Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (103/6/2); Scheduled to end 19:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs) – User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao has made more than a million edits to Wikipedia over a period of almost ten years. He is one of Wikipedia's top five editors of all time. When I found out that he was not an administrator, I was very surprised.

He has told me that he would be willing to consider it, provided that he could set himself a one-to-two year time limit. I've told him that any administrator can withdraw at any time, so that's not an issue. But it does indicate, to me anyway, that he takes a very modest view of the position. This is someone who has a proven track record and displays a great attitude. David Cannon (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination as put forth by User:Davidcannon, and say thanks very much for the consideration! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:33, 19 June 2015 (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: As of now, I spend a lot of time at newpage patrol, and I would be happy to help out with speedy deletions and deletion requests there. I've also begun spending some time over at WP:CfD, and would like to provide some help there if possible. Another big thing: Commons image transfers. I'd love to be able to delete something from here straightaway once it's been moved over. Basically, anything that can help alleviate the backlog.

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

A: I have been engaged in a lot of categorization lately, especially over the past year. I feel this is important work because it lends consistency to the project - consistent categorization standards, applied across all articles, provide a better sense of unity. (See most recently my recategorizations for the films WikiProject). I don't do as much article creation as I used to, but I do some from time to time...I'm particularly proud of William Dering and John Mare (painter) among my recent contributions. A long-term project is List of neighborhoods in Alexandria, Virginia, much of which I have illustrated. There's more, but these are the first that come to mind lately.

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: My recategorizations (especially gender-based, which I know are not fully supported in some quarters) have caused some conflict, but nothing too deep. I strive to remain civil and to respond to questions calmly; I don't always defend my position eloquently, but I do try to. I rarely revert...it depends on the circumstances. Frankly, I think life's too short to open myself up for an edit war by becoming overzealous. I don't express ownership of my articles, nor of many of my edits in that sense...once it's done, it's up to the community as a whole to decide whether what I have set forth is worthwhile or not. I like to think that I keep a civil tone, leavened with humor, in many of my exchanges.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

4. What is your view of Process is important?

A: I agree. Though I tend to be bold in much of my editing, I do believe that process is important and should be taken into consideration, especially in administrative matters.

5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: Strictly, I'd say...but I feel that there's some room for overlap between categories. I'm most concerned about getting the bad content out.

NN. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: Again...while WP:IAR sometimes enters into my editing philosophy, I believe that it is much more important for the administrative process to follow the rules, not to ignore them. Rules are there for a reason, and their use should be given careful consideration during the process.

6. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A: I like to think I'm good at encouraging new users as it is. As for calming disputes, I tend to try and keep an even keel around these precincts.

Additional question from 185.59.247.255

7. Have you ever worked at consensus building on-wiki, if so where and how? Also I'd be interested to hear your general thoughts on consensus - what is it? What does it mean to you?

A: Have I worked at consensus-building? Not specifically, no. More generally: I think consensus is important. This is a user-driven encyclopedia, and I think it's important to have input from the community before making major changes. I would hope to have some form of consensus behind me before taking any major and/or controversial actions.

Addition question from Altamel

8. Thank you for running for adminship. As you indicated you are interested in responding to CSD requests, could you please identify your five most recent CSD nominations?

A: CSD? Honestly, I don't remember - it's been a while since I've tagged anything for speedying. Usually it's been something hoax-related, a non-notable band or someone's school friend.

Additional questions from GregJackP

9. What is your favorite featured article that you contributed significantly to, or assisted significantly in it obtaining featured status?

A: I have not worked on any featured articles.

10.What is your favorite good article that you contributed significantly to, or assisted significantly in it obtaining good status?

A. I have not worked on any good articles.

11.How are you going to approach a content dispute between content creators?

A. Depends on the content and on the editors. My immediate idea would be to step in and tell them both to stop while I tried to sort out what was going on. More than that I am loath to say without more specifics at hand. I'm not averse to a block, if circumstances dictate it to be appropriate, or other sanctions as necessary.

Additional question from Stfg

12. I'm bit puzzled that your edit stats given on the talk page state that you have zero deleted edits. Do you know why this is? Can you guesstimate roughly how many deletions have you proposed over all name spaces and by all methods (CSD, PROD, AFD CFD, ...), how many of these led to the thing being deleted, and why they might no be showing in your deleted edits count?

A: I believe that is a glitch related to having a large edit count...it's something in the software. I certainly have deleted edits. Most are related to CSD...I rarely PROD articles (because I find that often enough the PROD is removed and it needs to go to the next level anyway). I've done the odd AFD. CFD - I've never proposed anything there, but I've been involved in debates now and again. As I say, most of the ones I've proposed over the years have been via CSD. At the outside, I'd say there have been probably 200, and the vast majority have led to deletions. I tend to be an inclusionist in my outlook; I don't propose something for deletion unless I'm sure it doesn't belong. (As I said above: school friends, hoaxes, jokes, that sort of thing.)

Thank you. Your AfDstats show 19 AfD nominations, of which 16 resulted in deletion. (I don't think a non-admin can see the CSDs.) --Stfg (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional questions from Northamerica1000

13a. What is your opinion about Twinkle's functions?

A: I like them. I actually have Twinkle, and use it from time to time (I do rollback stuff, mostly). I think it's a great tool, and it's nice to have access to. I don't use it perhaps as much as I ought to, but that's more a matter of incorporating it into my everyday editing life.

13b. What is your overall impression about present activity at Articles for deletion discussions?

A: Slow. On the occasions that I've been through there recently I've found things going slow to the point, sometimes, of stagnation (though I do realize this is sometimes a hit-and-miss prospect.) I realize this isn't an administrative issue, per se, but that it has more to do with getting other editors involved in AfD discussions, but it's something to be kept in mind nevertheless.

Additional question from ToonLucas22

14. What do you believe to be the difference between personal attacks and harassment?

A: Personal attacks can be one-off - I've seen enough in my day that have only consisted of one talkpage message, or two, but which have been incredibly unpleasant nonetheless. (I'm sure on the milder end of the language scale there may be room for debate as to what constitutes a personal attack, but I've seen enough that go above and beyond that point.) Harassment is more long-term; I'd say it can be a little more low-key in its language, but it's more persistent. To a point, again, I suppose identifying it is somewhat opinion-based, but I can think of some behaviors I've seen that feel like harassment to me that haven't directly involved personal attacks.

Additional question from Stuartyeates

15. On which topic do you consider yourself to be furthest from the general wikipedia consensus?

A: I suspect I am farthest away from consensus on my feelings regarded automated editing. (No surprise there, given my history.) Specifically article creation. I have often said in discussion with others that I think it's high time we allow bot-created articles for certain subjects on the encyclopedia. Frankly, the only reason I have not requested permission to run such a bot myself is because I don't know the first thing about coding. But I see valuable editor time being taken up with the creation of multiple species articles and articles about populated places in various parts of the world, and I think those are the sorts of edits that could easily be dispatched with a script, freeing up human capital to create and develop articles that aren't cookie-cutter in fashion. I am aware of some of the concerns that have been raised, but don't see them as fatal, and I think it's something that really ought to be considered.

Additional question from BDD

16. Why would you want to relinquish adminship after a year or two?

A: I don't believe adminship should be a full-time Wiki-career. (Not to knock anyone who does think so, but for myself this is the case.) Administratorship is important. But at root Wikipedia is about content, and at some point I want to be free to return to content creation. The deadline I have set is not hard and fast; I may change my mind once (if) I become an administrator, and find that I can juggle both roles simultaneously better than I currently think will be the case. But I want the option, at some point, of hanging up my hat if I feel it necessary; I state a deadline now because I want it to be clear that I don't view this as a forever role.

Additional question from Leaky

17. Admins need to be accessible. This is English WP. So, could you loose the Italian link to your talk page, consider using a more readable font and sort out your talk page which is, bluntly, a disgrace. I mean, assuming I could contact you (I'm a newbie who you have warned for some minor infraction) I have to page down 15 times to reach the bottom of your talk page. There is guidance, if not rules about some of these things but common sense is the best guide. Good luck. Leaky Caldron 20:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

A:The talk page will be archived at the end of the month, and I will implement a new archiving scheme thereafter. I am willing to change the font of my signature if need be. I would prefer to keep the signature itself as it is related to my username.

General comments

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

---

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

Edit stats are on the talk page as a courtesy. Esquivalience ^t 20:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support -Far more productive than the average person running for RFA, a refreshing change. Ser Amantio is probably the sweetest tempered individual I know on the site, have absolutely no doubt he'll be ideal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

   (Comment added prior to transclusion.)

2. Support A very productive editor, with a positive attitude. Would use the tools productively and helpfully. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC).
   
3. Support Awesome experience, a clean block log (that's quite an accomplishment through ten years and a million-plus edits). I see him everywhere doing nothing but good, and I totally trust him with the tools. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Support: Not the standard run-of-the-mill candidate: a very prolific editor. Of course. Esquivalience ^t 20:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
5. Support long-term clueful productive editor who should've done this a long time ago. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
6. 100% Support as a very prolific and productive editor who IMHO should've done this years ago :) - Obviously a NET Positive to the project. –Davey2010^Talk 20:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
7. Support Prolific editing is good, obviously, but I'm more impressed because I see a willingness to calmly engage in discussion and reconsider if challenged. Exactly the right temperament for adminship. Yunshui ^雲_水 20:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
8. Support – A "categories expert" as an Admin I feel would be a very welcome thing (esp. as this is one of the areas in Wikipedia editing that I feel like I barely understand!!). And no obvious "red" or "yellow" flags here. Should make a good Admin. P.S. How does one get an "unblock" without a "block"?!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

   If memory serves, I was blocked for all of a minute in an IP sweep a few years ago...I think I received an unblock on my account to keep it from being blocked when someone with a dynamic IP was cutting up. Truth be told, it's been so long I'd forgotten about it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

9. Support, precious #14 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
10. Support - I don't expect him to start patrolling ANI, he will probably never block anyone, and most of the tools won't get used. That doesn't matter. The tools are handy for any hard core editor, and we need more hard core editors with the tools for dealing with deletions, moving, merging, and actual EDITING maintenance. His tenure and demeanor more than qualifies him for a free pass on any metric that isn't there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
11. Support Absolutely. He has helped me a lot in the past and giving the tools would always result in even more productivity. JAGUAR  21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
12. Support, of course. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
13. Support I think we ran into each other about seven years ago. If he's still here, he's doing well. It looks like he'd be a fine admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
14. support looks good to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
15. Support You have only create 34,356 articles? --I am One of Many (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
16. Support - I've been watching him for a while (apologies if that sounds stalky), and was considering offering to nom him myself. A great editor with some gnomish tendencies, and we need good gnome admins.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
17. Support: can absolutely be trusted. I've been just about convinced that this isn't hat-collecting/someone else forcing the nominee into it by their answer to question #1; even if Ser Amantio di Nicolao only uses the mop on occasion with CSDs and moving images to Commons, it's worth them having the tools. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
18. Support always supportive and helpful they will be an asset as an admin. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
19. Support: While edit counts are not directly useful for adminship evaluation, the edit count does at least indicate some dedication to the project. Some isolated incidents here and there but nothing outstanding as disqualifier. Also, appears to be responsive to complaints based on talk page contributions, which in my eyes (per WP:ADMINACCT) is an important quality in aspiring administrators. This appears to be a somewhat narrow-scope adminship candidature but again, not a disqualifier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
20. Support - you had me at "helping out at CfD" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
21. Support, despite editcountitis by other supporters and more reliance on AWB than I prefer. Any admin interested in backlog work is okay in my book (although your talk page could use archiving :-)). Miniapolis 22:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

    Just a couple more days before the semi-annual purge. People have been garrulous this year. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

    I predict that will change. First observation on my user page: "When you become an admin, your talk page gets a lot more interesting." I used to archive quarterly; now I have to do it monthly. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

22. Support Everything I've seen about Ser Amantio has been positive. A great content contributor and wikielf, I have no problem trusting him with the tools. Dat block log though §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
23. Support I have no problems with this editor. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
24. Support I have no dioubts about his suitability. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
25. Support - net positive. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
26. Support - long-term productive editor. -Zanhe (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
27. Support - A knowledgeable and helpful editor who will do good work with the mop.- MrX 01:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
28. Support - Can't say too much about automated tools as most of my edits are automated as well. :) Everything looks good, and I think he would be a fine admin, able to handle things with his knowledge of how the 'pedia works and a level head. Pax Verbum 02:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
29. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
30. Support I'm not sure how much edit count means, but I can't find any reason not to support this very experienced and active editor. KSFT^C 02:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
31. Support, hasn't done anything stupid in 1 million+ edits; reasonable enough to assume that will continue. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
32. Support No apparent reason to oppose. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
33. Easy decision for mine. The kind of experienced and sensible editor who will alleviate admin backlogs simply by doing the admin work he would have previously had to tag an admin for. Has always come across as reasonable and happy to discuss things when I've seen him around. Jenks24 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
34. Support After 10 years, I don't think there will be any surprises when Ser Amantio di Nicolao becomes an admin. And there is always a need for admins to help out at CfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

    Just so I know that the edit count tickers are correct, Ser, you have made 66,000+ edits over the past 30 days? I don't know how that it is possible even with automated help! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

    Er...yes, actually. I have been using the Cat-a-Lot script for some things, and the other day used it to move articles from one category to another which had been renamed - it was rather a large set of articles (and it went surprisingly fast). It's a speedy script, even faster than AWB for some things. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

    Oh, I use HotCat for that. But if you need to move a lot of articles from one category to another, a closed CFD rename discussion should have changed the categorization rather than having to do recategorized each article individually. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

    HotCat is great, but would have been much more time-consuming for this. Cat-a-lot is useful in very limited circumstances - I'm still learning just what its boundaries are here, versus at Commons - but for something like I did it's very, very useful. It allowed me to make a lot of category-move edits very quickly. (I'd be happy to discuss it further with you, but I don't want to derail things here too much. Just say the word.  :-) ) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

35. Support I think we can trust Ser Amantio di Nicolao with the tool based on my experience with this editor. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
36. Support Seen him around for as long as I've been here - and for quite some time thought he was an admin. I can't see any problems meriting an oppose. Admin work isn't all XfD and vandal blocking, and one doesn't have to be an author to know when a book's good or not - or whether it's science fiction or western. BTW for the record, he was unblocked in 2006 with the comment 'Bad autoblock' but has never been directly blocked. Peridon (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
37. Support - about 95% of my encounters from this editor have been boring, gnome-ish tidying and I thank them for saving me from having to do it! No concerns about a long-time trusted editor. GiantSnowman 11:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
38. Support - even if we would assume that 95% of this user's edits are "just" automated/AWB/HotCat/whatever (apparently a concern for some opposers, although I don't really see what is bad about such cleanup/maintenance), that still leaves many more edits than most candidates here have (and more edits than most of us !voting here have). Unfailingly gentle and courteous contributor. --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
39. Support No evidence that the tools will be misused and a wealth of experience on Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
40. Support BMK (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
41. Support per MelanieN's words. Even though there's a lot of contributions involving automated buttons, the clean block log proves that he thinks carefully before using them, and I don't think this would make any difference if granted the admin tools. Minima© (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
42. Support All right in my list, good luck with the mop! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 19:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
43. Support. Even though he does menial work, it is very good for a prospective admin.
    (Non-administrator comment) Ser Amantio di Nicolao's help will really be appreciated in the admin backlogs. Epic Genius (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
44. Longterm user, no red flags. My only worry is that those who think the de facto criteria for new admins should be linked to the average number of edits of recent admins will now be even further adrift from those who look for the minimum necessary to demonstrate suitability for adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 21:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
45. Support - In my interactions with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I have found their edits and conduct to be well-reasoned and collaborative. I certainly believe they can be trusted as an admin. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
46. Support With this kind of tenure, we know what kind of editor the candidate is, and what he is likely to do and not likely to do. I see absolutely nothing here that would indicate he would in any way harm the encyclopedia if he were an admin, and would only continue to improve things, in a gnome-y way. No qualms whatsoever. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
47. Strongest Support Goodness me, over 1 000 000 edits in just 20 months. Wow he must have been a major contributor. Yes its time for him to be an administrator EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

    Re "he must have been a major contributor" - 1000000 edits does not mean 1000000 useful edits. E.g. here[1] where the candidate makes 5 (bizarre) edits which are all reverted/undone by other editors. DexDor ^(talk) 06:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

48. Support. Doesn't anywhere near check the boxes in my criteria and the opposers raise some valid points about a lack of work in areas where admin-type interaction is required. Nevertheless, I see a dedication to the project which means he stumbles often enough on issues that need admin intervention, and I see nothing to suggest he may go feral with the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
49. Support. I think by now we can trust the candidate with the tools. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 05:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
50. Support - I see no cause for concern here. Kafka Liz (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
51. Support - A gentelman in all my dealings. Ceoil (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
52. Support - This guy seems to have the personality of Wikidragon, it's all about quantity while disregarding quality on some place. As a person who working on hundred of smaller wikipedias unlike English Wikipedia, this kind of person are the quality I seek for local admin on it's infancy, we apparently already forget that user like Ser Amantio di Nicolao was the kind of Administrator we had long time ago on English Wikipedia.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 15:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
53. Support - Clean block log, adequate tenure, and no indications of assholery. While access to blocking and deletion tools is indeed a big deal, this is a textbook case for a NOBIGDEAL rationale for adminship. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
54. Support this user has been helpful, and I think he will be helpful with the tools too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
55. Support I have read through the opposes and glanced through the content that they say is problematic, and I'm not finding enough to take issue with. The candidate seems thoroughly qualified in every other way, so I'm not concerned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
56. Support - great contributions. It's an honour to support him. Faizan (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
57. Support A long time asset to WikiP and will make judicious use of the mop and bucket. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
58. Easy decision. This editor has displayed a level of dedication beyond what we normally see in these parts, and I can't imagine him misusing the tools. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
59. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. This editor absolutely should be an administrator. --rogerd (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
60. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
61. Support - Administration is more about demeanor and human understanding than checks in boxes. He was very helpful while creating List of United States post office murals. I experienced an editor of quality with only good intentions for the article and for Wikipedia. I agree, it is an honor to support him. . Buster Seven Talk 00:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
62. Support. Long term productive editor. Great attitude and demeanor, also appears to be cautious; all good attributes for an administrator. Gnomish work will also provide good experience for some of the more tedious tasks. Opposes seem to be concerned with some minor points and also a few items that are hardly significant or prevalent over a long history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง expresses this well. Also per Dr. Blofeld, MelanieN, Dennis Brown and Randykitty. Donner60 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
63. Support I haven't seen anything that would suggest this person would be anything but a net positive. Mkdw^talk 03:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
64. Support without hesitation. Among the kindest and most dedicated people I've encountered on WP. I'm sure he'll find a good use for the tools, and I can't begin to imagine him abusing them. Also, I could hardly oppose a viola fan. FourViolas (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
65. Support a regular name on my watchlist and I don't recall any negative interactions with them. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
66. Support Surprised they aren't an admin already. Number 57 10:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
67. Support. Contributions look fine to me. In particular, I see positive interactions with other users including sensible and level-headed responses to criticism of his edits. WJBscribe (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
68. Support because i don't believe the candidate is untrustworthy (admin is a position or trust, right?), and unlikely to make any massive errors which cannot be rapidly reversed. Of the opposes, the sole concern i find of any value is that of skirting the edges of plagiarism; arguments about how many edits he has made, and how many of those are to articles that have little stars or badges at the top, and whether he created this many or that many articles ~ all are, to my mind, unconvincing and close to pointless. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 13:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
69. Support I'm not seeing anything that makes me think the tools are going to be abused. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
70. Support, I don't see any major issues with this candidate. Nakon 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
71. Support Unlikely to cause irreversible damage with the tools. Widr (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
72. Support No apparent reason candidate would misuse the tools. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
73. Support Per Dennis Brown. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
74. Support. I see no reason not to. A million edits plus working on content related areas wins my thumbs up. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
75. Support if we cant' trust someone with this many contributions, no matter how small/easy, then who can we trust? Adminship isn't the Holy Grail that some make it out to be. Royalbroil 03:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
76. Support A long-standing and productive user who I've had nothing but positive interactions with. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
77. Support Absolutely! No issues, Carrite nails it for me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
78. Support, why not? Graham87 11:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
79. Support I have no objection, per above.--Grind24 (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
80. Support, though I have one small concern. Looking at your talk page (archives), I see many bot notices, such as disambiguation link notifications, reference errors, and unpaired brackets. As long as you're cleaning these up after you get the notices, that's OK, and it's good that apparently nobody has wanted to put any limits on your semi-automated editing. I just note that administrative actions are never something to be undertaken in haste, and advise that you slow down and give appropriate consideration to each administrative action before you take it. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

    Oh, certainly. There really aren't as many as there seem to be, honestly - I don't get those formatting dings that often. (And at least some of the reference errors were mistaken notifications - something related to Reflinks issues, as I recall. I went looking at them, and the refs weren't broken.) As for disambiguation link notifications, the process usually goes something like this: "Well, really...I had no idea there was anyone else by that name. Huh." Regardless, as soon as I'm alerted I try to figure out what the problem is. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

81. Support Seems to show good understanding of what someone with the mop should be doing, theoretically. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
82. Support per Anna Frodesiak. He should be alright; no worries.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
83. Support Rzuwig^► 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
84. Support I've seen you around over the past few years and admire your ability to work hard without getting mired down in all the mud. —Soap— 19:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
85. Support I suggest erring on the side of caution when paraphrasing. Don't just tweak the words, change the sentence and paragraph structures. I have no worries about your being an admin, though. --Stfg (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
86. Support Yep, would be an asset. – SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
87. Support Agreeing with Dennis Brown that admins should have content creation experience. That there are some admins who lack it is admitted, but we don't say that because some admins are absent means that absent editors should be preferred as admins. That said, the candidate seems to have a pretty good knowledge of content creation. The candidate should endeavour to acquire some FA experience. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
88. Support I've seen his good work, having him as an Admin would be an asset to the project. JMHamo (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
89. Jianhui67 ^T★C 02:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
90. Support - Ever since I joined this site, I have witnessed nothing but positive edits by Ser Amantio di Nicolao. An editor who has been working in good faith for such long period has my trust. — Yash! ^(Y) 04:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
91. Support – Has significant experience, is conscientious, tactful and trustworthy, has uses for the admin functions, and is unlikely to misuse admin tools. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
92. Support. From the Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia: "If your edit sticks close to the original source, you will be accused of plagiarism. If your edit is paraphrased to avoid plagiarism, you will be accused of straying from the original source. Rinse and repeat." Best to avoid very close paraphrasing, though. Anyway, I've come into contact with the candidate a few times, and he seems like a trustworthy, knowledgeable user. I probably get more worked up than he does when his edits are challenged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
93. Strongest support. I've been far too busy in my personal life as it seems as I've somehow missed seeing this RfA until now. Ser, you exhibit the highest level of professionalism. You are intelligent and respectful. You are a keen observer of what needs to be done and you volunteer quickly to work on it. You would be the ideal administrator, fair and balanced. You have my total support to join the mop and bucket brigade. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
94. Support. Long term trustworthy editor. No concerns from me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
95. Support. Alakzi (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
96. Support A long-time editor who's worked in the small-edits trenches for years, no concerns. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
97. Support Long Term user and fully dedicated and committed to the Project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
98. Support trustworthy editor, will be useful to the project as an admin. Spencer^T♦C 02:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
99. Support. I see nothing convincing in the opposes. I agree with many of the previous supports. Rosiestep a few comments above is very persuasive, and I endorse her remarks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
100. Support WP:100. Candidate is well suited for the job, not swayed by the opposes — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
101. Support. I honestly thought he was already an admin! Luxure Σ 06:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
102. Support. All the clichéd support reasons apply: I don't think the candidate would abuse the tools, I think they should have been an admin years ago, and I'm not convinced by the opposes. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
103. Strong Support: WOW ! ! This editor will be a great asset to our project! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't know much about this editor so I took a look at his contributions for March. These seemed to be mostly fiddling with categories using AWB. I noticed some chatter associated with this and it seems that these category updates were not well-received. Splitting writers by gender caused a big fuss, as I recall, so why is this being done on an industrial scale? I next noticed some DYK credits on the talk page such as Two Girls Dressing a Kitten by Candlelight. This looked good but when I checked what the candidate did to deserve this I found that their contributions were negligible - just more fiddling with categories with automated tools. Philafrenzy did the bulk of the work in that case and that guy is the real deal — able to write, source, format and review an article in every way. He's not an admin yet and seems more deserving. Finally, I notice that the candidate's sig is long and elaborate. If you're going to make a million edits, then you should perhaps take more care to be more brief and unassuming. Now, of course, the problem is that it's hard to get a rounded picture of so many edits and so maybe I've just not seen this candidate's best work yet. I remain to be convinced. Andrew D. (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

   So, you don't know the editor at all, your impression is based on one month of edits you hand-reviewed, and your conclusion is this person shouldn't get tools because they were involved in something controversial, someone else deserves the tools more, and you don't like their signature? That isn't a particularly convincing oppose. If you're going to come out with a position on a candidate it should be a position based on the sum contributions of that candidate, not a pseudo-random month and your opinion of a totally different user. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

   I'd just like to note that I haven't been active at WP:DYK for some while for a variety of reasons (not sure why I was credited as co-creator of that article, but as I did some cosmetic work on it I'm not one to pass up a little free praise. :-) )) If you'd like to see an example of my own article creation, I direct you to this, for starters. As to the AWB incident to which you refer - the English writers - that was a unique incident for a variety of reasons, mostly due to oversight on my part (I'm human and it happens more often than I'd like to admit). I haven't run into that issue with other recategorization work. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

   I approach your article John Mare (painter) as I would for a DYK review. It depends heavily on a source called ncpedia and so I check that out. The source seems fine but then I start to compare the phrasing. Consider: "Mare was born in New York City, the son of John Mare, of Devonshire, and Mary Bes Mare, presumed to be of Dutch origin. His sister Mary was the wife of the painter William Williams, who may have taught him, although nothing is known of his training as an artist or of his education otherwise." vs "John Mare, painter, merchant, and politician, was born in New York City, the oldest child of John and Mary Bes Mare. His father was from Devonshire, England, and his mother was presumably of Dutch origin. His sister Mary married the English painter, William Williams, who may have given young Mare encouragement and assistance, though nothing is known of the boy's education or training." This looks too close a paraphrase and so I would require more to be done at DYK. As this is recent work, my impression is that you have insufficient experience of such editing to be an admin. Expertise with categories is not enough. Andrew D. (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sorry to hear that. Personally I feel that there is sufficient difference between the two...anything further in my opinion would fall under the category of "too ellipitical to be well-understood". But I would welcome others' opinions on the subject. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Andrew D, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You wrote :"maybe I've just not seen this candidate's best work yet. I remain to be convinced." But Jimbo laid down the rule that adminship should be no big deal; in other words, a candidate should not be rejected except for solid reasons. Then you pick out a random edit out of over a million ... Heck, if the odd edit that's not to everybody's taste was grounds for disqualification, I would never have been made an admin, and I don't know too many who would have been. Let's be fair-minded and give this user credit for the fantastic work he has done over a decade.David Cannon (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   The passage quoted from John Mare (painter) was not a random selection as this article was presented by the candidate as his best work. When I look at the other article offered by the candidate — William Dering — I see exactly the same sort of close paraphrasing. The candidate seems to think it is acceptable to take a sentence from a source; change it a little and then present it as his own work. Others report seeing this elsewhere and so this seems to be a consistent behaviour. This is quite a big problem when an editor has a high edit count because the work of reviewing and reverting impropiety is correspondingly onerous. Reviewing over a million edits seems quite a mountainous task. Andrew D. (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Re "your impression is based on one month of edits you hand-reviewed" in comment above: IMO that's an eminently sensible way of reviewing a candidate. DexDor ^(talk) 06:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   I agree. I tend to pick one month at random and look at what a candidate did during that month. Other people may have their own ways of judging a candidate. From comments made in RfAs I note that a significant number of people ivote purely on responses to questions, others on what the nominator has said, and/or who the nominator is, others on if they have had positive interactions in the past. It's each to their own. I value the range of responses, though tend to value most those who do take the time and care to look into contributions history and feedback their findings. I may not agree with their interpretation, but I value the information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I have run across this user's work where the text was copied from another source with just enough changes to thwart a text matching search; the changes being so minimal as to give the impression that fooling a bot was the intent. A long-term pattern of clopping is not what I would expect of a serious admin candidate. Vrac (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

   Which article would that be? I try very hard to keep that from happening. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

   I'm thinking of a bunch of stubs you created on deities from the Encylopedia Mythica: Xucau from pantheon.org/articles/x/xucau.html, Xolas from pantheon.org/articles/x/xolas.html,Xroshtag from pantheon.org/articles/x/xroshtag.html, etc... Note that I can't past full URL's because this Encyclopedia Mythica is blacklisted from Wikipedia, and all its references you added were deleted. Yes it was a long time ago but I see from Andrew D.'s example above that you are still clopping. Vrac (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   I can't speak to the former point as it was a long time ago and I don't really recall the articles, beyond the fact of their creation. As to the latter point I have addressed it above. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

3. Oppose. The number of edits may look impressive, but afaics the vast majority are addition of categories or tags on talk pages and many of these are dubious (and sometimes made at a rate of more than 10 a minute). Some examples: (1) adding[2] categories such as Insects of Estonia (despite the article making no mention of Estonia) (those categories have since all been deleted), (2) adding[3] redlink categories, (3) adding[4] incorrect categories, (4) making[5] inconsequential edits. The count also includes undoing[6] his own incorrect edits. I see some good content work, but (and this is my main reason for opposing) I don't see much involvement with things like XfDs (even CFD which is mentioned above only has a few small comments from the candidate). I also would be unlikely to support a candidate with such an unusual signature (as it could add unnecessary confusion in any interaction with newbies), but that's a relatively minor point. DexDor ^(talk) 06:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose. No significant (i.e., featured or good) content creation. Everything else is fine, but an admin should first be someone who understands content creation, by having created such content. GregJackP Boomer! 07:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Since when, Mistral? "Content creation" is not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia. You don't need to create articles to evaluate the content of what others have created. David Cannon (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Yeah, you do need to know how to create content. This is an encyclopedia. We create content for it. If one doesn't know how to create content, they have no business being an administrator, and if that makes me an Ausländer in your eyes, so be it. I don't answer to you, nor do I have to support someone who, in ten years, has not worked on a single good or featured article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Davidcannon: Are you joking or what? He's created 30,000 + articles and is seventh on the alltime most prolific article creator list. While he may not be a prolific GA and FA contributor he's more than done his fair share of content building on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Dr. Blofeld, I think you are really addressing this to me, not David. I don't count creating redirects as content creation, whether it's 20K or 25K. My point is that he has not worked on any GA/FA content. I don't think that anyone should be an admin until they have created quality content. His last 500 page creations are almost all redirects and page moves, going back to October 2012. For an example of the content created, there are this, this, this, and this. I'm not impressed, and I'm not going to support someone who has not created quality content, regardless of the number of edits or articles created. GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Dr. Blofeld, the list itself says that it may be taken with a grain of salt. The edit count tool seems to be out-of-service right now, so I couldn't check what exactly were the 30,000 "articles" created by the candidate. What I could check was his contributions, and there are no articles at all recently created. Since it is not easy to check a million edits backwards, I went back to the earliest contributions and found this: single-sentence stubs created every two minutes, some unsourced some with off-line sources, and after the first edit never another one; redirects (which are included in the list), entries copied from Bioguide (before Polbot took over) and other websites (like this copyvio,Struck unverifiable comment, see below. Kraxler (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC) rewritten in the meanwhile), and so on. I know that's ancient history, although some of the stubs have remained quasi unaltered (like Monocar), but maybe the candidate can make a quick statement what these 30,000 articles consist of, and what are his latest 500 creations. Kraxler (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Everybody created unsourced stubs in 2006. The encyclopedia would be much worse off without unsourced stubs from 2006.

   I really have to object to the implication here that only articles with little stickers on them count as "significant" content. Over 99% of the encyclopedia is insignificant? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   I actually said that it is ancient history, and I wouldn't hold it against the candidate. But Dr. Blofeld can not come here and say that the candidate is an experienced content creator (which the candidate has not claimed himself) and created 30,000 articles, and in fact it was single-sentence stubs back in 2006. My above posts actually asks for clarification, instead of condemning the candidate. Kraxler (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   I can come here and say it. Ser Amantio did a fair bit of decent stub building on American and Italian artists at some point I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Kraxler: Well, you did say that one was a copyvio, which is pretty condemning, and I'd like clarification of it please. The wikipedia version you linked to dates from 2006, but the site it references dates its copyright to 2012 (this is the copyright date, not the latest-amended date). Can you provide clear evidence that this is copyvio and not a backwards copy? --Stfg (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   The original first-edit version of the article gives the site as the only source, and the text there is a copy/paste version. However I may have been jumping to conclusions. It is possible that there was a different text at the time, and that was later replaced with the wiki article. Or the text was indeed copied from the website, but the website had copied it already from another source, possibly in the public domain, without a notice. Back in 2006, I think I copied myself webcontent for one or two of my earliest articles, nobody at that time was much worried about copyvios. So I've struck the word and apologize for the misunderstanding. However, I'm still awaiting the candidate's statement about his most recent 500 new article creations, so to be able to evaluate Dr. Blofeld's statement. Kraxler (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Whatever, given that the typical admin has created less articles than I have fingers on my right hand and the general functioning of adminship is not centred around content it's not important. It looks like a joke to me when somebody opposes a RFA based on the person not being a content contributor, not being a content contributor is typical of the thriving admin on wikipedia!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   To the copyvio issue: I doubt very much I would have copied the text wholesale from the other source without attribution, but given that it was in my early days as an editor I may have done so. As it was nine years ago I honestly don't remember. More recent contributions: I can't speak to my most recent 500 articles, as they've been spread out over quite some while, but I can offer a sampling of things I have worked on over the years: George Henry Yewell; Locust Grove (Dillwyn, Virginia); Lamberto Landi; Catharine Carter Critcher; Grace Church (Ca Ira, Virginia); Nehemiah Partridge. These are typical of the sorts of things I like to work on. I would go so far as to say that none of them counts as copyvio in my book; I have tried as best I can to get away from the sources, for the most part, in my phrasing, but I realize that that might not always be the case. I would also like to note, regarding stubs: yes, it's true that I've created many and then left them be. That's part-and-parcel of the feeling I referred to earlier, about not being willing to take ownership of my articles. I feel that they belong to the community at large; once I have made them, it is up to others to decide whether or not they are fit to be kept. Once I'm done with a subject I'm done with it - I don't like hanging around with it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for the statement, the intelligent reader of this whole conversation will know what to make of it. But my oppose !vote is based on a totally different issue. Kraxler (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Understood. I just felt that as the door had been opened I wanted to enter. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   FWIW, I have almost never worked with FA / GA content. Some admins do , as editors, but there's rarely an admin role necessary with these article. Admins mainly deal with problematic contributions. Admin is not the same as "master editor" Probably most good admins would not really qualify as master editors, and vice versa. WP needs both. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

   DGG, while I like and respect you, I believe that you're wrong here. It is more and more critical that admins have at least worked on GA/FA articles. There are way too many that are too rule bound and anal retentive. People that create quality content focus on that and not the minutia. Content creator admins realize that more often. GregJackP Boomer! 07:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

   Admins should be excellent content contributors, yes, but in practice a good number of them aren't. In fact it is those who've produced little content, but who have reasonable experience of the drama forums and technical side of things, with a good temperament, who tend to be the more typical candidate on here. You don't need admin tools to produce content do you? Whenever I look at an RFA, my first thought is "how might this individual abuse the tools". Ser Amantio is the least likely to abuse them. There's a point to be made about candidates who seem to show no interest in the encyclopedia itself and never edit articles, but the fact that he's created 30,000 + articles shows that he is content-oriented. Yes, they might be stubs, but believe me, it takes a long time to create that many, even if short. In fact I'd say out of all the people I know on wikipedia, Ser Amantio on a personal level has been probably the most passionate person I know, comparable to Rosiestep anyway, in his attitude to missing content/tackling systematic bias, and I believe he created many of those stubs back in 2006 because he shared the same vision as myself at the time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

   • I never had a GA or FA until well after becoming admin, and even then, it was due to the support of a single (and controversial) editor here. I'm more of a gnome, adding sources, cleaning up, starting a few dozen but mainly improving the work of others. Yet, I hold the people who write FAs and GAs in the highest esteem and make it my job as admin to help them, protect the work they do, all while slowly learning more about how to do what they do. I think a good admin should try to improve in creating content, but as DGG states above, they are very different skill sets and being an admin requires familiarity with content creation, but not mastery. It does require a cool head and the ability to mediate as needed, and most importantly, a genuine respect for the content, even if you aren't a master at writing prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

   You do need admin tools to create content. Sooner or later, you'll need an admin action to be carried out. You could do it yourself or request someone else does it for you, but either way an action will be required. The whole purpose of the site is content creation, and the sole reason for the admin tools is to facilitate that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   Then you would not be opposed to very good content creators, like Eric, or Cass, or me being given the bit? That's the logical extension of your position—but I think that you would find the community in an uproar were you to propose that. GregJackP Boomer! 19:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Hawkeye7, actually, the primary goal of Wikipedia is to provide a high-quality encyclopedia. That means protection of existing content (from vandals, spammers, POVers etc) is also important - IMO at least as important as creating new content. Admin actions (e.g. protecting pages, blocking users) tend (afaics) to be more concerned with the former than the latter. DexDor ^(talk) 20:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

   Others, such as editing protected pages, moving pages and editing templates tend to fall into the latter category. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Sorry, the candidate seems to be nice and does some helpful work, but the answers to the questions above are unconvincing, and I can not accept that the candidate is called "a categories expert". See this conversation I had with the candidate, and where he demonstrates that IMO his understanding of categorization falls short of what would be required for adminship. Also, I'm not impressed by 1 million automated edits, recently another editor who made a million almost a quarter of a million (corrected) edits was site-banned; not that this has any bearing on this candidate, but it shows the limits of editcountitis. Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   "recently another editor who made a million edits was site-banned" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC).
   

   And this is the kind of situation where the List of banned users would have come in handy. Oh, well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   There are only four users in total with more than a million edits, so it shouldn't be hard to check them all if you really want to. Mr Potto (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   To my knowledge none of the other three has been banned - I've seen them all around editing in the not-too-distant past. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   I think Kraxler was referring to OccultZone, who made under a quarter of a million edits with that account. Graham87 11:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   Sorry for not answering here for a while, I was busy IRL. Graham is correct. There's not much difference between a million and a quarter of a million when it comes to automated edits. I didn't want to name users, banned or not, who are not under scrutiny here, but my statement about the limits of counting edits still stands. Kraxler (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

6. Oppose per " would be willing to consider it, provided that he could set himself a one-to-two year time limit". Admins quit and leave for all sorts of reasons, but a candidate who shows that degree of lack of interest and enthusiasm before even being elected doesn't seem to me to be a very good candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   On the contrary - it shows that he takes a modest view of it. I'd be suspicious of somebody who showed too much "interest and enthusiasm" for the post! Come on, adminship is simply the lifting of a few security features. To say that somebody should show some passion before we trust him with the controls is ludicrous. David Cannon (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

   So, if you were in charge of interviewing candidates for a position, you'd choose the one who seemed least interested, even going so far as to express a desire to quit before even being chosen??? I'm sorry, but I just have to assume you're being postmodern or ironic or something because taken at face value you're making absolutely no sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

   His lack of enthusiasm possibly shows that he's not been coveting the post - which is to say he's not power-hungry. Competition is inherent to capitalism and the job market, but it is unequivocally undesirable in the selection of Wikipedia administrators; we do not have limited openings, and each candidate is chosen on their own merits. If he ends up doing nothing as an admin, it won't matter at all. What's the point of wanting to deny them to opportunity to contribute? Alakzi (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, considering weak oppose - I checked several of Ser Amantio's recent articles in an attempt to verify these plagiarism concerns and found a few sentences that skirt the edge of clopping, but I'd like to emphasize that it's skirting. I'd like to see someone with more time take a deep dive into Ser Amantio's articles and make an assessment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Look, he's been around for almost a decade. With his volume of edits and his length of serve, if there ever was any problem with "clopping", he would have been reported long ago. David Cannon (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Honestly, I'm not disputing that. It's just that I picked three DYK'd articles and all three were awfully close. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

2. Neutral Per Q17 I cannot support this person as an admin as newbie editors would be required to know Italian (or know enough about Wikipedia's URL schemes to decode the mouseover URL) to find their talk page in their signature. It's not a big deal as an editor to have a non-English sig, but I would expect more of an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I am willing to reconsider if the signature is changed to be more english-speaking-noob friendly. Even Google Translate is no help ("Saying in Signa? They say a Signa."). --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 16:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm reading this. A LOT of administrators have user names that don't mean anything — either in English or any other language! What the @#$%. David Cannon (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither can I, honestly a troll. Luxure Σ 07:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If Ahecht is a troll, they're one who has spent an enormous amount of time gnoming constructively to disguise it. I agree that if S. A. di N. starts using the tools in ways which might confuse newbies, something like a "to leave me a message, click here" banner on his userpage might be appropriate; however, I completely trust him to do something of the kind if it ever becomes necessary. FourViolas (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral - I was about to support this enthusiastically, until I saw the comment about a 1-2 year limit. This may be viewed as a realistic attitude, but it comes across as a bit half-hearted, and consequently I hesitate. Deb (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)