Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheSandDoctor

TheSandDoctor

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (71/9/6); Scheduled to end 22:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination

TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) – Members of the community, I am very pleased to present TheSandDoctor to you for consideration at RfA. TheSandDoctor registered his account in January 2017, and since then, he has consistently been a positive force on Wikipedia. I first met TheSandDoctor when he approached me more than a year ago with a question about MfD on my user talk page. I have always been impressed by his collaborative spirit, which has helped him adapt easily to new areas on Wikipedia. If there is something wrong, TheSandDoctor will work with you to make sure it gets resolved, and if TheSandDoctor is not sure about something, he will make sure he is certain by asking others for feedback before taking the action. Through this process of feedback, TheSandDoctor has sat at the center of 5 successful GA reviews, including ones to highly visible pages like The Rolling Stones.

Outside of his content work, TheSandDoctor regularly contributes to AfD, RfD, and MfD discussions. Reverting vandalism has sat at the core of his maintenance work here, and additionally, he is one of our active bot operators, running the bots DeprecatedFixerBot and TweetCiteBot. He is also a regular at AfC and is willing to devote the patience to thoroughly explain article concepts to new editors – a stroll through his talk page archives should make this evident. His long history of patient and reasoned discourse with new and experienced editors alike should provide sufficient evidence of how much of a pleasure it is to work with TheSandDoctor, and I hope that all of this together will show you how much of a pleasure it will be to work with TheSandDoctor as an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Co-nom by SoWhy

I'll be honest. When TheSandDoctor (or TSD as he will likely soon be known on this project obsessed with abbreviations) first contacted me about my independent opinion regarding a suggested run for adminship (after being approached by There'sNoTime about it), he was not on my radar as a potential admin. And despite how that sounds at first, that was actually not a bad thing. Quite a lot of editors are on my radar and not all because I want them to be admins. When I looked at his contributions, I could not, for the life of me, figure out why I never thought about asking him to run for adminship. Because what I saw when I looked at a large random sample out of his last 5,000 edits was a friendly, helpful and clueful editor with plenty of good edits under his belt and entrusted with a slew of advanced permissions already. And, as Mz7 already pointed out, a prolific content creator (more so than me) with 5 GAs under his belt

I did encounter some mistakes he made in deletion related areas but those were few and he admitted his mistakes when confronted with them, which is a good trait for an admin to have. So I invite you to join Mz7 and me in supporting TSD’s request for adminship so that he can help out in more areas than he already does. Regards SoWhy 17:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I would like to thank both SoWhy and Mz7 for their nominations and There'sNoTime for originally reaching out to me late last year suggesting I run for adminship at some point in the near future. I also thank the few who I reached out to for their input earlier this year. If the community wishes to have me as an administrator, then I accept the role. If not, then I will just continue to assist the community as much as possible and may or may not consider a future run. There are always more Stones' articles to work on after all . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:50, 9 June 2018 (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 foresee myself easing into the administrative toolset along the way, helping where possible and asking for assistance/second opinions from other administrators when needed as I learn to use the toolset in a way to benefit the project. I anticipate helping with backlogs (giving each discussion its due attention), reviewing speedy deletion nominations, evaluating UAA and AIV reports, and closing XfD discussions (where appropriate) as a natural extension of my already existing work. I could also foresee myself also lending a hand at WP:PERM after a while, asking for assistance when I feel it is needed or I am unsure what action to take.

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

A: I normally do not tout my accomplishments as I know that others have far greater and that is just not who I am. With that said, it is the question.

While I do not currently have any featured articles (working on it), I am most proud of my work with The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger articles. I took them successfully through GA and plan to work them into a state in which I am comfortable nominating them for Featured Article status shortly. They were long articles about one of my favourite topics (“classic rock”) and related to one of my personal favourite bands. I have found researching about them and the hunt for references to be an enjoyable experience overall.

I was also excited for the opportunity to improve Tumbling Dice back up to GA, as it was delisted in 2010. With all of that said, I am also proud of my other GAs, including Video game walkthrough (which was my first Good Article and also the first I wrote from scratch).

I am also proud of my anti-vandalism work and the assistance I have given both new and experienced editors along the way.

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: While I have thankfully not been involved in any major disagreements, over the year and a bit that I have been an editor, I have certainly had disagreements with other editors from time to time. I am not afraid to admit fault and correct a mistake when I have made one. I avoid and ignore name-calling, preferring to work out disagreements in a polite and respectful manner, deescalating the situation and working to a compromise between all involved that leaves everyone happy. Although I have not encountered a disagreement that has escalated further, if I were to run into one which did, I would do my best to remain calm and collected. If I felt that that were not possible, I would take time to collect myself (probably work somewhere else while I ground myself – probably a Rolling Stones related area – before returning to the discussion and seeking assistance to resolve said dispute through the appropriate channels. I would ‘’not’’ take any administrative action in a dispute in which I am involved.

I consider all disputes I have been involved with to be in the past and prefer to move on from them.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Javert2113

4. Thank you for applying. Just one question for now: are you open to recall, if this nomination is successful?

A: (edit conflict) Thank you for the question. I would certainly be open to recall and, if this succeeds, would definitely consider developing a policy similar to others that I have seen for it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. No follow-ups for the time being. I appreciate your prompt response. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 22:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Amakuru

5. I was asked this one during my own RFA, and I rather liked it: can you provide diffs for any edits that you are particularly proud of, which demonstrate your very best Wikipedia work, and which you would include on a resume?

A: Thank you for the question Amakuru. I agree that it is an interesting one and I do personally like it myself, though including Wikipedia edit diffs on a resume seems somewhat odd to me, though I am sure it has been done by someone somewhere. I am not sure if I could find any individual edits as I am happy with most that I have made and there are many to choose from. I see them as a collective of edits which, when put together, benefited whichever article we are talking about and value them as such. Picking individual edits is much harder, but I am ultimately proud of almost all edits I have made.

• I could look at Video game walkthroughs and select practically any one of my edits or the page creation itself (though that wouldn't be good for a resume as it was bare, but it does show what myself and others built it from).
• From The Rolling Stones, I would probably include this edit as an example of including academic sources and article expansion, the same goes with the majority of the edits during the GA review (here) as they all added to it or corrected something.
• Looking at Mick Jagger, I could include practically any edit from this page, but if selecting a specific one, it would be a toss-up between this edit (which added information about the Stones' first Hyde Park show in 1969 as is fairly well written; would be the best for a resume) and this one as it removed dependency on Daily Mail (or this one in its place, which rescued 78 sources from potentially going dead in the future).

Again, I apologize that I cannot be more specific very easily, but I am honestly more proud of the bigger picture and the pages that I have helped improve (see answer to question #2) than I am any particular/individual edit. Individually, the edits don't necessarily mean much, but as a collective (what I am proud of most) they speak volumes and paint a bigger picture. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Vexations

6. On May 2, 2018, you nominated Vigilius of Thapsus for deletion here, with the rationale: Only content is an external link. It was speedily deleted as A3. Can you reassure me that this was a mistake that you won't repeat and that if you had been an admin, you would have declined an A3, given that there are many sources for an article about Vigilius of Thapsus, such as an entry in BrillOnline, a Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, the Catholic encyclopedia etc., and that Wikipedia has a German, Spanish and Dutch article about the subject? Vexations (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A: Though I do not remember the contents, looking back on it, I should have indeed attempted to improve it before taking it to AfD. If I were the admin in that situation who came across such a speedy deletion nomination, I would look for sources. Assuming that said sources exist and are reliable, I would then attempt to improve the article at least into a stub or draftify it until that can be done. (In general) Only if sources did not exist and after checking its edit history to confirm that it was not blanked, would I even consider deletion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure of the propriety of posting in this section, but I just have to comment that there was nothing wrong with this A3 deletion. This is exactly the sort of thing the criterion is intended for – no content. It is irrelevant that the subject is notable; an article with no content is useless for our purposes. I would certainly have deleted, and another admin actually did delete it. If Vexations thinks otherwise, then I invite her to take it to DRV without offering to improve the page at the same time. Best of luck, but I doubt the request will fly. It is great that TheSandDoctor says he would improve the page if a similar situation arose (hint: it's not too late to do that) but there is no obligation on anyone to do any such thing. It's no different from the article just not existing – no one is obliged to create it. SpinningSpark 15:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from AddWittyNameHere

7. What would you personally consider your weakest spot in regards to Wikipedia work? (This can be something highly specific, something really broad or anything in between—there isn't a particular answer I'm looking for)

A: Currently I would have to say that that would be getting articles through FA, though I am sure that will come with time. Broadly speaking though, I am not very strong when it comes to science related articles and, as such, prefer to avoid reviewing them at AfC (unless there is something obviously technically wrong with them, ie they are unsourced) as I know that other editors more familiar with a particular field of science could most likely do a better job. I have also dabbled in template editing, but would probably stay away from it (for the moment) as it is something that I am not very good at and do not know a lot about (hoping to learn eventually though). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

8. As "required to disclose" can you please state whether you have ever edited for pay or any other form of compensation.

A: Ah, yes. I forgot to include that in my acceptance. I can confirm that I have never edited for any pay or compensation of any sort, broadly construed (exception being personal pride in work well done, but definitely nothing third party). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9. Have you edited under any other account before you started editing in Jan 2017 ?

A: As stated in the account disclosures on my user page, I edited (4 times) as "Sandspert" in 2015, but otherwise have never edited with any account (excluding occasional IP edit fixing typos or whatnot) prior to January 2017. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Espresso Addict

10. Would you care to comment on your proportion of edits in mainspace (34.6%)?

A: @Espresso Addict: I am not sure what there is to comment about? Assuming you mean why the number is only 34.6%, the answer would be that it is because my edits are fairly spread out around various namespaces. If the question is actually wondering why it is 34.6% and my user talk edits comprise 29.6% of my total edit count, then that would be because I tend to get asked a lot of questions or pitch in answers as a talk page stalker and help out on Oshwah's talk page when he is not around. The breakdown of user talk edits (by page) can be found here. The reason why there are over 200 to Mz7's talk page was because, early on in my time here, I had a lot of questions about how Wikipedia works and the various venues etc (that and, from time to time, I have been known to like to tweak my posts and grammar).

I hope that this answered your question. If none of my response answered what you were meaning, please do let me know and please clarify if possible? Thanks --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

11. Have you ever edited for remuneration of any kind, and would you pledge never to do so in the future?

A: No, I have never edited for remuneration (see #8). I assure you that I never will in the future and do pledge that. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for the repeat question, I didn't see #8. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You're welcome and not a problem! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Hhkohh

12. If you are an admin, how do you deal with WP:SPI and WP:RPP threads?

A:. Before I answer further, I have no experience with sock-puppet investigations and do not have an interest in working with that area at present. (My responses to this question from herein rely on the assumption that you mean evaluating the discussions/requests.) If I were to venture into that area, it would be after some time and once I was comfortable (with being an administrator) in the areas mentioned in my answer to question #1. I would start off by reading the instructions page and familiarizing myself with sock-puppet investigations. My first actions would most likely be minor and advance as I built both confidence and experience. As for requests for page protection, I would follow the steps indicated in the admin instructions page - see if protection/unprotection is warranted per policy, mark reviewed requests, and then carry out the warranted action(s) (if any). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

13. The account names Sandspert and TheSandDoctor seem to indicate some interest and expertise in sand but I'm not seeing this in the contribution history. Please explain.

A:. Hi Andrew. I am not really sure why I named my first account "Sandspert" other than for a cheap pun in highschool. As for "TheSandDoctor", when I created the account I had a feeling that I had used one once or twice before, but didn't remember the username at the time (2 years later), let alone the password. The fact the name also contains "sand" is most likely a fluke (it was a toss-up between it and my PlayStation ID) and the name was solely chosen as it popped into my head while trying to think of something unique. I thought it sounded interesting/different and kind of rolled off the tongue, so it became the username for this account. I assure you, I am no expert on sand, I know what it is and that's about it.(other than that it is great for sandcastles and always gets in my shoes at the beach and annoys me to no end, but that is besides the point vehicles and clothing, tending to be both loved and disliked by people, depending on circumstance and location.) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from wbm1058

13B.. I was wondering about this too. Before I noticed this Q. I was thinking a "sand doctor" might cook the Canadian tar sands, as that seems to be the part of the world you edit from. Just a comment, not really a question, so feel free to respond – or not.

A: It is indeed (at least within a couple thousand km) around the area that I edit from. That is not the inspiration for the username, though that is an interesting take/angle on it I have not previously considered. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Joe Roe

14. Could you please explain why, in your opinion, the following drafts did not meet WP:MINREF: Max Turner (musician), Jane Hart (artist), Johnny Jackson Jr.?

A: Hi Joe, thank you for the question. (Below, when I say "unsourced", I intend it as lacking inline citations sourcing it)

• For Max Turner (musician) it was due to the lack of sourcing in the early life, some lacking citation in the career section, and he considers himself to be a live performer and considers touring and stage life to be the foundation of his musical career beyond prospects of the music industry being unsourced (as it is his personal opinion). The discography was also (semi) unsourced, with the only source being to Discogs, which is not the most reliable of sources. Looking back on it, those probably could have been tagged and the draft improved as an article, but I believed it to be better done beforehand.
• For Draft:Jane Hart (artist), "Early life and education" was unsourced and, due to it being a BLP, I had concerns about the lack of sourcing for statements in other areas.
• For Johnny Jackson Jr. the "Early life and education" was mostly unsourced, as was the "Career" section. The largest of the three sections, "Jackson as councilman", was also entirely unsourced. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

15. In the context of XfD, what do you understand by the term "pile-on !vote", and how would you weigh such comments in closing a discussion?

A: Thank you for this question Joe, I understand pile-on votes to be votes which do not add new rationale (usually in the form of "per user X [sig]" or "per nom"). While they cannot be ignored in assessing a discussion's consensus as they are valid and there could simply be nothing left to say, the first thing to assess/weigh would be the policy based arguments (if any). After that is done, then the pile-on votes should be dealt with. I hope that that answers your question. If you were looking for more, please do let me know and I will try to elaborate further shortly. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Nosebagbear

16 In a distinct vein to Q15, your AfD !votes are policy-based but in a strong majority of your recent AfDs you are either the last or penultimate editor to contribute, with the discussion usually decided. Is there a reason for this and do you think lacking "early/setting" contributions is a weakness? Nosebagbear (talk)

A: In most cases as the last vote, they were most likely discussions where I would have considered closing instead if possible (thinking of 'delete' or other technical administrative actions). As for being the last or penultimate vote most of the time, anyone could be the last or second last vote, it really just depends if others come along after. I tend to look at the older ones in the queue and try to help move things along as it were; in an administrative capacity, I would most likely perform closes in such situations. If you mean lacking "early/setting" contributions to discussions as a weakness, I can see where you are coming from but would consider it minor at most; I do not think that it would interfere with being able to read and enact consensus. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional question from Esquivalience

17. In your own words, explain consensus and how it relates to the philosophy of Wikipedia.

A: Consensus is a general agreement between editors achieved through discussion. It is core to Wikipedia's philosophy and to achieving the goals of the project. Put simply, consensus is how we make most decisions on Wikipedia, be it deletion discussions, Requests for Adminship/Comment, etc. Hopefully that answers your question satisfactorily, if you wish me to attempt to expand further, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:PCHS-NJROTC

18. What is your thoughts on {{schoolblock}}s and {{anonblock}}s? Some administrators put extended blocks on shared IPs (educational or otherwise) for long periods of time (a year or more) over one or two recent edits, would you do this if you were granted the tools? What is your thoughts on blocking entire /16 ranges representing entire U.S. states' department of education network for extended periods of time (more than one year) for no other reason than to prevent "school vandalism"? Do you think this practice is appropriate in an encyclopedia that bills itself as a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"?

A: Range blocks are, unfortunately, occasionally warranted/needed in order to prevent vandalism from (usually static, in the case of schools) IP addresses, when the level of vandalous activity becomes too burdenous for editors reverting. Range blocking is something that I would not take lightly and is something I would probably defer to others, especially for blocks lasting an extended period of time - at least at first, until I gain more experience. If I had to act though (ie no one else able to), then I would attempt to block the smallest effective range until I could consult with others on what further action (if any) is required (ie adjusting the block settings/duration etc). As for blocking after one or two problematic edits, I do not believe that just one or two edits would be sufficient for any block under usual circumstances. While one or two edits from an IP with a long history could be an indication of a re-emerging problematic trend, one or two would not be sufficient for an immediate reblock, rather, it would be best to monitor the contributions from the address closely and see if "one or two" turns into a pattern warranting a (re)block. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

19 You are an administrator, the current date is May 23, 2016, and someone is asking you to help with a backlog at WP:AIV. Someone has reported this IP address for a vandalism spree. The report has been there for four hours, and no edits have been made from the IP since the last edit, which was someone claiming to be from the IT department to say that the person vandalizing was disciplined for it. How do you respond?

A. At present (May 23, 2016, at moment in time of the snapshot), I could see a warning (at most) necessary, but would prefer to (and would regardless) recheck the IP's contributions at a later time to ensure that they remain problem-free and move from there. Assuming that they do remain problem-free, I would probably leave a personalized note on the IP's talk page suggesting account creation and thanking them for their recent (positive/good) recent changes patrolling (hopefully the person from the IP who did the RC work, assuming them different from the problematic edits, would see it and create an account, but of course that could be entirely wishful thinking). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:1233

20 . What are your thoughts if someone tells that rollback is useless and Twinkle can replace it?

A: While rollback and Twinkle do basically the same thing (with the same result), rollback is faster and also allows for the use of Huggle, which can allow for faster detection and reversion of vandalism. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

21 . How would you react if WMF removes one of the following rights: Bureaucrat, Checkuser or Oversight ? Why?

A: My initial reaction if this was unexpected would be surprise and to seek out the reasoning behind it. Ultimately though, I trust that the WMF would only do this in situations where deemed necessary. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OT discussion regarding questions over limit
@1233: Questions above the 2-questions limit removed. Multi-part questions disguised as one question are also disallowed. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @QEDK:Then I would change the second question then.--1233Talk 08:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Your call. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional questions from Lee Vilenski

22 . You are an active member of the Articles for creation WikiProject (as am I.) How would the extra admin tools help you with this work, and would you still spend the same length of time working on the Project? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A: Thank you for the question. The administrative tool set would allow for the removal of attack pages and copyright infringing material in a quicker manner than currently allowable (and other things of that nature, including moves to SALTed names, as was required per an MfD discussion I saw a while back). I would probably remain about as active as I currently am within the WikiProject. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

23 . Your AfC Review history, shows a lot of declines (71% of 625), with quite a few being later created. Are you of the opinion that a draft article (or any article for that matter) should show that it is notable, before it is promoted to mainspace, rather than promoting notable subjects with poorer sourcing? for example Drone Racing League. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A: Hi there Lee Vilenski, I believe that an article or draft should demonstrate its notability verifiably before being promoted to the mainspace. With that said, that does not mean articles I come across without adequate sourcing would be immediately CSDd or nominated at XfD, I would do a BEFORE check (or two) and probably nominate them for an extra check/balance - strictly talking of sourcing concerns; G10s I would obviously deal with quickly, using revdel if possible (ie vandal added G10, but history has a perfectly fine version) and deleting outright otherwise (ie it started out as a G10). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Support Brilliant matching of consensus on AfDs, no concerns. Has clue, give him a mop. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

   On the other hand, of the six times he didn't match with consensus, four of those times were votes for deletion or merging when consensus went with keep, including an article he nominated for deletion which went speedy keep. That's far from being enough for me to oppose though. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Support - Looks to be a fine candidate, if a bit on the new side. But perhaps a fresh viewpoint is a good thing. Thanks for standing for the mop, as well as your good work to date! Jusdafax (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator. Mz7 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Vermont (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Support. Seems to be a great contributor, a kind person (which I think is important for admins - sadly, many admins are not like this), and knowledgeable with Wikipedia's policies. I see no reason why they shouldn't be an admin. The more I look into their contributions - their editing skills, temperament, and how involved they are with admin-related tasks... I'm honestly surprised they're not an admin already.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

   It's nice that you are enthusiastic, but the candidate has only been registered under this account for about one and a half years, so that's kind of an exaggeration don't you think? Had this RfA been posted a mere six or seven months ago, there would already be a pile of opposes on the premise of WP:NOTNOW. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

6. Support. Two Million Awards! Good luck at getting the articles to FA! wumbolo ^^^ 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Support. Absolute net positive. If his account age turns some people off that's a shame because he looks to be a consistent helper to the wiki, has a solid showing in AfC, and can really use the admin privvys to help with cases of vandalism, which he seems quite involved with. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
8. Support SD has an eerily high AfD match rate. So high that I suspected he might be !voting on about-to-expire AfDs to massage his rate higher. However, on closer examination, that is clearly not the case. Further, he has done very respectable content creation work, has a clean block log, and shows no overt signs of being insane, which are all the qualifications I look for in an Admin. Chetsford (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
9. Support - looks like a keeper to me! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
10. Support. I first encountered this editor on Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!, a month after he had joined. I draftified what was, at the time, a copy-and-paste from another article, and given how new the article creator was, I expected the standard pushback and complaining that NPPers are used to. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised when TheSandDoctor responded civilly, took that draft on an obscure video game, and expanded it into a well written, well sourced article. He takes feedback well, is willing to admit when he's made a mistake, and now that he has more time under his belt it looks like he would be a net positive to the project as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 23:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
11. Support After examining this user's editing statistics, they seem undoubtedly qualified for this important role. A 97% afd match rate is very, very impressive. Very happy to support. Zingarese (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
12. Support: the candidate is very amiable and polite, active in AfC, technically adept / a bot operator, involved in deletion areas and has worked on plenty of content creation. The AfD match rate is of no importance to me whatsoever, but the other reasons those above me have given are thoroughly convincing that TheSandDoctor will make a great admin. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
13. Support - While I've just returned from hiatus, I can't recall any interaction with TheSandDoctor before this message. I reviewed their contributions and paid careful attention to their work in AfC, AfD, and the AIV reports they've made. I'm not a numbers person and I believe the intent and impact of each action outweighs any numbers/figures game. After review, I believe TheSandDoctor would not only make an excellent admin, but would continue the fine track record they have already established as well as motivate other editors to join the task at hand. I believe a mop would result in an overall positive for the community. Operator873^CONNECT 01:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
14. Support: Candidate has several major strengths (many of which—such as his deletion-work, his amiability, his understanding of and ability to operate bots, his willingness to learn and adapt to feedback and his AfC-work—are already mentioned, as well as a near-perfect edit summary rate and a good mix of content and other Wikipedia work) and per his answer to my question (Q7) also appears to be sensible in regards to recognizing and handling his weaker points. As he appears to have a good understanding of policy in the areas he wishes to work on and a willingness to learn and ask for help in areas he's not as familiar with, I see no reason to deny him the mop. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
15. Support am confident based on looking at this editor's contributions and calm demeanor that they can hold a mop. Would be a net positive as an admin. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
16. Support A solid editor with an impressive record to prove it, lots of clue and no red or yellow flags. I look forward to their joining the team. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
17. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 01:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
18. Support per SoWhy. I trust his evaluation.--v/r - TP 02:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
19. Support per Mz7 and SoWhy. This appears to be an 'about time' RFA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
20. Support. A read-through of his talk page reveals him to be thoughtful and courteous, which is about all one needs to be a good admin. The rest can be learned on the job with minimal fuss. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
21. Support, the more admins like TSD, the better. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
22. Support - usually I'd like to see a candidate spend more time before being handed the mop but in this case they've demonstrated a good solid understanding across many areas of Wikipedia and I suspect strong ability to perform the admin role without a problem. -- Longhair\^talk 03:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
23. Support: Good editing all-around, from what I see so far (and what I see doesn't include disruption, system-gaming, vitriolic behavior, or other red-flags, either). I did read TonyBallioni's comment in the neutral section, and it's a potentially valid observation, but not a big deal to me. Lots of us go through XfD and other process pages (RM, etc.) and do a bunch of !votes to help speed the processes along; we often don't need long-winded analyses to do it if we weren't first on the scene. Even if some of the AfD activity were "padding" for RfA, it's to be expected. RfA respondents often do want to see a good AfD track record, and may even tell an iffy candidate that we need to see more such activity. We can't have it both ways. PS: The amount of deleted edits this editor has strongly suggests frequent and successful CSD tagging. Combined with the vandal fighting, this indicates an administration-minded, maintenance-oriented, and protective approach, so this candidate seems like a good fit for me, despite being barely within my usual time-since-joining minimum to consider a candidate suitable yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    Fair point. I was between sitting it out and !voting neutral. The thing that made me comment was that the AfD rate had been mentioned as a positive. I personally don’t like RfA padding at AfD and know it’s a turn off for some, so thought it worth pointing out. At the end of the day, I don’t think they will be a negative to the encyclopedia, which is my standard for opposing. I do, however want to bring it up: acting independently and being able to speak up even in a potential SNOW situation is important, and at the very least I hope my comment will make them think about the critique if they get the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, a quick look at his 300 most recent deleted contributions don't suggest anything different — mostly PRODs and CSDs, as well as some declined AfC drafts that were speedied by someone else. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

24. Support another precious candidate. Please talk to people (real people, not trolls and vandals) before you block them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
25. support net positive.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 06:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
26. Support per nominators and SMcCandlish. Yintan  08:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
27. Support. I set out my RFA criteria after the last RFA, and this candidate passes easily. Iffy★Chat -- 09:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
28. Strong support. TheSandDoctor portrays the hallmarks of what we should be looking for in our administrators - clue, civility and trust. They show the ability to know when to act based on their demonstrated knowledge of policy, when not to act and when to ask for help. TonyBallioni points out a good point about "padding" at AfD in preparation for RfA, but as SMcCandlish correctly points out, it is par for the course, and if this is the only "negative" point in this candidate, then they'll already be a better administrator than I. TheSandDoctor is keen to take on the workload, and keen to learn - I wholeheartedly support this candidate - TNT^❤ 09:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
29. Support. I don't recall encountering TheSandDoctor before, but the answers they give here are good and I haven't found any problems when looking through a selection of their contributions. Indeed they seem a well balanced user, who is happy to admit when they don't know something and wont go charging in before finding out the answer. We need more admins like that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
30. Support per SoWhy. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
31. Support - a tad of a 'newbie' for me, but I see no major concerns. GiantSnowman 10:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
32. Support Seem him around. Seems to fairly stable, rational, commutative, diplomatic and communicative with a couple of GA-Class articles to boot. scope_creep (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
33. per SoWhy Mahveotm (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
34. Support, I smiled a little when I saw it was TSD's name in the RfA list. I had a positive experience with him during one of his GAs last year, where he was very engaged and receptive. That alone isn't grounds to support an RfA, but the character and committment shown towards the project through those GAs and other involvements noted in the nomination is reason enough. Will be a valuable addition. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
35. Support per nomination by SoWhy. I'm going to add that questions about username are best asked on the candidate's user talk page, not in the optional questions section. Airbornemihir (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
36. Support - They seem almost "too" perfect. Solid experience all around and an excellent track record in a variety of activities. I can forgive padding at AfD/CSD as their closures are good. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
37. Support Somebody has to be the last voter on an AFD, and there is no line in the sand on where to stop. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
38. Support SpinningSpark 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
39. Support per Serial Number 54129. I'm actually so unconvinced by their opposition that it's moved me to support. An editor choosing to move into new areas is not a reason to oppose. Their CSD tagging looked fine before they moved into new areas, so no issues with their competence in that arena (even though they do not appear to want to contribute there). Contributing to reduce a G13 backlog (which, at the time, was quite significant) is also not a reason to oppose. Choosing to ascribe some hat-collecting sinister motivation to those completely normal actions is exactly the sort of nastiness that made me seriously consider walking away from the project entirely during my RfA, even though it was on its way to being successful. Whether or not this is the intent of the opposition, it comes across as an assumption of bad faith. The oppose talks about biting newcomers, yet it's the most biting thing I've seen on the project in recent memory – experienced editors can become disheartened and give up too. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
40. Support. Good candidate with excellent background "winning" the mop hands down, and that seems no surprise!  Painius  ^put'r there  15:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
41. Support Seems capable. Also agree with Rob13's comment. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
42. Support great work all round Orphan Wiki 16:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
43. Support Let's get over the notion that candidates with unpadded resumes are welcomed by the community with ease. From telling them to go get nominators to advising them to get wider experience or to repair their performance in one particular area (e.g. increase their hit rate in AfD/CSD etc), it's us the community that has skewed the requirements towards padding – so it's no wonder that this candidate evidently has done the same to great effect. We've seen enough opposition to candidates like Pbsouthwood who focus less on padding and more on being specific about their narrow contribution areas. So I applaud TSD to have the sense to pad up their experience just like I did, after failing my first RfA. TSD is balanced, mature and I expect them to be quite amenable to learning from their experiences and mistakes in their admin journey. Lourdes 16:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
44. Support If there were any indication TSD would harm the project, I’d change my vote but I’m not seeing any reason to think that’s the case. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
45. Support Nice contributor. Good history of editing. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
46. Support Clueful and excellent candidate. With the Co-nom by Sowhy, I would be very surprised if there were any terrible skeletons hiding in the closet. Happy mopping mate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

    So would I, skeletons are scary. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

47. Support Seen around. I don't see any problems with this one. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
48. Support good content creation/improvement and hard work at AFC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
49. Support I have no recollection at all of having encountered the candidate before, so I felt the need to do a little digging. It raises a red flag for me when a candidate answers Q3 (the one about past conflicts) by just saying in a general way that they always try to do the right thing and there has been nothing major. If you've had enough experience to be an admin, you've had someone, somewhere, get pissed off at you, so I much prefer seeing specific examples cited in the answer to Q3. Therefore, I went through the entire 2017 history of the user talk page, to see if there had been any examples of someone showing up looking for a fight, and to see how it was handled. I'm pleased by what I saw: very few complaint messages (basically just newbies asking why didn't you accept my AfC, along with a couple of friendly pointers from experienced users about mistakes made), and every single time the candidate responded politely, cluefully, and with a willingness to accept correction after making a mistake. No defensiveness. Where that leaves me is with the impression that this is someone who, on becoming an admin, is soon going to start getting some much nastier stuff sent their way, but I also have a reasonable amount of confidence that he will be able to handle it. (Just be forewarned!) I much prefer someone who can admit mistakes over someone who cannot, and there is clearly a track record with new content creation and the notability issues that accompany it. So I hope you, um, get some satisfaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
50. Support Trustworthy candidate, happy to support. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
51. Weak Support Post response to Q17 by TheSandDoctor - In response to his comments I would say that I do find a lack of taking the plunge in AfDs a weakness - the first 2/3 !votes set out two things: demonstrable evidence that you know policy on your own and a willingness to make decisions that others may disagree with.

    That said, that might be a weakness that TSD has but it is a small one even when applied to other actions (block discussions etc) - it reduces several positives but by it's nature is unlikely to be a major negative. Far more importantly, my AfD basis is a net positive: TSD doesn't seem likely to bring any negatives as an admin and both in "regular" duties and with bot expertise there are significant positives to be gained.Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

52. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
53. Support - from what I have read and looked into, I consider this candidate worthy of adminship. Wpgbrown ^{talk | contribs} 20:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
54. Support Though I would like a tad more than 9% "keep" votes at AfD, the 96% "match" is excellent. Seems a credible person for admin. Collect (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
55. Support Their AFC related work looks good. Regarding AfD: AFD needs more people who will put in !vote 3-5 in favor of a given outcome. As long as those votes are based in policy, I'm not in the least bit concerned that they're pile-on votes or convinced by the opposes based on that. If any of the oppose voters feel that their votes are piling on incorrect outcomes, they should present evidence to that effect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
56. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms, good answers to questions. Miniapolis 22:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
57. Support Your bot has racked up 100,000 mainspace edits without stirring up any drama. That's impressive. wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
58. Support - clear net positive and strong nomination statements, clue evident. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 00:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
59. Support - not a jerk & after reading the opposes & neutral comments, still think he has a clue. Find bruce (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
60. Support - looks like a clueful person. Somewhat disappointed to see most of the opposes focused on vague accusation of hat collecting, or what seems to be a "bad feeling" about the candidate. When we get controversial candidates, people oppose them because they're too controversial. When we get uncontroversial candidates, people oppose them because they aren't controversial enough and so a) their motives must be evil or b) there isn't enough evidence to judge them etc. The saving grace here is that most of the community seems to disagree with this perspective. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
61. Support A pleasant surprise to see at RfA indeed. I am glad to focus on TheSandDoctor's positive contributions, rather than 'I've got a bad feeling about this.' talk to !dave 08:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
62. Support, don't really care how they voted at AFD. Do you think they will be a bad administrator? If the answer is no, then you support. Everything else is frippery. I've seen nothing to make me think TheSandDoctor would be a bad administrator. Fish+Karate 09:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
63. Support. Candidate seems amiable. No obvious red flags. We can't lament at the low number of editors volunteering as tribute wanting to go through the difficulties of RfA and then slight a candidate for hat-collecting when one is available and wants to jump through all the hoops set by prominent RfA participants! Deryck C. 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
64. Support as pointed above by SMcCandlish and others, we can't have it both ways. Any weakness pointed out in opposes/neutrals seem small ones; overall nothing suggests they'd abuse the tools or that they wouldn't be a NETPOSITIVE (even if the to-my-eyes largely unfounded hat-collecting accusations were true..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    With all due respect, WP:VANDALISM is an official policy and WP:AGF is an official guideline, and while we may interpret them differently, wouldn't an administrator violating them be abuse of the tools? How do you define "abuse" of the tools? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    The most common reason why RFAs fail over concerns at potential use of the tools is sloppy deletion tagging. But I've seen RFAs fail over concerns that the candidate would abuse the tools in other ways such as not understanding when they can't act as an admin because they are involved. Not understanding what is or isn't vandalism could lead to abuse of the tools, but not understanding what is or isn't vandalism is a rare failure at RFA. Even NotNow candidates, those with a few hundred edits and a few weeks of tenure, rarely show a failure to understand the difference between vandalism and not vandalism. This candidate is a long way from being a NotNow candidate, and while there are several opposers, I'm not seeing any of them yet produce diffs that would indicate any risk of this candidate abusing the tools if they had them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that because I frequently see experienced administrators block IPs for "persistent vandalism" without giving thought to the possibility that different people could be responsible for the different edits. Read WP:NONSENSE and WP:VANDNOT. Pay close attention to Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. I frequently see what some may consider "silly vandalism" self-revert, which is associated with test editing (see WP:Self-revert) I also frequently see Wikipedians, including myself, mistake good-faith edits for disruptive ones, which is why I almost always prefer to use {{uw-test}} rather than {{uw-vandalism}} when warning IPs. If someone from a residential DSL or cable modem, where the most amount of people likely to be sharing the connection is 10, is repeatedly adding nonsense to articles, policy allows for the edits to be classified as "silly vandalism," but in any kind of an institution, making assumptions about edits from IP addresses or ranges with thousands of users is incompatible with WP:AGF, in absence of an obvious pattern (as I observed with a particular hospital IP /24 range, which was {{anonblocked}} for two years per my recommendation at WP:AIV, and a particular university's IP, which I decided to handle with an abuse report and that seems to have worked). As a vandal fighter for many years, I know dealing with vandals and other problematic users can be frustrating, but honestly, the majority of the unacceptable edits are cured with a few clicks of a mouse. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

    I'm not sure why you're trying to make this RFA about your quixotic crusade against blocking IP editors, but it's a bad look. If you want an actual response to your concerns, please discuss them elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

65. Support. Only been registered about a year and a half, but in that time has made a serious number of edits, including, by my standards, adequate article space quality work. Seems technically competent, and what from I have seen of their personal interactions, appears to be consistently polite. Willing to accept recall. Low risk to the encyclopaedia and the community. Some may ask more, but this is enough for me. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
66. Support. Established and uncontentious character, I find the oppose section unconvincing. Non admins may be interested to know that I've looked at some of the deleted edits, and the candidate got both the G10 and BLPprod tags correct. ϢereSpielChequers 12:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
67. Support Appears to be a net positive for the project and per many of the supporting reasons already stated. Strikerforce^Talk 14:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
68. Support mainly per the opposes, which have moved me here from neutral. I do think the AfD issue is a real issue (which is why I raised it), but I don't think we should be giving credence to the idea that 18 months is too soon for adminship or that people shouldn't be seeking out respected nominators. I also get the sense that there is this unspoken idea that we should be seeking out all star candidates every time who are going to reach RFX200 and pass with 99% support (as in Lourdes or Megalibrarygirl.) I've long been of the belief that we need to encourage more candidates to have a go at RfA who are competent and can use the tools, and who might get in the low 100s and 80% supports.
    We need admins of all different types. I think TSD will be non-controversial, do a lot of work in the admin trenches. That being said, as I've mentioned in my reply above and in my neutral (which I am not completely striking as I stand by the commentary), we also need every admin to be an independent voice. It is basically the only system of checks and balances we have other than ArbCom. The AfD pile-ons are worrisome to me, but I hope TSD will learn from the feedback here that the community expects administrators not to simply pile-on or act robotically but honestly assess each situation with their independent judgement. We get into a lot of trouble when admins don't do that. All that to say, I see no reason that they would abuse the tools, and I want to counter the opposes, so I'm here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
69. Support per thoughtful responses, clear dedication to content, and interest in diverse areas of the project. If that's hat collecting then give them all the hats, which is to say I find the opposes unconvincing. More administrators with an affinity for sand, says the Prince Edward Islander. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
70. Trust. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
71. Weak support Very much on the lower end of the tenure i would expect here; answers, however, and general stability of character seems to alleviate that concern. The opposes raise some points; in the end, though, i resort to my default position, AGF and trust. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, cum paenitemus—I've always got on well with TSD, so I hope this is taken in the spirit it's given. Which I admit, sounds mildly ambiguous. But I must oppose at this time. The candidate states their preferred area to work in as reviewing speedy deletion nominations...as a natural extension of my already existing work. Unfortunately, the candidate cannot show a sufficient track record in their "already existing work" to make me comfortable giving them the deletion button.
   I note a mention of hat collecting; that may or may not be the case. But something certainly happened around September last year to radically decrease their mainspace CSD tagging and equally rapidly rely on G13 tagging. For the mathematicals among us, since that month they have tagged 140 pages—of which over a hundred are G13s. Not only does this provide very little recent activity to make a judgement on, but suggests—padding, as has also been mentioned. As a percentage, it's enormous, particularly with the concomitant decline in article tagging. The concerns below regarding AfDs are concerns, but not so much as the CSD tagging, which is the easiest and simplest way we have of WP:BITEing newcomers. Their NaCs are satisfactory, generally, although it's true that the have a tendency to jump on and vote on the seventh day. Arguably, at least that creates a consensus (very arguably though); perhaps slightly more worrying is the rather recent and slightly embarrassing WP:BEFORE failure heer (and, by extension, here—two articles were at risk), which required the candidate to put their snow-shoes on. A similar lack of BEFORE is suggested by this R3 tagging; luckily it doesn't seem to be part of the pattern.
   I'm not so bothered about tenure generally, but in this particular case, yes, it is a concern. It needn't be: the obvious example is the RfA of BU Rob13, who had even less tenure than the current candidate. The difference though is the=at they clearly demonstrated an unusually advanced understanding of policy and practice; unfortunately, I do not see that here (yet). And even problem areas like the CSD log—for me persnally—always be out-weighedby—á la Goldenring—answers to the question of such precision and nuance that adminship qualities are transparent. But again, this is not the case. The "questions for the candidate" are an opportunity to demonstrate the abilities and positives that their logs cannot provide—it is a shame that so often the are not taken advantage of.
   TL;DR:Sort that bloody CSD log out, and come back in twelve. Good luck either way, whatever happens. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   My hero, what does cum paenitemus mean? <3 Lourdes, 16:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   "With apologies"? GiantSnowman 16:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   You may recognize it as the Latin root for penance or repentance. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   I'd translate it as 'with regrets", or, perhaps less faithfully, "regretfully", but yes, penance/penitence, from the Latin paenitemus. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 17:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   @Serial Number 54129: September 2017? I expect that would be ACTRIAL. 14th September 2017 - 14th March 2018. If you look at my CSD log, my mainspace tags will have skyrocketed between ACTRIAL and ACPERM (unlike the candidate, I'm a child of the ACTRIAL age). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Yeah I can attest to the fact that CSD-able articles greatly declined in availability after the start of ACTRIAL. All the CSD backlogs disappeared almost overnight. You will see a big dip in my CSD tag log as well, as they just got hard to find compared to previously. (I eventually took to reviewing the back of the backlog, where there are very few CSDs, so that's why there is no spike after ACTRIAL ended in my CSD log). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

2. Mild oppose. Under any other circumstance I would vote support, but I feel the need to register oppose for several reasons, mostly after reading Serial Number 54129's comment above. TheSandDoctor appears to be one of those consistently civil editors that have stayed free of any controversy completely and have managed to avoid making any major mistakes, which of course none of them being a bad thing. I think the experience for continuing with their maintenance works as an admin is there; I am not worried about that. What I am concerned is that how sometimes adminship/advanced permissions in general can elevate the confidence of editors, particularly the ones that appears to be relatively on the younger side, and would entice them to venture into areas in which they are not completely ready/or do not have the experience for. From the answers to the questions, I am fairly confident that TSD would not deviate into that path recklessly (unlike myself); however, without seeing much examples of how TSD react to stressful situations, I am reluctant to support at this time. Whatever the results may be, I encourage TSD to remain humble, continue to ask questions, and continue to find the right balance between humour and serious approach. Alex Shih (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose: I sense a bit of hat collecting here, primarily because the AfD votes seem to be recent votes on clearly established consensus. AfD is about making "policy-based" arguments, but it is also about forming one's own analysis. Therefore, it is preferable that editors do not pile on established consensus, but find sources, analyze AfDs and whether there is an alternative to deletion, and so on. Simply piling on suggests that AfD is more of a game than a productive discussion. Adminship requires judgment, not just a strict reading of policies and guidelines. I don't see enough evidence of that judgement in AfD or other venues. Esquivalience (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose - sorry to pile on, but I concur strongly with all three voters above. Great points, and I especially agree with the concerns of hat collecting, particularly due to pile-on AfD votes, as others have noted, which seem to be done solely to beef up his/her own stats in the time leading up to an RfA. I also came here to bring up the lack of tenure; I would NOT be comfortable letting someone who's been around here for only a bit over a year have the tools, especially without much history to speak of in dealing with editing that isn't exactly the smoothest sailing (i.e. remaining civil under pressure and resolving one's own conflicts). TSD seems to be very much a good person, but he reminds me too much of myself circa Jan/Feb 2016 (incidentally, also long before he joined, excluding his 2015 account that was never even autoconfirmed) for me to be able to say confidently that he would make a good admin. Maybe wait another 18-24 months? 65HCA7 21:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose per the above. The AfD padding leaves a bad taste in my mouth of someone trying to tie up loose ends before an RfA run rather than it being something they are committed to in order to help the site. Nihlus 22:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
6. Oppose, sadly. WP:NOTQUITEYET First of all, you have only been registered for a year and a half, almost putting you into WP:NOTNOW territory, and I agree with others that it looks like you have jumped into grooming yourself for adminship right out of the gate, though you are apparently not so new because you edited as an IP and with an account that you only used a few times (for the record, that is almost exactly how I started out). The incredible part of this is that you should be able to appreciate the fact that not everybody is interested in creating an account at first more than people like me who have been registered at this encyclopedia for years, but your answers to 18 and 19 say otherwise. I encourage you to read WP:Blocking IP addresses (especially the parts related to shared IPs) and decide for yourself if basing blocking decisions on school IP addresses, especially institutions where students remain four years or less, on the IP's "history" (assuming there isn't some obvious pattern, like the same girl's name being spammed over and over again) is in line with WP:AGF. Indeed, there are times when schools and other shared IPs need to be blocked, but you seem to subscribe to the position that "they can just create accounts", and unfortunately that is exactly the type of mentality I do not want to have access to the mop. Some "school vandalism" is actually test edits by curious teenagers or staff members who have heard that Wikipedia can be edited, which is not treated quite the same way as vandalism per WP:VANDALISM, while some of it is indeed people with a malicious desire to troll, and in either case, 21st century technology makes it extremely easy to evade the block (the school block template even tells them to just do it from somewhere else), whereas someone browsing Wikipedia from a school who finds something that needs to be edited, like outdated information or an article that has been vandalized by someone else, is undoubtedly less likely to make an account to make the edit, so really softblocks may do more harm than good when they are not being used to stop an active vandalism spree (the same kind of bad edits happenening over and over again in a short period of time, not just kids being kids over a wide span of time) or a true case of WP:Long term abuse, usually involving a sockmaster who has been banned, and usually the WP:CheckUsers get involved in those cases. I really hate to turn down a content contributor, but community consensus is to let adminstrators use their discretion with school blocks because the community has endorsed them through the RfA process, and while some undoubtedly disagree with me, I have years of experience in vandal fighting, I have watched administrators get increasing heavy handed in dealing with static IPs shared by thousands of users, and I will not endorse someone who I believe will be part of that problem. Best of luck in your endeavors. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 08:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I’m neutral, but I want to point out how ridiculous the idea is that 18 months is NOTNOW territory. I got the bit after 14 consecutive active months (I’d registered this account in 2007, and had some experience off and on through the years, but really only started back editing in August 2016). The practical minimum these days is around 12 months, and a really compelling candidate could likely get it with 10. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Perhaps you should check out WP:NOTNOTNOW. Did you mean WP:NOTQUITEYET? --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 12:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I agree that 18 months is enough, but I said barely because six months seems like yesterday to me. 12 months is my minimum to support, unless it's a really good candidate with a really good nominator and I might consider a newer person. I also agree the NOTQUITEYET essay is a better way of putting it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7. Weak Oppose. Sadly, I have to be here for now. With my interactions with the nominee, the nominee obviously has the drive to help with administrative backlogs. However, they have also been pointed out a few times somewhat recently issues pertaining to how they have closed XfD discussions, either early or with errors in regards to perceiving consensus. If the nominee were to wait a year and get more involved with XfD boards with more non-admin closes without errors, I could see myself supporting. Steel1943 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Actually, upgrade me to a full "oppose" after reading SoWhy's nomination statement. The age of the "TheSandDoctor" account (1.5 years), plus The "...contacted me about my opinion regarding a run for adminship..." raises concerns that this editor may be "hat collecting". If this RfA doesn't pass, I would recommend that the nominee allow the account to age another year or so before inquiring about a possible run for adminship. Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   (Struck out part of my statement I realized I don't even agree with, and was essentially a red herring to the point I was trying to make. My apologies for the confusion.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   @Steel1943: I usually try to avoid commenting at RFAs in which I nominated the candidate but I do feel like I have to clarify this: TSD contacted me for an independent evaluation of his contributions after another admin recommended he run for admin late last year (see his acceptance statement). He chose to ask me because I had no significant interactions with him before and thus was likely to be more objective than those admins who recommended he go for this RFA. I don't want to be accused of mischaracterizing your comment but it currently appears as if you fault the candidate for doing his due diligence and gathering more opinions before deciding. I don't know about you but I definitely want more admins that gather input before deciding. So I don't think the "hat collecting" is really correct, considering that TNT reached out to him about RFA more than half a year ago and he waited until now. Regards SoWhy 14:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   This is normal and encouraged. We frown on self-noms generally as a community (which I think has some merit.) Let’s not start frowning on asking people to nominate you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   We shouldn't really be punishing people simply because they sought out adminship. All it shows to me is that the user is up to the challenge. We should really only take people on how they will benefit, and not how they applied. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I find it amazing how 3 editors have now misconstrued my comment, and thanks to an edit conflict, I lost my original response. My issue is not that the nominee approached other editors for nominations; that is just the icing on the cake for outlying issues that the nominee already has (IMO) that they have not spent enough time to correct yet. I feel as though this nominee has not spent enough time trying to correct and prove themselves above recent mistakes they have made in closing discussions in a non-admin capacity. In other words, I cannot provide trust of the admin tools to someone who too recently performed a series of somewhat sloppy judgement calls, has not spent enough time yet to rise above them, then asks the community and/or other editors for tools which they have yet to (IMO, again) prove themselves worthy of using. I feel that the nominee fails self-reflection in this regard. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Also, I think my use of the word "age" above was misconstrued. Yes, if an editor has a good track record at 1.5 years, they could potentially become an administrator. (When I said "age", the word I think I should have used was "wait" ... to get past recent issues I've seen.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Steel1943 This is not at all intended to be badgering, your opinion carries weight with me. I'm having trouble accessing the NAC link Serial Number 54129 kindly provided. Can you provide a few examples where you believe the candidate has judged AfD consensus incorrectly? Many thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

8. Oppose How you accepted the nomination is telling to me. It appears you believe adminship is no big deal--nothing wrong with that. But Serial Numbers' and others' responses above show evidence perhaps of RfA padding and hat collecting. In other words, you do seem to care enough that you want to rush the process. Although adminship is no big deal, it also is not a race, and I do not feel comfortable supporting someone who may not truly be fully prepared for the tools.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
9. Oppose per everyone above - They seem like a nice editor but like the above I too sense hat collecting here, Again I have to agree with the above the AFD !votes appear to have been done for the sake an RFA - They have participated in AFD since 2017 but March seemed to be their most participated month and then after that they pretty much stopped with AFD altogether
   Anyway my main issue is the tenure - Newbs here pick up things quicker than others granted but I feel it takes more than a year and half to know everything here, Personally right now I feel it's TOOSOON, My best advice if this is unsucessful is to work more on the CSDs and AFDs and perhaps retry in a few years. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for the time being until I complete my analysis. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 22:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral I was typing out a support, largely based on SoWhy and Mz7’s reputations. I’m not really familiar with the candidate (which like SoWhy says, is not a bad thing, being on my radar for RfA is not always good, even though I have pretty lax standards.) The one thing that concerned me is that I like to see how the user interacts in project space: it’s the easiest way to test both “have a clue” and “not a jerk”. Since most of their experience here seems to be in AfD I just randomly clicked about 10 AfDs in their log while looking through it on my phone. While they can give policy based arguments, my impression based on a random sampling is that most of their AfD participation was padding for an RfA. They certainly do get policy and can justify themselves if pushed, but it’s enough of a concern for me on the “have a clue” bit of my criteria that combined with my not being that familiar with them pushes me to neutral. If this sounds an awful lot like an oppose, well, maybe, but really, adminship is technically just advanced twinkle. TSD doesn’t seem to be a jerk, and I don’t expect he’d ever abuse the tools. I just don’t see enough independent thought in most of the AfDs I looked at to personally feel comfortable supporting. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

2. User:Ramirabayah, User:Roohaani/Technology, User:JohnMKingIV/John McCandish King - Legendary Oil Wildcatter and Financier. Each of these were genuine attempts at articles created in the draft namespace, which the candidate userfied and then immediately tagged U5. (It's immaterial that they were genuinely awful attempts at articles and were correctly speedied as overtly promotional.) They were admittedly a fairly long time ago, which is why I'm not opposing outright. —Cryptic 06:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
3. Neutral . Unusually, for the second time in a row I'm on the fence at a RfA. The candidate meets all the 'strict' criteria on my 'laundry list' with ease thus proving that despite the relatively short tenure, they are not as difficult to meet as some RFA detractors might claim. However, two issues give me pause: one is the way in which they sailed rapidly through the list of minor rights acquiring them all; the other is that after checking the last 40 or so AfD participations I find that his votes are almost always either the last or the penultimate one after the outcome is fairly clearly established already. I'm not going to be accused of bad faith by spelling out my concerns, but it's enough to put to me in the neutral section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral pending a response to my question. Question answered - see comment below (duplicated in new position) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Hi TheSandDoctor. In response to the comments I would say that I do find a lack of taking the plunge in AfDs a weakness - the first 2/3 !votes set out two things: demonstrable evidence that you know policy on your own and a willingness to make decisions that others may disagree with.

   That said, that might be a weakness that TSD has but it is a small one even when applied to other actions (block discussions etc) - it reduces several positives but by it's nature is unlikely to be a major negative. Far more importantly, my AfD basis is a net positive: TSD doesn't seem likely to bring any negatives as an admin and both in "regular" duties and with bot expertise there are significant positives to be gained. I think he will make a good adminNosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

4. Neutral It's nice to see a lack of pointless opposes based on arbitrary numbers that editors pluck out of thin air (I'm sure that'll come) but I'm not sure if I can support yet. While I genuinely do respect the opinions of the nominators (to the extent that I'd normally support just because they'd nominated), I also respect the concerns of those who have identified issues. In particular I'd like to see how Nosebagbear's question is responded to. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for correcting whose question it was Exemplo347 (I was a scratching my head trying to find where Kudpung had asked something, thinking I'd missed it). I already did answer Nosebagbear's question? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   This is what happens when editing is combined with cooking! What I meant to put was "see how Nosebagbear responds to the answer" - if it's any consolation, I also messed up the recipe (but I was able to salvage it!). Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)TheSandDoctor, the question by Nosebagbear was posed after my neutral vote and was based on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

   Hi Exemplo347 - seem to slightly botched my wikitext on my pinging, my answer to the answer is above (already posted it twice, so I won't clog the RfA up any more by reposting :) Nosebagbear (talk)

5. Neutral - Awaiting response to questions. Leaning Support Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Neutral I'm going to put myself here, for now. While I am appreciative of the candidate's contributions, I find myself at least somewhat concerned with the fact that - as I understand the nom statements - they approached other editors about submitting a nomination. In a perfect world, I would rather see other editors go to a potential candidate and inquire as to their interest in getting the mop. I'm going to spend a bit more time with this one to consider my vote, but I wouldn't see it as a net negative if this request were to succeed. Strikerforce^Talk 14:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Striking, per clarification by SoWhy below. Will move to Support. Strikerforce^Talk 14:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   @Strikerforce: See my comment to Steel1943 above (oppose #7). TSD did not reach out to me for a nom, just vetting after TNT suggested they run for admin. So this was actually a case where another editor (TNT) went to the potential candidate. Regards SoWhy 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   Also, SoWhy, even if they had reached out to you for a nom, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. We have an entire page devoted to that. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I was not saying that. In fact, you will find my name on said page. I just wanted to point out that in this case, this was not what happened. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I know you weren't. I was pointing it out for the benefit of others TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

6. Leaning oppose. I need to look further, but Q1 makes me queasy, Q3 needs substance, and the distribution doesn't help. I'm debating whether Q17 should be a fast fail. Glrx (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

   I'm debating whether Q17 should be a fast fail. please enlighten us as to how you think the answer to Q17 is a "fast fail"? - TNT^❤ 16:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)