Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vejvančický

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

Vejvančický

Final (90/1/4); Closed by Rlevse at 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Vejvančický (talk · contribs) – I'm extremely pleased to be able to nominate Vejvančický (talk · contribs) for the role of administrator. Vejvančický is in my opinion perfectly placed to perform well in the position, with over 16,000 edits and around two and a half years' experience in a wide range of areas. I first came across Vejvančický in his capacity as a new page patroller, and was impressed by the competence and helpfulness he invariably shows to new users. Further investigation revealed a clean block log and an impressive level of content creation. Vejvančický also has a large amount of policy experience, with a strong record at speedy deletion and experience at AfD. As both areas are frequently backlogged at present, this experience will be invaluable should this nomination succeed.

When I first approached Vejvančický about the possibility of an RfA nomination, he was initially reluctant as he did not believe his English was good enough. This may well have been true back in 2008; however, his user talk page and their archives show a strong level of improvement over the past two years, and I firmly believe that this is no longer a cause for concern. I hope you will support this nomination. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Thank you, Alzarian. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I believe that I can help with reviewing and deleting of the articles nominated for speedy deletion. I'm a long term participant at NPP, vast majority of my cca 2.400 deleted edits are CSD nominations. At the new pages I focus not only on speedy nominations, I'm trying to assist new users, help with referencing, formatting etc. My editing there is non-problematic, as far as I know. Of course, I made some mistakes in the past, but from my experience it is impossible not to make a mistake when you edit the endless stream of new pages, all possible topics and articles of varied quality. I'm trying to do my best and I'm always willing to fix any problems that I cause. The CSD is not my only deletion related area, I've an experience with another levels, such as PROD, BLPprod and AfD. I'm not a deletionist or inclusionist, I follow the notability guidelines and my common sense.

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

A: I've written a lot of articles (I don't know how many, but surely more than one hundred, incuding several re-creations of mistakenly deleted articles). I've spent a long time at Leoš Janáček, which is now - I believe - a decent article. I think that my article Moravian traditional music is also a good contribution. From the late 2008 my articles regularly appear at DYK (the sole purpose of my nominations is improving my clumsy English grammar in the articles). Today I created an article which could reveal something about me :) I don't maintain any list of my contributions, but you can find the articles either in my talk page archives or with the help of X's tool. I have no GAs or FAs, as contributing in these venues requires excellent English, and unfortunately my English isn't perfect. Additionally I'm a participant at various WikiProjects, such as WP:COMPOSERS, WP:CZECH, WP:CLASSICAL and WP:SLOVAKIA, where I'm trying to help with the maintenance.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I edit Wikipedia to forget the stress of real life :) I'm not aware of any major conflict, though it is difficult to avoid disagreement at venues such as AfD. Most recently I was involved in a complicated AfD and I'm still inolved in a subsequent DRV. But I wouldn't call it a "conflict". If I'm unsure, I'm asking, I can't help myself. I enjoy working here and I value hard and honest work of all editors, even if I disagree ... Please, ask for more if you feel my answers are insufficient. Thank you.

Addition Question from tofutwitch11

4. What authority (if any) does being an administrator give you? What does being an administrator mean to you?

A: Authority? This is not a good way to acquire more authority. The adminship requires big responsibility and honesty.

Addition Question from Seddon

5. Could you privide either a list or prehaps more suitable a link to a list of you DYK'S?

A: Okay, I don't maintain a list of my DYK's and I can't find any automatic tool suitable for searching this. I went through my talk page archives and I listed my contributions in the box below, please check. Btw, I would like to say thanks to my great collaborators and excellent content contributors, who help me regularly with my articles. They know who they are, though they probably don't watch this forum :)

Optional Question from hobit

6. Consider the following AfD as it stands at this time [1]. How would you close it and why?

A: I would close this AfD as keep or no consenus. The nomination questioned notability of the subject, however, a lot of substantial sources in multiple languages were introduced during the discussion. Some of the sources were published by notable media. If a Youtube video meets the notability guidelines, I can see no reason for deletion. There's quite volumnious Category:YouTube videos and Category:Internet memes, all that because this kind of information could be important for our readers (even if not for me). As for the advert issue, the sources describe an unusual and interactive format of advertising, not a product. Any blatant advertising in our article should be easily fixable. Most of 'delete' arguments is based on the lack of notability, and this problem has been resolved during the discussion.

Additional optional question from S h i v a (Visnu)

7. Requesting a "teachable moment": About this AfD, please explain why the present sources, which others say have non-neutral backgrounds, are appropriate to use for the article on a book that is perhaps literally on the edge of notability? How would you argue on the point that maybe their coverage of this book just to promote its sale?

A: There's clearly a bias in the sources presented, and notability is really thin, but I prefer to wait a little more time to find out whether the subject provoked a discussion in foreign language sources. Any verifiable and reliable information supported by sources is valuable for this project, especially in this area. It doesn't matter where my sympathy lies. I'm still questioning myself, and perhaps I'm totally mistaken about this. I would like to see a more balanced article on the book. If the article will be nominated for deletion again, I'll probably abstain from any further comments.

Additional optional questions from Panyd

8a. - You mentioned as your answer to question number one that you wish to do deletions. What other administrative areas would you be willing to work on and what experience do you have in these fields?

A: I've a little experience with vandal fighting and DYK is another area where I could help. I admit, I have to learn a lot before any major intervention.

8b.Are there any administrative areas you are not willing to work on? If so, why?

A: I'm willing to help in any area if needed and if I feel my action is competent and helpful.

Additional optional questions from DGG

9. - When you do speedy deletion work as an administrator, are you planning to delete immediately those articles that you would now be tagging, or are going to instead delete articles that others nominate? DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A: I've noticed that some administrators delete articles immediately, sometimes during my checking. I'd prefer double-checking, so (with an exception of blatant personal attacks) I'll delete articles nominated by others.

Optional question from Keepscases

10. You rate your own English as "intermediate". I would normally oppose an administrator candidate with only intermediate English skill, but I suspect your English is better than that. Is there anything you could do, or plan on doing, that would make you feel comfortable rating yourself at at least an advanced level?

A: I should probably change it to en-3 ... some people (with a better judgement in this field) told me recently that my English is better.

Ok, done.

Optional question from Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

11. All right, enough of boring questions. Seeing that you'll most probably qualify in this RfA, let's throw you some trivia, a wrong answer to which will ensure that all the supporters will surely shift to the oppose category. And a right answer will ensure you will get my vote (not that a wrong answer won't) :-) Here you go: What's critically common between the following users? User:Lee_Daniel_Crocker, User:Stevertigo, User:Conversion script, User:Red Bowen, User:TOertel and User:Neutrality

A: All the users and the bot started editing in the "early days" of this project, in 2001 - 2002, User:Neutrality joined in 2004. I singled out the most dissimilar accounts: User:TOertel (no user page, no talk page, edit count consisting of five edits made back in 2001. Btw, TOertel created the content policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). The second account, User:Conversion script, is a broken bot (active from January 2002, blocked in April 2006). I didn't find any similarity between them, except for a mention of both accounts at User_talk:Pixelface/Archive_3#AKA.27s_tool. I didn't find any 'critically common' features between the other accounts. Please educate me if I missed something important.

Come on :) You're almost there. Your answer hints to the perfectly right answer. I'm not telling you the answer till you try again (please do). There's something 'critically common' between all of the above. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the answer is hidden in the earliest edits to the pages explaining the fundamental principles of Wikipedia (listed under WP:5). The users have participated in their establishing. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There, you have it. All the users, including the bot, created what we today know as the pillars of Wikipedia. Six users, five pillars :-) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with two girls, one cup. Keepscases (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional Question from ResidentAnthropologist

12 I see this question at RFA sometimes and I like the question so: Which current Admin would you most like to emulate if you were to receive adminship?

A: In real life, I'm trying to learn to avoid emulating anybody. I listen to the arguments of others, I compare various solutions, and usually I come to my own conclusion. This is difficult in real life and my conclusions are sometimes wrong. However, here on Wikipedia I follow the same principle. I pop up everywhere around, I ask and comment and I'm willing to defend anything or anybody when I feel I do the right thing. If I'm wrong, I'm willing to explore it and admit that I'm wrong, my ego isn't that big. But I don't want to emulate anybody.

Additional Question from User:Smiley4541

13. Why do you want to be an admin?

A: Because I believe I have sufficient experience to help to keep this project strong.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 19:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - CSD tagging looks good, don't see any issues. Good luck =) Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Support I see no issues. --Inka^{888Come yell at me!} 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. All looks good to me - lots of great work done, good friendly communicator, and English is just fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Good impression. Content creation is excellent, and Vejvančický seems to have the calm and detached attitude needed for the job. And we need more Eastern European admins because of the number and frequency of nationalist wiki-disputes this region seems to continue to generate.  Sandstein  20:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Support From the looks of it, he has a good head on his shoulders :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
6. I don't see why not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
7. Support absolutely.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Scan of CSD tagging and AfD contributions, as well as content creations, brings up all good things. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Beat the nom support - No problems here. ~NerdyScienceDude 23:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Support I see no reasons not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Support—Looks good. Airplaneman ✈ 00:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - Good work in CSD and AFD. Derild4921☼ 01:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Extremely qualified candidate. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 1:03pm • 02:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
14. Support – Looks good to me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
15. Interactions are nothing but a pleasure. sonia♫ 05:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
16. Support Unable to find a valid reason to oppose. Vodello (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
17. Support Good Track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
18. Support - Can't find any reasons not to, and Vejvančický's English is excellent.--Kudpung (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
19. Support - Of course. Graham87 07:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
20. Support Agree with the project needing more Eastern European admins, so support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
21. Per above. ―cobaltcigs 10:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
22. Support - Well-qualified. The candidate was reluctant to pursue adminship until a sufficient mastery of English was accomplished ---> this shows excellent judgement--Hokeman (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
23. Support This editor's contributions are excellent. I'm also impressed with the honest, measured, and thoughtful responses to the questions. I see someone focused on adding to and improving the project. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
24. Support --Addihockey10 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
25. Support Looks good, great contributions. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Active, long-term editor with a lot of experience, deserves the mop. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
27. Support I believe this user only wants to work on deletions. Because he knows the inclusion and deletion criteria I'll support unless he wants to work on other admin criteria, which require understanding of expansion policies. Minimac (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
28. Support. I don't feel satisfied with his answer to Q7. But I see he is open-minded enough to accept that he is fallible and unafraid to put his opinion out there because the discussion demands that every possible avenue be examined. To be fair, Cracking the Quran Code is really a more complicated case than it looks, an entirely grey area. Everything else about this editor is excellent. All the best! Shiva (Visnu) 16:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
29. Secret ^account 16:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
31. Oh absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
32. Very late support by nom returning from a day's break :) Alzarian16 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Yes, Yes... Good luck! Gfoley4 | Wanna chat? 21:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
34. Support Appears to be a good editor with sound judgement. Meets all my admin criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
35. Support No concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
36. Stephen 02:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
37. Support Quadzilla99 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
38. Agree with my Mentoree. "Support I see no issues.--Inka888" :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 05:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
39. Support. Fully qualified candidate. A minor point as the candidate attains adminship is that some editors (who do not think to cut-and-paste) may have trouble typing his username. He should probably create the User:Vejvancicky (without the diacritical marks) and its talkpage as redirects to his pages to ease communication. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
40. Support Good answers, good editor, will use the tools well. First Light (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
41. Support. Very modest, helpful user with which I have had only positive interactions. Clearly here for the right reasons (just look at the user page!). decltype (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
43. Support: Seen him around often at various deletion avenues and always impressed with his attitude and approach. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
44. No alarms here. GedUK  11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
45. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
46. Support. No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
47. Support. Excellent contributor. VictorianMutant (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
48. Support Looks perfectly fine to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
49. Support Hard-working editor, and the "if I'm not sure, I ask" philosophy is a big plus. 28bytes (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
50. Support Seems like good people, small backlogs are good. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
51. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. I think this editor is an asset. Demeanor and approach to editing and adminship is a breath of fresh air. Honestly, your English is fine. I look forward to working with you more in the future. Cindamuse (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
53. Support I think Vejvančický can be trusted with the tools. English language skills are fine - better than many natives! :-) bobrayner (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
54. Support Vejvančický is doing a great job creating articles and with CSD. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't get the tools. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
55. Support. This is not a college entrance essay; the answer to the authority question is fine. I also don't see a problem with the answers to Panyd's questions. I've never been an administrator, but as far as I'm concerned, the notion that "they will inevitably get dragged into other things" only applies to those administrators who go looking for trouble. He said he'll help elsewhere if/when he thinks he can be of assistance, which is good enough for me. :) Recognizance (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
56. Support Seems rather well qualified for the job. Can't think of a single objection. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
57. Support - not worried. :pepper 00:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
58. Support: He'll be a good administrator. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
59. Strong candidate. Townlake (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
60. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
61. Support Obviously to be trusted with the tools. Props on recreating the Shit My Dad Says article. ;) Steven Walling 05:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
62. Support per excellent response to Q6. That's a tricky AFD to close for a non-admin, Personally, I might have relisted specifically to get more opinion on the sources but the delete side didn't seriously challenge the coverage so a keep against numbers would be the right way to close this. That's a mean question Hobit ;-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
63. Support: No objections here. Kansan (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
64. Support Looks good. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Does his homework and improves articles when appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
66. Support. Impressed with this editors answers and overall contribution history. --PinkBull 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
67. Support Seems reliable, and conservative in his application of policy. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
68. Support Makes good edits, I don't have anything to argue about him. Smiley4541 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
69. Support Would you mind registering User:Vejvancicky and redirecting it's user and talk page to yours, and labeling it as a doppelganger? Would be nice for those (not myself) that don't have the ability to type non roman characters, as well as would prevent some impersonation :) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
70. Support Overall good contributor. Netalarm^talk 03:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
71. Support. Clearly is here to build an encyclopedia. -- œ^™ 04:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
72. Support Seems like a qualified candidate from what I've seen and is unlikely to abuse the tools. I second NativeForeigner's suggestion above (currently #69). Regards SoWhy 09:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
73. Support - at last, a name I know. Deb (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
74. Support. Good work on WikiProject Czech Republic. Calm and creative editor. - Darwinek (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
75. Support - works for me. Connormah (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
76. Support looked over last 500 edits prior to this nomination and feel very confident in this users ability. This one can make good use of a mops. I see the XFD as a rather trivial issue The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
77. Support: Looking good. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
78. Support I've seen only good things. Jujutacular ^talk 02:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
79. Support No concerns, well-rounded editor. Bejinhan talks 03:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
80. Support - Impressive candidate.--Kubigula (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
81. Support As promised. Very nice candidate; needs to perchance become tougher skinned if he wishes to participate in administrative activities. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
82. Support with confidence. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
83. Support. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
84. Support - The opposes are unconvincining... wait, there aren't any! (Erm, the one oppose is unconvincing.) May your mopping be fruitful. Jusdafax 05:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
85. Support Appears sound on deletion raeasoning to be sure. And erring on the side of "no consensus" is not a flaw either. Admins ought not assume any special voting powers. Collect (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
86. Support Having more international administrators is important. Esteffect (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
87. Support Seems like a user who would be able to clean up efficiently and pleasantly without knocking users on the head with the mop...so, why not? :) Clementina talk 07:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
88. Support. Qualified candidate.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
89. Beat-the-close Support. Looks fine to me, unconvinced by the oppose rationale, international mop-wielding is good. TFOWR 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
90. Support Courcelles 18:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I know that my lone oppose isn't going to put a dent in the forward momentum of this RfA, but I can't support due to the answer to Q6. Closing that AfD as Keep would be a clear supervote, and chances are it would have ended up getting overturned at DRV. That particular AfD ended up uncontroversially closing as Delete without much new information being added to it after the revision we were looking at. Even after various sources were uncovered, there were multiple delete voters saying that the sources were unconvincing. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it's automatically notable, and in this case, closing an AfD against consensus is incorrect, in my opinion. It would have been a different story if there were a bunch of Delete votes at the top, then someone uncovered sources, and then most of the subsequent votes were Keep based on the newly found sources. This was not the case here. Sorry, but I don't think we need another admin who believes their opinion is more important than the opinions of the editors who took the time to !vote. SnottyWong ^comment 14:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
   • Wow, that last sentence shows a ton of bad faith. I think Vejvan would close #6 as keep because he interpreted the rough consensus to be with the 'keep' side. Absolutely none of his opinion involved, so basically, he would do what administrators are supposed to do! We need more admins like that, and not ones that roll over and take safe ways out. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

   • No bad faith intended. The feeling I got from his explanation is that he felt the delete votes were "wrong", and therefore discounted them and made his supervote. That is subtly different than an admin discounting votes because they're not based on policy or they are an example of something at WP:ATA. An admin's job at XfD's is to gauge the consensus of the editors who voted, not determine whether it's "right" or "wrong". Is your opinion that Fetchcomms' eventual close was incorrect, or that the votes that occurred after the revision linked in the question were enough to substantially change consensus? SnottyWong ^gossip 16:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

   I have it as keep myself and I'm on the deletion side of the divide so I don't think this is a fair oppose reason. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps this needs to be taken to WP:DRV then, since it was later closed as delete. The comments which were added after the revision in the question don't seem to change consensus significantly. To be clear, this isn't about "delete vs. keep" for me. I'm on the deletion side of the divide as well, but I would have the same opinion if this were turned around where the consensus was Keep and the article was deleted. I'm not trying to stir anything up here, and I realize my oppose is practically meaningless, but hopefully my comments will be taken to heart when Vejvancicky becomes an admin and starts closing AfD's. It's clear I'm in the minority though, so I don't think we need to dwell on it any further. SnottyWong ^spout 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

   I agree with User:Snottywong that User:Vejvančický's answer to Q6 is disconcerting. That said, I don't expect Admins to be perfect or have a full understanding of all areas of Wikipedia. My hope would be that Admins refrain from making decisions pertaining to issues on which they are not fully versed. One of the most important decisions that an individual can make in closing AfDs beyond correctly assessing consensus, is providing a rationale to the close. Too often, editors close a discussion with a simple "The result was Delete" or "The result was Keep". It is important to provide a rationale, in addition to presenting the resulting decision. Time after time, Admins fail to provide a rationale. I think this is a disservice to the editors that have participated in the discussion. I don't negate the result, but consider that the closer simply lacks a full understanding of the AfD closing process presented in the applicable Administrator instructions. I support User:Vejvančický's RfA, but hope that s/he would spend some time reviewing the AfD closing process prior to participating in closing discussions. Respectfully, Cindamuse (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

   "Most of 'delete' arguments is based on the lack of notability, and this problem has been resolved during the discussion." Do you disagree with that? Hobit (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: Good Edits. I'm not really impressed with the answer to my question, if the answer was a little more thorough I would probably switch to support. Sorry. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 12:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral: I'm a little concerned that Vejvančický would concentrate on deletions, but I'll switch to support easily if I see otherwise! 20:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs)

   Why don't you want him concentrating on deletions? He said he was going to be involved with speedy deletion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   Because we need admins who aren't going to just do easy tasks like deletions. An admin needs to have experience of all areas, not just some - because sometimes issues flow over from one field to another. You can't work in one area as an admin - it's tantamount to cherry-picking. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, but people grow. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

   You said concentrate. I think every admin should have a focus and identify areas where they can initially help out that matches their experience and interest. You're implying that he will only do deletion work, and it doesn't seem to follow from any of his answers. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral - I just don't believe that an administrator can only work in one area, not because they don't want to, just because they will inevitably get dragged into other things. I really want to see some proof that this person has worked on more than just deletions. If there had been a more thorough answer to my questions, this would have been a support without hesitation. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral: I'll stick a neutral in here, per Panyd - I don't suppose it will make any difference; it's just that I am concerned when there has been no discussion regarding protection, blocking, or any of the other areas. As the tools are all wrapped up together, I'm concerned about this idea of admins who have demonstrable skill in just one area. Chzz  ►  08:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.