. This is partly pragmatic, when admins wheelwar Arbcom is quite capable of desysopping them, so for a former edit warrer fifteen months being block free is enough for me. But there is also the question of commitment, I don't doubt the commitment of someone who has been blocked for editwarring, I just want a year of block free editing to show they have learned not to edit war. There are other types of blocks that would make me hesitate for longer, which isn't to say that edit warring is acceptable, just that it is less serious than vandalism, despite us as a community being much quicker to block edit warrers than vandals (we usually go through four levels of warning before blocking vandals but edit warrers rarely get any warning before they are blocked). ϢereSpielChequers 19:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  28. As long as he avoids snooker articles he will be fine, we all have our faults and Ambrust always seems to be as the type of editor who is better with the mop than without it. Per Dennis Brown Secret account 22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  29. I am aware of Armbrust's lengthy history of edit warring, but the last block was over a year ago. Armbrust is a prolific editor with enough experience and knowledge to do the job well. Barring some sort of miracle, this RfA is unfortunately not going to pass. If his fortunes do not change within a day or two, I'd recommend that Armbrust withdraws and returns in about six months or so. Kurtis (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  30. Support based on long and excellent experiences with this editor in all sorts of processes here at Wikipedia (RFPP, ANRFC, and XfD come to mind, but I'm sure there've been more). With regard to the blocks, my views roughly parallel those expressed by SmokeyJoe and WSC. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  31. Support The answer to Q7 takes away my doubts regarding the block log. --Randykitty (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  32. Support Mainly moral support, as I can't see this one succeeding. I agree with WSC above. Armbrust has plenty of clue and ought to get the mop next time. Barring going doolally in the meantime, of course... Peridon (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  33. Support Yeah, I think he's a great editor and would be a net positive, by a long shot. Cunard's done a great job of listing concerns, but I still believe this editor is admin material, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  34. Support The last block was over a year ago and otherwise a very strong candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Unfortunately have to hang mine here. With that extreme of a block log, one would have to be a couple of years block free before RFA. As well, some of those blocks were for edit-warring, and I have seen a few cases of additional EW-warnings on their talkpage since the last block - which means, we're not quite past the EW stuff. Also, although his assistance on Requests for Permissions - Confirmed added:is very much appreciatedend of addition, he's been asked time and time again to remember RFPC is a 2 step process: the second step is to Welcome the user with an appropriate template, based on the nature of the request. To this date, Armbrust has refused this second simple steps. We RELY on admins and admin candidates to listen to requests/suggestions and act appropriately on them. Because of these 2 issues, I cannot support at this time the panda ₯’ 16:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Armbrust, you are a good editor, but I don't think you're ready to be an administrator yet. I find that Cunard, in his comment on your talk page, explains the reasons why you're not yet ready for the mop very incisively, so I'll just quote him here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Unfortunately, I am opposing for the same reasons as here, even though adminship should not be that big of a deal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose – Echoing the same thoughts as DangerousPanda. That is a pretty extensive block log, and as Panda says, those problems may not be over. Wait about 12 to 15 months, don't edit war, and really listen to Panda's comment. United States Man (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose – I don't think I've ever had to make a more reluctant oppose on an RfA. I had always believed that lessons learned from his previous RfAs and his block log would eventually lead to be deserving of the admin tools for the impressive maintenance work he does. As one of the most frequent admins at PERM over the last few years until I took my break earlier this year, I was always grateful for his 'clerking' of the pages, where I often scolded other users for unnecessary meddling in what is essentially admin territory. Armbrust is clearly a dedicated Wikipedian but unfortunately, he has always had a slightly blunt side to his character and there have been numerous lapses of accuracy. These are issues that I cannot easily overlook however much I would like to see him getting the tools some day. But it's not for now - the issues brought up by Cunard, in his comment as to why you are not ready for adminship can't be ignored, just as the block log which is going to take a bit more time to be written off as history. Please keep up the good work, be a bit less argumentative, demonstrate that you can be more of an admin than one who just needs the tools for all that monumental maintenance work you do, and I'll see my way to supporting the next trip down this road - if it isn't too soon after this one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    That might be the sweetest, and completely perfect oppose...ever. This is what should be said in an oppose :-) the panda ₯’ 18:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. This is the most difficult vote I've ever submitted at an RfA, but here we go: You are a great editor, and a valuable asset to Wikipedia just like you are right now. I don't think becoming an administrator is really going to help you out in the long term, and I wouldn't like to see an arbitration case bearing your name in the future because of the problems that Cunard outlined at your talk page. Dealing with pressure and community expectations is not an easy task. → Call me Hahc21 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. I think Armbrust will make a great admin one day, but there are too many recent issues with his editing outlined perfectly by Cunard and Panda that I don't feel comfortable giving him a pass right now. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose with regret. An outstanding editor within his chosen fields of concentration, there are alas just too many boxes on my check list that I am unable to tick off. The block log in particular is a huge impediment. On which subject I will simply say that I concur with Dangerous Panda's comment above. When you have that many sanctions you need a really long period with no issues before coming to RfA. There are some other points of concern including a nearly blank slate in AfD. A little more experience in some of the more common Adminny areas is usually desirable. And finally, a major concern that I have raised elsewhere, is that granting admin rights is one of the very few things on Wikipedia that cannot be easily fixed if it turns out to be a mistake. When we have the problems noted this fact weighs heavily. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. This editor's temperament is unsuited to adminship.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - sorry, too much has gone on too recently. GiantSnowman 18:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Too many blocks, and misleading answer to question 3. Townlake (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Re: Salvidrim's question, I don't think that simply giving the tools to see what happens next is a good idea here.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  13. Oppose not the admin temperament --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  14. Weak Oppose It breaks my heart to post here, really it does. Armbrust is one of the finest editors I've commented on an RFA for, and frankly I believe could make a terrific admin. I posted Q5 and Q6 to hope for a bit more insight into how his personality has changed since he was last blocked for edit warring, but the detail isn't there. I want to support this nom, with every fiber of my being I do, but I just cannot in good conscious support it if I feel that there is a possibility of the tools being misused. My concern isn't over edit warring per say, it's the judgement behind the decision to edit war that concerns me. Admins are trusted to be the highest example of good judgement in the community, the history of edit warring for me points at a thought process that could be danger if given the tools. My questions were an attempt to see if the underlying thought process had changed. Armbrust, you are a fantastic editor and like I've said, I want to support you, but I can't at this time, there are just too many doubts for me. Like DangerousPanda said above there, give it a bit more time, work with others, find an admin that can coach you and you know what, I'll be happy to co-nominate you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 21:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Solely on the basis of your block log. One, maybe two blocks, even relatively recent ones, I would have no problem with. But that's just too much, especially when they are pretty much for the same thing, over and over again. If we cannot trust your judgement in the middle of an edit war as a normal editor, it's impossible to trust you with the tools. You are without doubt an excellent editor, but I don't think you would be a good admin. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - Sorry to pile on! - Armbrust is a great editor but the block log is way too much, As noted above if it was 2-3 blocks then I wouldn't care but that amount isn't great, I suggest perhaps retrying in a year or 2 without anymore blocks, Good with future RFA's. –Davey2010(talk) 21:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - Although this candidate has a strong edit history (and thus would, if not for the block log and edit war history, be a slam dunk for the mop), after giving this much consideration, I find the candidate's history of edit warring (and related blocks) disconcerting. His non-admin closure after DangerousPanda explicitly said not to leads me to believe that the candidate feels strongly about ignoring the rules whenever it suits him. That isn't a mark of an editor that I like to see. I also have to agree with what Cunard stated on point #3. The answer to Q3 is also not what I was expecting. "Dancing around" an RFA question never leads to good.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  18. Oppose The block log for edit warring is quite extensive. Ordinarily I would be willing to dismiss any blocks given before 1 year ago, but the number of them given out for the exact same reason makes me want to see the block log be cleaner for longer than with other candidates. Come back when it's been 2 years since you were last blocked for edit warring and I'd almost certainly be willing to support. :) ~Frosty (Talk page) 23:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Per Kudpung and DangerousPanda. I think Armbrust is fully competent, his contributions prolific, but I sense some lack of affability that I wouldn't want in an administrator. The extensive block log only adds to this notion of some incongruous underlying tendencies. I certainly hope another unsuccessful RfA does not discourage his invaluable devotion to the project. — MusikAnimal talk 00:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Block log, edit warring, and everything stated above. -- Mike (Kicking222) 02:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  21. Oppose I was hoping to support, but with a block log this bloated, I would advise you to wait a little bit longer. Honestly, Armbrust, your work here on Wikipedia is simply prolific. You edit tirelessly, and at times where I'd either want to sleep, eat, play, work out, or just lull out in front of the TV with a bag of chips. But the edit warring, as everyone else has raised concerns of, really brings doubt into you having the mop, at least at this time. My recommended time would be maybe wait another year, ten months maybe if you can really prove and demonstrate your conflict-solving abilities (trust me, this is easier said than done). Until then, I wish you good luck, both on your on-wiki and off-wiki life, and I hope to see your fourth RFA hopefully come out as successful. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Some editors just aren't cut out for admin. I don't think that giving the bit to someone with an edit-warring mentality is a good choice for the project. --Adam in MO Talk 04:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  23. Oppose reluctantly. Apologies for the pile on. When I first saw Armbrust's name up for RfA I was ready to put my support behind him based on the excellent work I have seen. Then I read the block history and some of the talk page discussion and my mind was irrevocably changed. I'm all for giving editors a second or even third chance but what has transpired is way too much in the context of handing out the tools.  Philg88 talk 06:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  24. Oppose reluctantly and unfortunately, per DangerousPanda. Faizan 07:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Breaking the 3RR is serious (especially multiple time) and shouldn't be taken lightly. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  26. Oppose with regret, due to the candidate's admin-related work and willingness to use the mop for maintenance. Although the block log and questionable NACs are concerns, the big problem for me is the non-answer to Q6. We know what 3RR says, but I see a stubbornness (there and elsewhere) and a basic lack of understanding of how important BRD is to the encyclopedia. I just don't see the temperament required by adminship (yet). Miniapolis 13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  27. Oppose I think I was the second admin to block Armbrust. But grudgingly; as that was done just some time after I had thought of nominating him for adminship, seeing his work around the project. I've had Armbrust's talk on my watch since then, and have since then realised that Armbrust is a fantastic helper and positive for the project, but is rough in his deportment sometimes - a quality that might result in him losing control as an admin when faced with stressful diatribes. Adminship as of right now is not for him, in my view. The tools will only add to his stress and I suspect put an end to whatever enjoyment he has currently from this social network. For his good more than for anything else, I have to oppose his request for adminship... Wifione Message 15:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  28. Sigh. Here's a candidate who is doing a lot of work for WP's benefit. I'd like to be in the support column, so I went looking for reasons to be there. There were two previous noms, and there's been a long interval since the last nom; that's a very good thing. It's also been a while since the last block. However, I'm troubled by the short answers. The candidate been here a long time and should be giving better answers to the first 3 questions. I weigh Q3 heavily, and it falls short. Also, I expect a returning candidate to address significant issues without the prompting from additional Q's. The additional answers are still short and leave me less than satisfied. The answer to Q6's 3RR is limited; it doesn't make the key observation that I expect for that question; neither does it offer alternatives. There should be more detail and more perspective from an established user. That makes me queasy, but I still want to support such a diligent candidate. The block log kills it for me. Yes, the last block was over a year ago, but it parallels another edit war block a year earlier (both about the World Snooker Championship). I'm shocked by the number of entries (the first two are mistakes; some other entries are reliefs; there's an indefinite). Well, even some confessed vandals have become admins. Instead of just abstaining, I look a little further. Then I realize that the block history started 10 February 2012. The eight blocks are all after Armbrust's first (September 2010) and second (May 2011) RfAs. I need an explanation for such behavior, and a short answer will not do. Glrx (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. Pretty unresponsive for someone wanting to be an admin. Maybe this was just a bad time for the nomination.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  30. Strongly oppose- This user has 25,861 deleted edits and should be NOT ACCEPTED as a administrator, because vandalisim posibilites are high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.y.ma (talkcontribs) 03:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Do you understand what deleted edits are? They're edits to now-deleted pages, which is usually a result of deletion tagging. This is a sign of a good editor, not a bad one. It's not the same as reverted edits. AFAIK, there is no count of reverted edits.—LucasThoms 04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not exactly. Some edits are deleted for other reasons, but the simple fact of the matter is, that's like ten thousand short of my overall editing count. There is certainly reason to be concerned and at the same time understandable with an edit count of over 200,000 since 2008. While edit counting is not really a good way to determine if an editor should be handed the tools, I still see some concern with that number. I do disagree that this is a sign of a good editor. Having so much deleted means one is contributing to articles the community has found either non-notable or problematic in some way and frankly...that is a high number.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I do not understand your reasoning, Mark. This candidate's deleted edits account for approximately 10% or so of his edit count. To me, that is a sign that he has tagged articles for speedy deletion, and as such those edits get deleted when the article does. So for me - that isn't a concern.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't understand your reasoning as well. These are edits they made and were deleted, not the number of deletions they requested or nominated. Do you have ten percent of your edits deleted? I don't think I do.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    A deleted edit includes the edits made to nominate something for CSD or AFD (i.e. transcluding the template), and thus someone active and accurate in deletion tagging will rack up a good number of deleted edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    (Wow, double edit conflict) I personally believe that it's not a reason to be concerned. Maybe he was (unsuccessfully) trying to rescue articles up for deletion. Maybe he was involved with deletion tagging. Maybe he was NPPing. I can't see his edits (you know, the whole deleted part), but I'm more inclined to AGF on his part. Just my opinion. (Also, some context for my comment in the first place: This editor made almost the exact same comment at Solarra's RfA. She's very involved in AfD, CSD, and anti-vand, so she does all sorts of work with pages that eventually get deleted.)—LucasThoms 04:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see any lack of assuming good faith on anyone's part. A lot of "maybe"s but the simple fact is...deletions are indeed a part of the history we look at for nominations for admin. I can't see them, but it does appear to be a part of the option to look at for an editor history here. Am I wrong?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, that made it sound like I wasn't assuming you were AGFing. What I meant is, I'm (at the moment) believing those deleted contribs to be deletion-related, rather than misguided edits to non-encyclopedic things.—LucasThoms 04:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I have about 10% deleted edits, too. It's not just the CSD/PROD/AfD tags either: if I tag an article for PROD/AFD, I often clean it up anyway, so that it at least looks a bit encyclopedic until the time it gets deleted. In addition, I tag it on the talk page with the appropriate wikiprojects, so that the article alert bot can notify them of the PROD/AFD. If even only a small fraction of Armbrust's deleted edits indeed were vandalism, his talk page and block log would be plastered with warnings and blocks related to that vandalism. These deleted are absolutely no concern. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Well AFAICR most of my deleted edits come from the file and category namespaces. I have uploaded many non-free files during my work at WP:FFU. They sometimes replace other non-free files (which are nominated for speedy deletion immediately) and are sometimes also replaced with other files (new/SVG logos, in which case I mostly speed up their deletion with a G7 tagging). I have nominated many categories for speedy renaming (made 8497 edits to WP:CFDS). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Having a high number of deletions in itself is hardly a reason not to support, but on top of other issues it very well maybe. Perhaps you can answer the question I posed above.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    With permission from Armbrust, I have had the edit counter's API, compile a full statistics report of both his live and deleted edits. (Sorry, the edit counter can only analyze the deleted edits through its API at current.) I have posted the XML to the talk page.—cyberpower ChatOnline 18:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Was that really necessary? Any admin can look at the candidate's deleted contributions and see that they are by and large simply nominations for deletion of templates and articles. Any editor involved in deletion areas will have a large amount of those. I had a few thousand at the time of my RFA due to CSDs, and I've never seen this be an issue in any other RFA. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Although I oppose Armbrust's candidacy for other reasons, I think this !vote is based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of deleted edits and how they arise that we should consider indenting it.—S Marshall T/C 20:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) This is the part I am not getting: "the candidate's deleted contributions.... are by and large simply nominations for deletion of templates and articles" How does one get their edits deleted by just nominating templates and articles...unless they are nominating templates and article they have edited. If, what you are saying is, the editor is attempting to rescue the articles before they are deleted (blindly, without taking a side in either direction), even when they themselves were the nominator, then there is something neutral in that. However...if they were more successful at rescuing the articles I think they would have a smaller count. Again, if I am just completely wrong, let me know.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Per his top edited deleted pages, ~1000 of his deleted edits were to his own userspace. His two most edited, now deleted, articles were PROD'd (maybe by him, I don't know), and he voted to delete the third. His most edited template was nominated for deletion by him.
    The fact that just about none of the other pages in any namespace had more than ~10 edits means that nothing he worked too heavily on ended up being nonencyclopedic. The fact that the other 24,000 edits aren't accounted for in his top 131 means they were almost definitely deletion related, and can't have been significant content work.—LucasThoms 20:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Mark Miller: Let me put it this way: Your deleted contributions for example show substantial edits to Samuel Kalimahana Miller, which was deleted later at AFD. Look at my CSD log - every single one of those redlinks is one or more "deleted contributions" for me. When an article, template or any other page is deleted, their edit history is still available to administrators and labs tools. And for Armbrust, I see the same pattern: Deletion nominations and whatnot. Hope this helps. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    The way Lucas explained it above was actually what made me understand this a little better. Of course your analogy is still pretty good because, SKM was actually a G7 request after the AFD was initiated because I agreed with the nominating editor as I had already been thinking about deleting it myself as a non notable BLP (there was some confusion and still as to whether the figure was a notable subject, but so far, research seems to indicate they are non notable for our standards). So, in a way I guess it is similar? (let me know if that was not your analogy). I have to wonder (after all of this) if we should even be considering deletions as a reasoning for an RFA. Thanks for helping me understand this a bit better FREE and Lucas!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, same thing. Except that the candidate has far more deleted edits than you, because he has 'touched' a lot more pages that were eventually deleted, and that's true for any editor that is active in any of the deletion areas of Wikipedia. Deleted edits should never be a criteria for opposing, although it is used to gauge in some cases how accurate an editor is at CSD tagging, for example. But ideally that's what the CSD/PROD logs are for. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  31. Oppose - I've been mulling over this for two days, and finally ended up here. First: Seven blocks for edit-warring, wow, but last one was 15 months ago, hhmmmm... Second: A non-admin "delete" closure, and when being admonished (last January) invoking WP:IAR, is indeed hair-raising. Wikipedia:NAC#Inappropriate closures lists a purely technical reason why this should not be done: Don't close if you can not execute the result. The same thing happened at the Media Viewer RfC, just a few days ago. Independent of the merit of the closure, and the ongoing Arbitartion case, the candidate closed the RfC but could not take the prescribed action, not being an admin. The candidate uses as an excuse he was asked to close, but under NAC he should have declined. Third: The candidate has already last January stated that he would be going to run for adminship again this year, and talked about waiting for some time to increase the blockless time. It sounds like the candidate is aching under the strain of non-adminship, desperately trying to get the hat, and also it sounds like as soon as adminship is conferred on Dr. Snooker he can start edit-warring again but, throwing his admin weight about, would have better chances to intimidate his opponents. Fourth: The candidate made more than 1,100 edits to a single article Ronnie O'Sullivan, with 375 references, about a snooker player who may be unknown to most of us. To compare: The article on Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was US President for 12 years in the middle of two major world crises (Great Depression/New Deal and World War II), has 289 references. It seems that a snooker-centric world view is not a good position for admin discussions. Did the candidate decline to make a short statement of fact at the Media Viewer arbitration case, about his closure of the RfC, because it wasn't about snooker? Fifth: The candidate has an infobox about himself on his user page with real name, photo, links to facebook and Google+, and even blood type and marital status, but Wikipedia is not a social networking service. It's a repository of knowledge which needs people to compile it, but these people should keep a much lower profile than this candidate. After all, the articles are supposed to have their merit independent of who wrote them. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    I understand your concerns #1 through 3, but numbers 4 and 5 are hardly defensible. The comparison to FDR in particular is a bit weak, as those sources are mostly books, which already have condensed some information, whereas O'Sullivan's article is mostly newspaper articles and statistics pages. The reference lists for sportsmen in general are pretty long: Yao Ming is half the length of O'Sullivan, yet it has 162 references; Derek Jeter is about the same length and has 261 references; Ian Thorpe is a bit longer and has 290 refs – I agree the article could lose a couple of redundant cites, but comparing apples and oranges doesn't help your case. As for personal information, this easily falls under the limits in WP:UPYES. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Re Crisco - No. 4: Ian Thorpe is an Olympic gold medalist, many people know him, I've seen him on TV, and I guess the press covers Olympic sports quite well. I've played snooker too, and have seen snooker tournaments on TV, but never knew about Ronnie O'Sullivan until today. No. 5: I read the guideline you cited (WP:UPYES), and I'd like to quote from exactly there: Wikipedia:USERBIO#What may I have in my user pages? allows "Limited autobiographical content"; and "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia" is considred Wikipedia:USERBIO#Excessive unrelated content. Is the blood type or the marital status anyhow related to one's activity at Wikipedia? Kraxler (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    If you didn't knew about Ronnie O'Sullivan, than you either watch snooker very sporadically and only just recently (O'Sullivan plays in less tournaments than others now) or you are confusing snooker with pool (they are not the same). Also I wouldn't consider two unrealted information excessive (BTW both are present in {{Infobox user}} and many more). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Well, Armbrust, I said I played snooker, and I may add that I've played pool also. You see, you need not be afraid that I could mistake snooker for pool or vice-versa. (FYI I've also played at times Football, Handball, Doppelkopf, Skat, Chess, Minigolf, Bridge, Blackjack, Roulette, Craps, Pinochle and a few more games I can't recall now.) Besides, I'm certain that you don't think that anything on your user page is excessive, or you wouldn't have added it. However, I trust that the voters and the readers are able to read the pertaining guidelines and can come to a learned conclusion. And, I prefer to remain ABSOLUTELY SILENT when it comes to infoboxes, war has been waged over them, and they have been subject of arbitration, with two amendment/clarification requests still going on, so the least said the better. Kraxler (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Sorry, but you have too many recent issues, like those pointed out by Kraxler, Kudpung, and DangerousPanda. Epicgenius (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I believe that Armburst is one of the best Wikipedia user/curators on there, seeing his username pop up everyday on RecentChanges. He is extremely helpful and will make a good admin one day. I would recommend continuing what you're doing however stay on the positive side, ensure that you keep away from the 'bad side'. Consider reapplying half a year or a year from now, if you stay positive and be a helpful editor than you'll get my support. ///EuroCarGT 16:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think you might've interrupted yourself..."half a month"?—LucasThoms 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    (Moved to oppose - It appears the editor had left many unanswered questions. They have now answered all but one and may need tome to get to it. It is the one question I asked that could change my vote) Unfortunately, questions 2 and 3 were not actually answered and that does worry me a tad. Especially 3 due to the size of the block log. Question 2 seems simple enough yet the editor only mentions his most recent contributions. It makes me feel that the editor is sort of guiding us away from the past and I would really like to see direct answers to such simple questions. The answer to question 3 also seems to be guiding us to view or discuss only the "recent" past and I really think a simple "Yes, I have had conflicts in the past", and then explaining from there would be better than skimming over that direct question. I believe these can be answered in a manner that would gain support, but could be disappointing as well so I remain neutral for the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Mark Miller: I have indented your comment because of your oppose comment above with a later timestamp. (Please correct if this was not your intent.) –xenotalk 13:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Neutral for now:Moved to support I would like to see some more specifics in question 2. Question 3's answer doesn't bother me much, but he should explain what has changed since his blocks for edit warring. I am also still waiting on answers 4-7. I remain neutral until I see these answers. It concerns me that he's not answering these ASAP with the RfA going 7suc/10op right now. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • People do have real lives, spouses, children, jobs and responsibilities. They eat, shower, etc. Or they simply live in other time zones than you. For instance, it is noon in San Francisco but 9pm in Budapest, Hungary. Using a stopwatch to judge how responsive they are is unreasonable. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe you're right, but imo it'd be helpful to a candidate to accept a nom a good time in their day, and to answer questions ASAP. Some people's decisions, like mine, depend on those answers early in a nom like this one. Think of it this way: right now there's a possibility that this nom goes either way. He might withdraw now, as there is only a small chance of a pass, or answer his questions and maybe draw a few from Oppose to Support (earlier than later as those might stack up). RfAs are always a matter of timing in my book. Truthfully, I don't have an issue with supporting, but I really need to see his answers to the EW questions as that issue concerns me. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Your timetable is unreasonable. RFA's run for a week. Any candidate that was available every minute for that entire time probably needs to get a life. As someone who has nominated several successful candidates, I instruct them to NOT answer questions instantly, and instead ponder them a while. There is enough stress to running, it is better to answer correctly or thoughtfully than quickly. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. I generally ask questions to candidates before !voting but in your case I will not ask. I know you are a good editor, your works at PERM were good but sorry, you're not ready. I hate to !vote in the oppose section that is the reason I'm here. I have a suggestion, Armburst you should withdraw this one. I'm afraid that this might not go in your favour. Regards, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 21:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. I see you doing a lot of useful clerking over at WP:PERM, and thank you for that, I hope one way or another you stay active over there! I'm considering adding some more questions above that may sway this entry. — xaosflux Talk 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Too many blocks for edit warring for my comfort, indicative of a simple failure to learn the big lesson. One? yeah, sure, stuff happens... Two? perhaps, heat of the moment, whatever... But what are there, six of them? Nope, sorry, we have a huge red flag for temperament and adherence to the rule of law on wiki... Sorry. —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Whoops, make that 8 blocks for edit warring. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Well it's actually just 7 (not that it matters much), the 21:44, 14 August 2012 entry was just adjusting the length of the block from 72 hours to 2 weeks. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. I'm torn: I often see your good work closing AfDs and many have commented on your valuable clerking in other areas. However I am seriously concerned about the block log. Therefore I'll have to park myself here. If you come back after several more months or a year, clear of blocks, I may well support you. Best wishes, BethNaught (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. I don't wish to oppose this editor, but cannot fully support given the temperament issues. Armbrust is an enormous net positive for the project. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. I feel like if a user answers my RFA question I owe them an up-or-down vote, but I'm afraid I won't be delivering on that at this time. I want Armbrust to be an admin, he is so helpful in so many different areas that I know he could do a lot of good. But then there's the block log, the impression he gives that he is sometimes unresponsive to legitimate concerns, and the stubbornness. I think I could probably look past any one of these, but not all three. I see progress here, and I urge him not o give up hope (I believe the current record for succeeding at RFA was on a sixth attempt) and to keep up the excellent work he has been doing. A crowded "neutral" section is a sure sign you are closer than ever to being ready, and even the opposes are some of the nicest I have ever seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. I usually do not !vote if I am neutral or on the fence except in infrequent cases when I wish to offer encouragement for the future or have some comment. Since my conclusion is similar to that stated by Beeblebrox, I add my !vote here. Donner60 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. I have to say Armbust, you are an amazing editor and I applaud you for your great contributions to Wikipedia. But as others have said, your block log is concerning. I believe that someday you will become an admin, but today is not that day! Good luck to any future RfA's! JayJayWhat did I do? 16:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
Shortcut:

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also change usernames for most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages - this is generally not seen as canvassing.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.


Current nominations for bureaucratship


There are no current nominations.

Related pages