Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tavix

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

Tavix

Final: (128/5/4) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 18:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination from BDD

Tavix (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Tavix for adminship, the first such nomination I've made. Tavix has contributed to the project since 2007, amassing over 30,000 edits in that time. As an administrator at RfD, where Tavix is active, I've long admired his judgment and thoughtful, policy-based arguments. For about a year now, he's been making sound non-admin closures at RfD, and he also performs them at WP:RM. He has consistently shown the sort of respectful, clear-headed temperament that makes a good admin. A look at his talk page is instructive. It shows fellow editors showing their appreciation, and Tavix responding gracefully and politely to queries.

Gnomish in temperament, Tavix has done fantastic work behind the scenes to keep the project navigable for all readers. Redirects, hatnotes, dabs, and set indices aren't sexy, but they pay dividends for our readers. Nor is Tavix a stranger to more visible content creation. I particularly like that he follows a gnomish path to creating content just where it's needed. For example, when RfD brought up the need to have content on Easter baskets, or the South African poet Bartho Smit—is a mention of the topic elsewhere sufficient, or should they be deleted per WP:REDLINK?—Tavix has stepped in and provided us with just the article.

As I noted on my own talk page, I didn't fully appreciate the metaphor of "the mop". But so much of the functionality of the project depends on admins willing to just do that unglamorous work of fighting backlogs. From his record so far and his plans should he be approved by the community, it's clear that he will continue to do that selfless, sometimes thankless, sort of work. I'm quite happy to put him forward for your consideration. Deryck and I both hope he'll be able to get started soon. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Deryck

It is my pleasure to present Tavix to you all. Like BDD, I have also been working with Tavix regularly on redirects for discussion (RfD) for some time and am encouraged by his desire to improve the reader's experience through redirects and disambiguation.

Beyond redirects, disambiguation, and set indices, Tavix also contributes good quality article content and has a few DYKs under his belt. These can be seen on his user page.

In our interactions, Tavix has shown good temperament and introspection. I have every confidence that he will keep a cool head in difficult discussions.

In recent months there has often been long backlogs in deletion forums such as RfD because there are few admins who regularly patrol them. Tavix is an experienced editor who has shown good understanding for policy and extensive participation in deletion discussions. I strongly recommend him as a candidate for adminship so we can have an extra pair of hands at work without further delay. Deryck C. 16:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored and humbled by these kind words, especially coming from two people I look to as role models. I accept the nomination and I look forward to feedback from the community. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:14, 23 May 2016 (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: The primary reason I am requesting adminship is to help out with the backlog at WP:RFD. I became a "regular" there about a year and a half ago. In that time, I have read just about every discussion to come through there. I have regularly helped out where possible at RFD, participating in perhaps thousands of discussions and closing hundreds of others. There are only a few admins who close RFD discussions, and sometimes discussions with an obvious "delete" consensus will sit in the backlog for weeks. As an admin, I would help keep RFD flowing and hopefully keep it from getting too congested. Recently, I've started to get more involved at WP:RM and I would also like to help out with that backlog. I could also see myself dipping into some other deletion-related backlogs every now and then, especially CSD, but I don't see myself getting involved in anything else (that would be enough to keep me busy!).

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

A: As I mention on my user page, I consider myself a "navigational gnome" and my most significant contributions have been to do my part to improve the navigation of Wikipedia for our readers. These include adding or modifying redirects, disambiguation pages, indexes, and hatnotes. I've tried to add WP:RCATs where possible and have fixed broken redirects-to-sections. I've helped clear the only-two-dabs backlog and I'm currently working my way through the incomplete disambiguation backlog. I've also found a niche contributing to Anthroponymy indexes, where I've noticed that a significant number of name indexes need to be updated and still other names have yet to be created. The project has a huge scope and not enough help and it's been one of my priorities lately.

Outside of my navigational work, I also enjoy contributing to articles and occasionally writing one myself when I stumble upon a notable subject that doesn't have an article yet. My favorite example is Kala Alexander. I watched his Shark Week special last year and wanted to learn more about him but was disappointed to find a red link. After researching for a bit, I found significant coverage of him in sources such as ESPN and the New York Times so I went to work writing an article. I think it's amazing that Mr. Alexander's article now receives about 50 views/day and 1,247 views the day it was featured on the Main Page. Now, anyone has the ability to read a fascinating redemption story: a surf gang leader who is now using his time to help people with Cystic Fibrosis, helping to uncover why shark attacks are increasing in Hawaii, and even getting a cameo in Hawaii Five-0.

This brings me to the reason of why I do what I do. The best part of contributing to Wikipedia is the satisfaction of knowing that I am helping to contribute to the accessibility of human knowledge. I take great pride in the fact that I can highlight a park inhabited by turtle sculptures, a Naval surgeon who helped to incorporate the American Red Cross, and collaborate with one of my friends on an article about a South African poet. The work here is never done and I could go on and on about other wonderful stories, but I'll stop here.

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: Reflecting on my time here, I'd say that I've only been involved in one major dispute. In 2008, back before I had any WP:CLUE, I got into a pretty significant page-move war with another editor over whether NFL players should be disambiguated with "(American football)" or "(football player)." If I remember correctly, the pages were split roughly 70-30 in favor of (American football) and figured that I would move the rest "for consistency." Several reverts, an ANI thread, and another discussion later, I think we finally came to a consensus. It was through that situation where I learned firsthand several lessons related to Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines, particularly related to consensus. Looking back, that dispute could have been handled miles better if I would've seriously considered other's viewpoints and I regret taking a "my way or the highway" approach to the situation.

I believe that that I've come a long way since then and I no longer get worked up if someone disagrees with me. I don't maintain much of a watchlist as I am not too concerned with what happens to a page after I'm done with it. One of the nice things about doing gnome work is that you don't find yourself in disputes that often. When I do disagree with another editor, it's always best to use civility, assume good faith, and not to have a battleground mentality when it comes to discussions. I know these are all Wikipedia buzzwords, but there are plenty of reasons why they are. When we edit, we should always have a readers first mentality and put silly things like ego aside. It's important not to have a "winning" or "losing" attitude so long as we can try to find consensus that ultimately improves Wikipedia in the process.

---

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 TJH2018

4. What does Wikipedia mean to you?

I think of myself as an "information junkie," and from way back before I started editing, Wikipedia has been the place I would come to get the answer to a question, or to look something up, etc. I probably spend more time reading articles than I do editing them, and the best way to explain it is with a relevant xkcd. That's what Wikipedia means to me: a place where I can get answers to questions and satisfy my ever-hungry curiosity. But that's not all, since it's also a community: a place where I can interact and collaborate with others (see also: Q2, ¶3). It means something to help build and improve Wikipedia, so others behind me can get the information they want as well.

Additional question from ThePlatypusofDoom

5. What is your view on WP:IAR? When should you use WP:IAR as a reason for making an edit?

A good way to understand IAR is via WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:5P5. The policies and guidelines that Wikipedia operate under are not set in stone, they are developed via consensus and consensus can change. That being said, the rules that are in place have developed for a reason and one should follow them where possible. One should only use IAR when they can demonstrate why and how the deviation from the rules benefits Wikipedia. Personally, I use it sparingly and there's only one incident I can recall where I invoked it: a requested move regarding two footballers with the same name.

Additional question from Crow

6. What do you feel is the line (or more likely, the grey area) between pointless redirects and the notion that "Redirects are cheap"? Or put another way, (and leaving G5's aside), when is an utterly pointless redirect not delete-worthy?

To use your words, I would consider a "pointless" redirect to be one that doesn't meet any of the purposes of redirects. A redirect is "delete-worthy" when it meets one or more of the conditions at WP:R#DELETE or CSD, and there isn't a reason to keep it per WP:R#KEEP. The "gray area" occurs when a "pointless" redirect is not "delete-worthy." There are plenty of these redirects out there, and that's where WP:CHEAP comes into play, since they are ultimately harmless. I wouldn't want anyone to create pointless redirects, but for the ones that already exist, it's also pointless to make an effort to delete the ones that aren't delete-worthy.

Additional question from PCHS-NJROTC

7. There is a huge backlog at WP:AIV. A recent changes patrolman notices you have edited recently, notices that you are an admin, and he asks you for assistance because he is tired of playing whack-a-mole with the same people over and over again. Among 50 reported troublemakers, you see 1.2.3.4 (99% positive edits) reported for "vandalism after release of prior block, needs to be schoolblocked" and 4.3.2.1 (99% destructive edits) reported for "Vandalism after final warning." Another IP belonging to Contessa Gowan Middle School, with approximately 50% positive edits and 50% unhelpful edits reported for "vandalism after release of prior block, needs to be schoolblocked" (sorry, don't have time to make a pretty simulation for that one right now). What do you do with these three IPs? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 07:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As someone with zero experience at WP:AIV, I would politely tell the recent changes patrolman that I'm not the right person for the job. I would tell him that he's probably better off taking these reports to AIV, since admins who are experts at dealing with vandalism regularly patrol there. Perhaps there a couple bad eggs there that he doesn't want to deal with (I would hope not!), I could give him a few names of admins I know who are willing and experienced enough to help out. If I ever were to want to get involved there (it wouldn't be anytime soon), I would review the necessary policies and guidelines, lurk there for a little while, pick a report and figure out what I would do without doing anything, and then see how it's handled. I would do that until I feel comfortable enough to help out. I know this probably isn't the answer you're looking for, but I don't want to wade into a situation that I'm uncomfortable with, especially when there are enough admins who are comfortable dealing with this.

Addendum: After reading PCHS-NJROTC's !vote, I realized the question is trying to gauge my understanding of policy rather than a simple "what would you do if..." situation. In order to show that I do have competency in this area despite the lack of experience, I'll answer what I think should be done in each situation:

1.2.3.4: With this example, there's a lot to like about the IP. While it's obviously on the extreme side with that many GA's, it seems like the librarian and her students are a net positive for Wikipedia. The biggest thing I see "wrong" is that a block of a year on an IP is draconian, and goes against WP:IPBLOCKLENGTH: Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires. From the note left about it being the end of the school year, a block wouldn't be necessary at the time. Instead, it'd be best to leave a warning and then revert the vandalism if it hasn't been reverted already. I'd keep an eye on the contribs, just in case though.

4.3.2.1: I'm a bit confused about the timeline, since it looks like the account is still blocked until June 11th. In that case, it might be prudent to watch the contributions of the account once the block expires, and reblock if that person returns to commit more vandalism.

Contessa Gowan: That one is tricky because there really isn't enough information to make a call. If it's a "drive-by" change to one page, it might be best to simply issue a warning. However, if the person is currently involved in vandalizing multiple pages, and it seems to me that the spree would continue, a short block (per WP:IPBLOCKLENGTH) would be necessary and then I'd get to work reverting if it hasn't been done already.

Additional question from CookieMonster755

8. How important are projects such as Articles for Creation, which allows IP addresses to indirectly publish articles? More broadly, Do you think IP addresses are an important part of the Wikipedia community (assuming the IPs contribute constructively)?

A: Articles for Creation is a beautiful process, not just because it allows IP address to publish, but also because there's a place for articles that might not be ready for mainspace to be refined and critiqued before being published. I used to be active at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects back when there was a backlog there, and I was generally impressed with a lot of the suggestions that IP addresses made there. Sometimes people simply don't want to create accounts, or can't for technical or other reasons, and Wikipedia would miss out on some great contributions by restricting those people.

Additional questions from Montanabw

9. There are concerns about a systemic bias problem on wikipedia in terms of article coverage, and how would this influence your decisions in assessing consensus and handling closures at AfD in light of the significant number of articles about women (and also people from the Third World or those who lived in the pre-Google era) that are tagged for deletion? Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

A: Systemic bias is something I need to be cognizant about, especially since I check literally every box of the "average Wikipedian". There's several things that can be done, such as editing or creating articles about underrepresented places (see below). When closing an AFD as delete, and when dealing with expired prods, it's always a good idea to give one more check of sources, in case there's some that might have been missed. When it is an underrepresented subject, a little extra effort could go a long way. It's important to remember that notability doesn't correlate with things like the number of Google hits, and that's especially true for pre-Internet era subjects.

I just remembered a random thought I had a while back. I think it'd be cool to put together a way to brag about creating or developing articles from countries all over the world. One could go through their articles created and/or DYK/GA/FA/etc credits and add up all the articles with an affinity for a certain country. This can be transformed into a type of choropleth map to display on one's userpage where countries (or even regions?) with more credits show up as a darker shade. If someone wants to help develop this further, it could be a simple way to encourage article creation and development in countries other than your own and could help alleviate the systemic bias problem. This is just one example, and I know there are a couple fantastic WikiProjects out there working on different facets of this problem.

10. The situation colloquially known as the Gamergate controversy is an ongoing problem. To over-simplify, there was a major Arbcom case and the decision received significant press and a fair bit of criticism, as seen here and here. Upon review of this situation, should you encounter a Gamergate-related dispute subject to the ArbCom decision, and it appears to be, as The Guardian stated, “...a game of provocation chicken, both sides try to work as close to the ill-defined edge of acceptable behaviour to provoke the other into crossing it...," what process would you use to sort out the players so that well-intentioned editors are not inappropriately sanctioned and driven off wikipedia by other editors intent on gaming the system? Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Gamergate controversy is a terrible one from all sides, and I'm disappointed to hear that it's still ongoing. I read the ArbCom decision when it came out last year, and I feel like the controversy is a lot more complex than I can wrap my head around. For a situation that convoluted, it's best to let ArbCom deal with it, as they were elected to handle situations of that magnitude. However, for more manageable situations, there are processes that an admin can use to try to mitigate a problem. The first is to try to read and understand all facets of the controversy before going ahead. A couple questions to ask while going though it is if the any editors are engaging in WP:POINTY behavior, especially with regards to WP:POVPUSHing. If it becomes evident that some editors are engaging in disruptionary and inappropriate behaviors, then it would be wise to warn them, or, if it's severe enough or a long-term problem, a block might be needed. Well-intentioned editors: those who are trying to be the solution instead of the problem, should never be sanctioned.

Additional question from John Cline

11. If the discussion between you and editor Rich Farmbrough,[1] mentioned below, happened last week, would your comments, from November 2015, remain essentially unchanged? If they would have changed, by substance or tone, what would you have changed?

To start with some background, I had taken Q3163213 to RFD because I wanted to see if there was any benefit to having Wikidata redirects. In the discussion, I didn't see how it was helpful or useful to our readers, but I wanted a full discussion on the matter so we could get consensus on whether or not they had any utility. Rich tagged the redirect for G7, and left a note on my talk page, which was nice of him to do. I don't really remember the situation much, but I think I got slightly annoyed at his opinion that he didn't think "redirects for discussion" was a good place to get consensus on redirects. I just wanted him to know that I thought that "redirects for discussion" was the perfect place to have a discussion on redirects, emphasizing the word discussion because that's what I wanted to have—a discussion.

To get to the heart of your question, I do think I could have answered him better, explaining why I thought RFD was an appropriate place for discussion rather than taking the cheap way out with the wordplay. I could then explain why I felt RFD is better than VPT or an RFC elsewhere. I guess I got the impression that I was bothering him, and looking back, I'm not sure why I thought that way. Without that part, the explanation would have a better tone.

For the record, I don't have any issues with Rich, and from his support in my RFA, I don't think he has any issues with me either (although I don't want to speak for him). When he participates in RFD discussions, he tends to be more of an inclusionist than I am, but that's not a problem. I appreciate getting differing opinions on matters, as sometimes it causes me to stop and think about my own views, and at the very least, prevents an echo chamber from crystallizing. I did oppose his RFA last year, but it was for more of a technical reason than anything against him personally. I simply have the opinion that someone with editing restrictions shouldn't be granted the tools. He does fine work here on Wikipedia, and we're lucky to have someone of his calibre around.

Additional question from RexxS

12. Why do you think that someone with editing restrictions shouldn't be granted the tools? Isn't the natural corollary that any admin who is given editing restrictions should be de-sysopped? --RexxS (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Adminship is a position of trust. If we can't trust someone to edit in an area so much that the editor in question is banned from that area, then I don't see how that person should be trusted with the mop. And sure, if someone loses the community's trust in a certain area, it would make sense to at the very least go through a re-confirmation RFA.

[Follow up:] Many editing restrictions do not involve being banned from an area, for example 1RR. Given that at the time of his RfA, Rich was not banned from an area, but was restricted from making automated edits by ArbCom, not by the community, can you explain how you equate all editing restrictions with loss of community trust? --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional questions from Hendry Little

13. Given that you would be able to block users on the spot, would you willing to indef block a new editor under WP:VOA and WP:NOTHERE guidelines based on his/her first new edits being questionable? Hendry Little (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the situation. If it's obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that the new registered user is a vandalism-only account, then yes, an indef block would be necessary to protect the project from further damage. Otherwise, it could just be that the user isn't aware of our policies and guidelines. In that case, a warning and/or an explanation of what they are doing wrong along with suggestions for useful editing would be all that is necessary (and watching the user to make sure they don't continue to engage in questionable editing).

14. Since many of these new editors probably don't know the guidelines much, would you be willing to WP:AGF and grant an unblock if they request one (under the condition that if they continue with the conduct that caused the block, the next would prolly be indef)? Hendry Little (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course. I'm a firm believer in WP:ROPE WP:STRIPES: The user in question can either learn from their mistakes or, if they insist on doing the same things that lead to their original block, then they will have "hung themselves," "shown their stripes" as the saying goes.

Discussion

• Links for Tavix: Tavix (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tavix 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. Obvious support, and pleased to be the first. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Has a clear need for the tools, intends to use them to further his already-proven record of fighting backlogs, and has always been both reasonable and sensible in my (admittedly sparse) interactions with him. —Cryptic 19:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
3. It's rare to find someone who is both willing to do the tedious administrative work of closing discussions, and a content editor who sees gaps in Wikipedia as an opportunity to create a quality article and learn something in the process. I'm happy to see this editor get the mop. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Excellent editor with a great track record, shows a clear need for the tools and will be of a boon to the community assisting in clearing backlogs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Being familiar with Tavix, I'm here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
6. Support - I regularly interact with Tavix at RfD and occasionally in other discussions. I've never seen them exhibit behavior that is a cause for concern.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
7. Support everything I have looked at looks very good. The candidate is helpful and kind in his interactions. Content work I saw also looked good. He seems to be competent and active, but also knows how to take time off if needed. And he's willing to help out with backlogs. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
8. Support – User knows policy. He negotiates well and can handle conflict gracefully. I checked for his name at WP:RM and looked for interactions with others in his talk archives. If he already has knowledge of RfD then the admin tools will be useful for his work there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
9. Support – CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
10. Support – Haven't encountered this user before, but Tavix's contributions speak for themselves. United States Man (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
11. Support – seems like a solid candidate.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
12. Support - seems like a top-notch candidate. st170e^talk 21:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
13. Support - haven't worked with Tavix, but looks like a great candidate. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
14. Support Solid experience with great history in gnoming. This housekeeping could be more effective with the tools - clearly trustworthy enough to have them NottNott|talk 21:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
15. Support Why not? I can't find a reason to oppose (even after reading the oppose section). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
16. Support - I have had the honor of interacting with Tavix at WP:RFD, and I have found Tavix to be a kind, courteous, and incredibly thoughtful editor. Tavix is truly a model Wikipedian, and I enthusiastically support their promotion to Adminship. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
17. Support - Great contributions + no doubts from my end. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
18. Support as co-nominator. Hats off to the 17 editors who have already beaten me to the party! Deryck C. 22:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
19. Support I can't find any problems, looks like a great editor doing important work. Gap9551 (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
20. Support - work at RM demonstrates both a need for the bit and competence in using advanced permissions. From what I can see of their interactions with other editors, they know how to work with people, and take an appropriately collaborative outlook to their work on the project. Thanks for volunteering! Ajraddatz (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
21. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
22. Support, no concerns with this candidate. Nakon 01:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
23. Support - Another great candidate! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
24. Support Shows a need to be an administrator to continue doing important housekeeping work. Shown to be an excellent contributor who will help clear backlogs. Appears to be helpful, collaborative and courteous - good demeanor. I think Tavix has been shown to be trustworthy and will be a good administrator. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
25. Support, looks good, no concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
26. Support - seen this editor around, and always been positively impressed by the contributions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
27. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
28. Weak support. In a few occasions, I have found Tavix to escalate situations too quickly, such as bringing incidents to discussion venues before attempting WP:DR processes. For example, about two weeks ago, Tavix started an ANI discussion about my AWB editing, without any attempt to discuss with me first about such edits. In some occasions, I've found Tavix to perform WP:INVOLVED editing, such as reverting my RfD closure even though he has voted in that discussion. Despite these issues, I still think that granting Tavix the tools would be a WP:NET POSITIVE overall. SSTflyer 05:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
29. Support From a quick look at his contributions, I can see that he's got a positive attitude and remains calm in discussions. Could use some more AFD work, but his contributions at RM are easily enough to make me support. It's great to see another excellent candidate applying for the mop. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
30. Support. Fully comfortable in supporting a candidate wanting to help out in the less-than-glamorous areas. -- œ^™ 07:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
31. Support Shows a clear need for the tools, and has an accepting and civil communication style -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
32. Support. Thought you were admin already. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
33. —Kusma (t·c) 09:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
34. Support We need more admins, see no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
35. Support I've seen Tavix around, and he will put the mop to good use. Miniapolis 13:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
36. Support- definitely one of the good guys, and we need more admins who take WP:V seriously. Reyk _YO! 13:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
37. Support - Can see several reasons to support and no compelling reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
38. Support - would certainly do well, is certainly qualified. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 14:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
39. Support While some valid concerns were raised by the opposition I still think that Tavix will be a great admin. They brought the articles to the community for deletion discussion, deferring to the community and accepting their judgement even when it goes against your own is good for an admin. If they had used CSD wrongly I might feel differently, but we have AfD because it is subjective. I may reconsider if evidence of more serious problems is presented but for now I support. HighInBC 14:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
40. Support Good-hearted user, with a sense of duty which is obvious even when you do not know him very well. It would be a pleasure to see him among the administrators.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
41. Support Tavix has done a lot of good work, and is a steadying influence, remaining calm and objective when others are doing just the opposite. At the moment, the 'oppose' votes are all concerned with Tavix taking a few articles to AfD on which the eventual consensus was 'keep'. So what? Tavix accepted the consensus view in all cases. Neiltonks (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
42. Support I don't see anything wrong than him. Peter Sam Fan 16:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
43. Support Tavix will be a very good admin, no real reasons to oppose. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
44. Support - no concerns. Having a different opinion from the majority in an AFD does not mean that Tavix will be unable to recognise consensus in future debates, so is no reason to oppose. GiantSnowman 17:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
45. Support Experienced and trustworthy candidate. Good nominations. Intends to be active in areas, RFD and RM, that need more admins. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
46. Moving to support per the discussion below. Tavix has sufficiently addressed my concerns with deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
47. Support - I've appreciated Tavix's behind the scenes work in areas I'm active. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
48. Support I've had differing opinions at AFD than the consensus view. Doesn't mean I can't judge the consensus anyway. Tavix will do fine. Katie^talk 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
49. Support precious contributor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
50. Support - no glaring red flags, even taking oppose #2 into account. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
51. Support - Great candidate, No issues, Good luck. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
52. Support I prefer admin candidates with a somewhat stronger record in article development than Tavix has at present, but their contributions to Wikipedia - and especially the area in which they're planning to focus on as an admin - have been great so I'm confident that the tools will be used sensibly. Tavix's answer to question 5 in particular indicates that they have sufficient experience and a good understanding of the environment in which admins sometimes need to operate in. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
53. Support wholeheartedly. One of the hardest working gnomes at RfD, with a thorough knowledge of relevant policies, willing to engage in debate with sane, rational and insightful arguments. We've sparred occasionally (RfD is a silly place) but he's convinced me to take his position in a debate numerous times; the number of times I've written "per Tavix" at RfD probably number in the thousands. I've long wondered why Tavix hadn't already run an RfA, and I am pleased to support. Good luck! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
54. Support Opposes don't scare me off, no glaring red flags as said above. ~riley (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
55. Support. Looking back for any past interactions where I might have caught him out, I had to go back a long long way, and I also found where he had likewise caught me out! A valued and capable editor with a good spirit, evidently willing to help and also to ask for help when needed. I have no hesitation in wanting to share the toolbox with him. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
56. Support. I would like to see greater content work but otherwise, looks good based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
57. Support. Has the right attitude with regards to suitability, from my question, and can't question the dedication. Nothing to indicate a misuse risk or attitude problem. Crow^Caw 22:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
58. Support When a nomination makes you think "Wait, this guy (or gal) isn't an admin?", then that's usually a strong indicator that he (or she) should be an admin. Such is the case here. ~ Rob^Talk 23:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
59. Support: Certainly Tavix was a little defensive on his talk page (see the #Oppose section), but many people are, including, I am sure, many good admins. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC).
    
60. Support Doing good work in an area we need more admins to actively participate. No issues. Release the mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
61. Support I've seen him around and always have had great impressions. I read through the oppose section and I think issues were identified, but they are, IMO, fairly minor and to hold that against someone would be to be searching for a true saint. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
62. Support I see no reason to not give him the mop. Trustworthy and competent. FiendYT ★ 04:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
63. Support No significant concerns, good work at RFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
64. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 04:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
65. Support likely to be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
66. Support I really like the answers to the questions, and browsing contributions I'm not seeing any reasons to object. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
67. Support OK, I don't really see why not. Jianhui67 ^T★C 09:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
68. Support -FASTILY 09:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
69. Support --Lingveno (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
70. Support – Knows policies and guidelines. 333-blue 13:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
71. Support – I looked through this last night, and have run across Tavix enough, that I trust this editor with the tools. No concerns, and none of the opposes are particularly "rattling". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
72. Support - I see nothing to indicate that this user would abuse the mop. SQL^{Query me!} 17:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
73. Strong Support There is no reason why Tavix should not be an admin. He is well qualified, experienced and has what it takes. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
74. Support - has clue. A big positive at RFD. shoy (reactions) 20:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
75. Support with good feelings. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
76. A Belated Strong Support - Per Sportsfan 1234 Jdcomix (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
77. Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and this editor is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 02:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
78. Support – no issues, great contributions, and Wikipedia definitely needs more administrators. Pick up the mop, and start workin'! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
79. Support because I see no good reason not to. The delete arguments on AFDs that went keep look to me within the normal range of delete/keep disagreement. And if those seven comments linked in the oppose section are the worst things Tavix has said in the timespan they represent (seven years!), then he'll do fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
80. Stephen 05:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
81. Support Net positive. I don't see any reason to deny them the tools. clpo13_(talk) 05:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
82. Support - Has clue, and thus would be a net positive as an addition to the administrator corps. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 13:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
83. Support - The candidate has demonstrated a very good understanding of policy, answered my question excellently, and it's nice to see someone looking to use the tools for something other than just vandal patrol for a change (not that there's anything wrong with vandal patrol; I do plenty of it myself). I would do a strong support, but I just don't have time to review his contributions in depth do things going on in real life. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 16:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
84. Support - fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
85. While I'm a little curious that Tavix intends to have one main admin task, namely RFDs (requested moves now have a special user right, so they no longer require admin access), he seems good enough. His article contributions also made a good impression on me. So I support. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (formerly epicgenius) (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
86. Support. Likely to be a prolific, uncontroversial admin, the best kind. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
87. Support - Adequate tenure, clean block log, no indication of assholery. Impressed that he was fixing vandalism within his first 100 edits at WP, back in 2007. No worries. Carrite (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
88. Seen him around and don't recall anything egregious. BDD knows RFD and RM inside out, so if he's nominating someone in those areas then I'm almost guaranteed to support. Only thing Tavix needs to keep in mind is that the sometimes curt attitude that has been pointed out in the oppose section is largely fine in your average editor, but problematic in an admin. Jenks24 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
89. Support Really good answers to questions. An admin that will actually close XfD discussions? Huzzah! Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
90. Support We require excellence, not perfection. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
91. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
92. Support Experienced and trustworthy candidate. INeverCry 04:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
93. Support A worthy candidate going by Tavix' very good contributions. Xender Lourdes (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
94. Support - no issues with the candidate with respect to incivility or unbecoming behaviour. Best of luck! --PatientZero ^talk 15:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
95. Support good record and knowledge of field of activity is such as to indicate his being an admin would be a net plus to the community. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
96. Support Has a great record and no issues I can see. Tavix would be a good admin. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
97. Support: Willing to do the work and has a strong track record.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
98. Support no concerns.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
99. Support per BDD and Deryck C and Long term user with good track editing since 2007 a net clear positive. See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
100. Support No concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
101. Support – clear. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
102. Support -- A willing and capable editor. I have no concerns about their ability to be an administrator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
103. Support No problems found. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
104. Support Great work at RfD, good understanding of policy. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

     Support love the answer about the AfC. Will make a great admin, and will take it with class and responsibility. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 05:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

     Duplicate support !vote stricken and indented. @CookieMonster755: You've already supported this request for adminship above at number 78.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

     THANK YOU! I am so tired, I just forgot. Thanks again, my friend. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 05:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

105. Support Seems clean, seems energetic, seems patient. --Vicedomino (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
106. Support. A very good example of a person whose adminship will be a clear positive to the project. I'm surprised though I wasn't writing this several years ago. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
107. Support. Although content creation is mediocre, CSD tagging is generally good. AfD comments are somewhat infrequent. Tavix is likely to be okay in RfD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
108. Support Very clueful. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) 12:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
109. Support. Excellent editors have the potential to be excellent administrators.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  15:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
110. Support. Competent editor with a clear use for the administrative toolkit. In particular, Tavix's work at RfD is well-reasoned, demonstrating a strong understanding of policy. /wiae /tlk 15:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
111. Support. Very confient editor. Enjoy your mop and bucket! KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
112. Support - strong contributions history and is willing to help reduce backlogs, which is sorely needed. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
113. Support Experienced and level-headed. His response to the question on IAR was particularly good. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
114. Support. I think he's a very good candidate. Editing history exhibits necessary trustworthiness/level-headedness IMO.   Aloha27  talk  19:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
115. Support per most of the above. Reviewed opposers' concerns and dismiss them. Nothing wrong there.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
116. Support I like his attitude and willingness to introspect, especially as seen in questions 3 and 11. The admin tools will help in his gnome activities. Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 06:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
117. Support. Record looks solid, answers to the questions are good, and collaborative demeanour seems fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
118. Support. Fully qualified, understands wikipedia's principles and is willing to perform a administrative task (RFD) with a known backlog issue. Fbergo (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
119. Unreserved support. I encounter Tavix frequently, and we don't agree on everything (including even the ancient-news football disambiguation thing :-), but the WP:COMMONSENSE Force is strong with this one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
120. Support. Looks to me like a strong, qualified candidate who will use the tools for all the right reasons, and the opposing reasons do not strike me as anywhere near sufficient enough to say no.ZettaComposer (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
121. Support calm and civil style and will work in an area of need. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
122. Support Good stats and helpful style. Will be a fine addition to the team. —Prhartcom♥ 05:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
123. Suppport A very solid candidate. Thanks to Drmies for analyzing and refuting several of the opposes. That was useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
124. Support. Looks good to me. The Land (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
125. Support Solid candidate. -- H^akan·IST 11:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
126. Support, notwithstanding the validity of some of the opposing arguments. I hope that Tavix will read through the opposes--not to counter them, but to learn from them. I think they will also find, as many of us admins have, that becoming an admin typically makes one shift their sensibilities some, more towards cautionary. Drmies (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
127. Support, per answer to my question...TJH2018talk 16:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
128. Support as user is experienced, trustworthy, and has a clear need for the tools. — Music1201 ^talk 18:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose I was totally willing to support this RFA before I came across this user's AfD statistics, where I find that Tavix appears to !vote "delete" in very many situations where consensus is subsequently reached to "keep." This would not in and of itself be a problem, if the arguments for deletion were sound. However, I found 1, 2, 3, and 4, all of which went "keep" because the subject passed GNG comfortably. In three of these, Taxis was themselves the nominator, which suggests to me that they did not follow WP:BEFORE; and therefore, I am hesitant to give them the delete button. Now I recognize the excellent work that Tavix has done elsewhere, and I don't have any other major concerns. So I'm willing to be persuaded, especially if the candidate indicates that something has changed about their philosophy, or that they will hold off of deletion for now. But since the candidate has expressed an interest in working at CSD, my concern about deletion is serious enough that I find myself here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (Moved to support, per discussion here). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - #1 of your examples was Tavix's procedural nomination of a redirect from RFD, so you'd be best removing that. #2 and #3 are marginally notable articles which could have gone either way at AfD, and #4 is a blatantly BLP1E subject that should have been deleted - the nomination was spot on. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Coker was a star player in more than one season for more than one college and so that's not one event. See here for lots of detailed coverage which is much better than we see for many sports stubs. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a tangent to go on about specific AfDs. It is normal for an editor to personally disagree with the prevailing consensus. In those cases, the right thing to do is to participate in the discussion, voice one's opinions, and let someone else close the discussion. Nevertheless I understand Vanamonde93's concerns. As an admin who leans towards inclusionist when I do participate in a deletion discussion, I co-nominated Tavix to be an admin not because we agree on the specific applications of deletion guidelines, but because I trust him to remain impartial in gauging consensus when he chooses to close a discussion. Deryck C. 13:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Occasionally, I come across articles where the subject doesn't appear notable to me. If I still think that the subject has questionable notability after I perform a WP:BEFORE, then I'll nominate the article to get community feedback (if you can tell by my AFD stats, this only happens approximately a couple times a month.) No matter what the outcome is, there's a benefit to doing so: if the outcome is keep, at the very least, the question of "is this subject notable" gets answered. Sometimes, someone will dig up some sources that I might have missed in my search, and those sources can be used to augment the article, improving it in the process. Sometimes I'll even learn something new via an AFD, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Vincent (disambiguation) where I learned about a tool that can can be used to augment disambiguation pages. I recognize that I don't always get it "right," but as I allude to at the end of Q3, that's okay. As far as my philosophy on CSD, I'm pretty strict that a page must meet the criterion for it to be deleted via CSD. If there's any doubt in my mind that a page doesn't meet any CSD criteria, it's best to take the page to the proper XFD forum to get community feedback. This is important because there aren't many eyes watching any particular CSD'd page, especially after it's been deleted, so it's hard for someone after the fact to verify. To elaborate, I have seen admins deleting redirects with an "A" prefix criterion in the past (thankfully, not often), and that bothers me because "A" stands for "article" and redirects aren't articles. The other CSD pet peeve I have is when admins delete years old redirects via R3, when that criterion is only for recently created redirects. In that case, it's better to take it to RFD to make sure it's safe to delete (things like significant page views, old histories, or incoming links are red flags that it's not okay to delete), or use a different criterion, like G3 if it's vandalism or G10 if it's an attack. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed answer, Tavix. Clearly your opinion at AfD and the CSD criteria are two very different things. Just because there is "deletion" in both titles doesn't mean that your personal opinion on one will impact your actions on the other. Additionally, I've always thought that one should be free to take whatever (within reason) opinion they want within a Wikimedia project, so long as they are able to perform actions which reflect consensus and are within policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tavix: Thanks for a detailed response. As I explained above, my concern was not based on any single AfD. No single AfD is individually overly concerning, and I hesitate to make judgements off of individual AfDs in any case. My concern was about an overzealous interpretation of CSD criteria, given the overall AfD record, of which I merely highlighted examples. However, your answer is thoughtful enough to allay my concerns, and so I am moving my !vote. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose per Vanamonde93. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

   Just a note - Vanamonde93 has changed to support. SQL^{Query me!} 04:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

   I'm still not comfortable with the candidate and prefer to play it safe. Andrew D. (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose Respectfully, I feel that I must oppose Tavix' appointment to administrator for now. In my opinion, Wikipedia administrators need to be exemplary when it comes to communicating their point in a discussion in a way that minimizes the possibility of being negatively misinterpreted. Unfortunately, I think that Tavix' writing style is highly susceptible to being negatively misinterpreted. Reading through the discussions in Tavix' talk archives, I see several examples where people have taken offense to something that Tavix has written, or where I read a message and think that it is negative myself. Some examples:
   1. [2] A user has a sour first impression, calling Tavix' actions bullying.
   2. [3] "Well, I believe that Redirects for Discussion is a good place to discuss redirects." can be negatively interpreted. Rich Farmbrough does not seem to be offended, but I thought that it was a little confrontational to emphasize "Discussion" like that.
   3. [4] which seems to be about Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Local knowledge. Less than a month later, Si Trew is thanking Tavix for the hard work at RFD, so it appears that these two editors are on friendly terms, but it concerns me that a user's initial impression of Tavix was sour.
   4. [5] "Since it doesn't sound like you read the notability policy" is unnecessarily confrontational. To be fair, Tavix was responding to someone who had already escalated the discussion. I just wish that Tavix did not escalate further.
   5. [6] "Frankly, I don't care how instrumental you were, I am simply trying to cleanup the mess you (and others) left behind." is too aggressive.
   6. [7] "WP:BEBOLD. Read it." is borderline curt.
   7. [8] "Actually, I think it is me that has been trying to convey you, don't make yourself out to be the victim." and "I'm done arguing with you because you always seem to either miss my point or spin it around completely. I have explained my actions, take them or leave them."

   At this point, I know that I am going way back in time, and Tavix may have changed since then. I will say that I think Tavix appears to have matured and gotten better at this over time (e.g.: [9]). If Tavix becomes an administrator, I sincerely hope that he/she works on communicating himself/herself while trying to minimize the risk of appearing negative. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

   • Comment I have to disagree with D. Trebbien. No, Wikipedia admins do not have to be "exemplary". Admins are folks who are trusted by the community not to damage the project with the extra IT tools they receive. Tavix intends primarily to contribute to the project's navigation, that's where he/she excels and that's where we want to make sure he will do good and safe work. Communication skills are of course important for every Wikipedia editor, but all the examples you quoted - virtually all - are perfectly within the lines of standard editing discussions, also among admins. You seem to be looking for "a perfect man", and such don't simply exist. Worse: through such an approach as yours Wikipedia is experiencing a very severe shortage of admins. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 23:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

   This oppose isn't based on anything real. By the time I got to number 5, we were already back in 2009--and that "I don't care how instrumental you were" is in the context of an exchange with Russavia (look up the block log, dtrebbien) who threatened to call an admin and get Tavix blocked. Number 4 (also from 2009!) is addressed to someone who clearly hadn't read the notability polity despite being urged to. In number 3, Tavix was correct on the substance of the argument, and their suggestion to Simon Trew was a good suggestion; it is what Simon Trew probably should have done first. That Simon Trew maybe had a "sour" "initial impression" after being pointed out what the right course was, that's not on Tavix. Number 2, "I believe that Redirects for Discussion is a good place to discuss redirects" is factually correct and not improper, esp. since Rich Farmbrough, a seasoned editor who has been around the block more than once, was sort of trying to muscle their way through (can't blame them for that). [If anything, dtrebbien could have noticed that there's possibly a slight contradiction between Tavix in number 2 and Tavix in number 3, but it's not a big thing.] And number 1, yeah, someone who trolled a redirect "feels" like they were being bullied, but they were not being bullied. If dtrebbien had looked more carefully they would have seen that Ivanvector Twinkled a notification for M. Night Shyamalamadingdong on the victim's talk page, and Tavix followed up with a notification for M. Night Shyamalanadingdong (m/n). Note that this was the same editor who created Sam Wetback and states on their talk page, "Does anyone else here think that Wikipedia is run chiefly by losers who have nothing better to do?" I did not go back further than 2009, sorry.

   So, no, there is nothing to this. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose per D.Trebbien. Apologies but I value civility too highly to look past the examples listed. I do not value things like familiarity with AfD criteria or experience writing a featured article that much - after all, if one is an admin unfamiliar with AfD criteria or any other Wikipedia policy, one can simply do nothing and leave it to another admin. But civility is a universal thing that should already be a given, regardless of what arena one works in. I don't agree with Kashmiri's interpretation either. If admins are folks who are trusted by the community not to damage the project with the extra tools they receive, anyone who fits WP:HERE (which is most Wikipedians with a track record) would qualify to be an admin. As for how the examples are perfectly within the lines of standard editing discussions, that I think is a great reason why there are so many articles about Wikipedia in the mainstream media that criticize the environment as excessively hostile. We should try to make these examples not within the lines of standard editing discussions, not accept them. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
   • Comment @Banedon: @Dtrebbien: This is the reason that we need more admins, people with viewpoints like these are the cause of the problem. All of these examples are WP:CIVIL, none of them seem to be anything outside of normal conversation. The environment is described as hostile because of editors like you who expect everyone to be perfect! Also, adminship shouldn't be a big deal. If you are a good editor, you should be an admin, if you meet the standards.
   • Please don't do non-apology apologies, esp. not in the context of a civility discussion. Please look at the examples carefully. There was nothing "excessively hostile" about Tavix's remarks, and blaming them indirectly for what "the media" supposedly say is passive-aggressive and disingenuous. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

   • I beg to differ. First, you have disagreed with me without being rude, so it's certainly possible. Second, I have quite low standards for admins, in fact I tend to support instead of oppose (look back through the past few RfAs for example; that's also why the apology is genuine: I'm opposing instead of supporting). I'll even say that I think anyone who fits WP:HERE and WP:CIVIL can be an admin if they want to (this totally ignores things like whether the editor has written FAs or AfD participation etc). In that sense yes, I agree adminship isn't a big deal. But I value WP:CIVIL as sacrosanct. Finally, you may not feel Tavix's remarks were excessively hostile, but I do. If directed at me they are possibly sufficient for me to stop interacting with Tavix entirely (this has already happened with another admin I won't name). I do not see why you think associating it with what the media says about Wikipedia is disingenuous, because as far as I can see this is the exact kind of behaviour that the media is referring to, and a big part of the reason why men make up the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia for that matter. Can you explain? Banedon (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

   @Banedon: It's because they are all WP:CIVIL. If he said this to me, I would not be offended. This isn't insulting women or anything, so I don't see why you think this dissuades women. Also, most editors who were eventually desysoped for not being civil didn't have problems raised about civility in their RFA's, like this desysopped admin and this desysopped admin. He isn't really being rude, just strict. I don't see any reason why he wouldn't make a good admin. Although they are strict, they are not insulting, just what he felt was the right response. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   @ThePlatypusofDoom: How do you know about those cases? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   I'm sorry but I'm completely unconvinced. Examples quoted are not just strict, they are rude. You may find it acceptable, but I do not, which is why I am opposing. Banedon (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   @Banedon: I just wanted to show you this and point out the fallacy that your argument stands on with what Drmies said "This oppose isn't based on anything real. By the time I got to number 5, we were already back in 2009--and that "I don't care how instrumental you were" is in the context of an exchange with Russavia (look up the block log, dtrebbien) who threatened to call an admin and get Tavix blocked. Number 4 (also from 2009!) is addressed to someone who clearly hadn't read the notability polity despite being urged to. In number 3, Tavix was correct on the substance of the argument, and their suggestion to Simon Trew was a good suggestion; it is what Simon Trew probably should have done first. That Simon Trew maybe had a "sour" "initial impression" after being pointed out what the right course was, that's not on Tavix. Number 2, "I believe that Redirects for Discussion is a good place to discuss redirects" is factually correct and not improper, esp. since Rich Farmbrough, a seasoned editor who has been around the block more than once, was sort of trying to muscle their way through (can't blame them for that). [If anything, dtrebbien could have noticed that there's possibly a slight contradiction between Tavix in number 2 and Tavix in number 3, but it's not a big thing.] And number 1, yeah, someone who trolled a redirect "feels" like they were being bullied, but they were not being bullied. If dtrebbien had looked more carefully they would have seen that Ivanvector Twinkled a notification for M. Night Shyamalamadingdong on the victim's talk page, and Tavix followed up with a notification for M. Night Shyamalanadingdong (m/n). Note that this was the same editor who created Sam Wetback and states on their talk page, "Does anyone else here think that Wikipedia is run chiefly by losers who have nothing better to do?" I did not go back further than 2009, sorry."Reiva Xela (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

   @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Because I read the archives. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

4. Oppose reluctantly, because I appreciate the work Tavix does and I would normally support any trustworthy candidate, even if they wanted to work in just a few areas. However, I was dismayed by his statement that "I simply have the opinion that someone with editing restrictions shouldn't be granted the tools." Editing restrictions may be applied for all sorts of reasons and many trustworthy admins have had restrictions placed on them. None of that should automatically make them unworthy of being an admin. RfAs need to be decided on an individual basis and I can't support while I remain worried about an attitude that prejudges a candidate by a criterion that does not correlate with the qualities we should be seeking in admins. --RexxS (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   RexxS, I'm a bit surprised that Tavix didn't see fit to quality that statement. You may be perceived as picking on one little thing, but blanket statements are rarely little things. I might still add my support, but thank you for raising a valid point--as we get older and accumulate grime and rust, many of us may pick up restrictions in one area or another which don't necessarily disallow us from being productive in other areas. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

   @Drmies: I am probably being too harsh on Tavix - and I'm sure my opposition won't affect the outcome - but hopefully Travix will reflect on my concerns and perhaps modify his stance somewhat. We really don't want to make adminship into a bigger deal than it already is. --RexxS (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

5. Per RexxS. It is worth recognising that restrictions are generally instituted selectively and at other times for no good reason (take Gerda). Realistically, many admins should be restricted from blocking. Izkala (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   I'm reinforcing my opposition after seeing them cite WP:ROPE. Disgraceful. Izkala (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   Can you clarify what is disgraceful about citing WP:ROPE?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   You can check the talk page of WP:ROPE, where a bunch of assholes repeatedly dismiss everybody who thought the analogy was offensive and uncongenial because the idea of it being offensive, offends their liberal sensibilities. Izkala (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

   I don't really think that's fair. I agree that WP:ROPE is offensive (for reasons that don't even get articulated frequently – especially, because it's has an in-built assumption of bad faith – and I'm much less concerned by hand-wringing like "someone might think it's some kind of suicide reference" or whatever). But Tavix didn't write it, and it's been a community norm, at least in ANI/AN/AE circles, to cite it frequently. If consensus were against it, it would be MfD'ed or otherwise dealt with, and this has not (yet?) happened. This "WP:ROPE is cool/normal" attitude is gradually shifting, but keep in mind that the alternative essay, WP:TIGER has not been around long, and it takes quite a while for insider lingo to shift. Plenty of people still try to cite WP:DICK and WP:DIVA, unaware (or stubbornly resistant to the fact) that these have been turned into soft redirects and are deprecated. The efforts to tone those pages down and move them to less offensive names has in both cases been a nearly monumental task, generally buried under cries that a bunch of libtards are trying to censor everyone with their damned political correctness and [insert more hateful fist-shaking here]. It's no surprise that efforts to clean up WP:ROPE have not been an instant success (if anything, fans of that kind of "FIFO" manifesto have been painted into a corner – the only pages they have left are WP:ROPE (which should just be replaced with WP:TIGER), and parts of WP:COMPETENCE, which needs to be cleansed of "it's okay to imply people are mentally deficient to make a point" material. So, dealing with WP:ROPE will take longer and require more effort and patience. A consequence chain of this is that the page has not gone away, people still cite it frequently, and it thus is still part of the everyday community norm-sphere to refer to it. I don't think the candidate should be pilloried for not being in the exact "great right" place yet on every single essay anyone's ever written on Wikipedia. I've cited WP:ROPE myself, back when.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

   You're of course forgetting WP:NOTTHERAPY, the greatest jewel of them all. Until very recently, and I kid you not, it contained the following, err, nugget: "Nevertheless, editors who engage in disruptive or antisocial behavior may be blocked or banned without regard for their mental health". Yes, somebody really did write down those exact words. No, seriously. They did. Anyway, point taken, but I think a potential admin ought to demonstrate awareness of these really quite deeply-ingrained community biases. It is a matter of identifying privilege more broadly and being constantly mindful of how that affects your interactions with other people. Izkala (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

   I encourage y'all to read, on the talk of WP:ROPE, "For the inveterate good-faith assumers: the optimist's guide", and to never quote WP:ROPE even if it's not deleted. We have better ways of interaction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

   WP:TIGER is a keen essay, and one I hadn't encountered before, but I'm pretty sure you meant WP:STRIPES instead. —Cryptic 08:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

   Oh cool, I never knew there was an alternative essay. I never really liked the metaphor, but thought the message behind it was good enough to look past it. WP:STRIPES is much better and I've edited my answer to use that one instead of WP:ROPE and will quote that essay in the future instead. -- Tavix ^(talk) 08:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral/seriously leaning oppose - At least he's man enough to admit he has absolutely no experience dealing with the vandalism side of administration. While vandalism is a major part of administration and I would expect a candidate for adminship to feel comfortable at least providing an opinion on a matter (even if they (s)he wouldn't be comfortable handling it him/herself and would seek a second opinion), I would rather someone who doesn't know what they're doing with it to not mess with it than to do something damaging. I'm not saying deletions aren't also an important part of adminship, but I am saying a sysop, in my opinion, should at least have a basic understanding of policy regarding some of the buttons they would be receiving access to. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day.} 20:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Changed to support.

@PCHS-NJROTC: It looks like I partially misunderstood what you were asking. I read the question as a "what would you do if..." and from your response, it looks like you're simply trying to gauge my understanding of policy. I'll add an addendum to my answer going through each of the situations shortly, my apologies for misunderstanding you. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course, combating vandalism is just one of many functions admins perform, and most admins tend to focus on one or two areas, which may or may not include fighting vandalism. If you see that as a strong enough need in general that you want all new admins to commit to it, that's your prerogative. But an admin can't be everything to everyone, and I'm glad Tavix can realistically assess where his strengths are, and be humble enough to defer to others in areas he's less familiar with. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

1. neutral - I have no opinion at this time, just the observation that about 1/6th of the user's edits are 'automated'. This percentage does not give me the pause that some other RFA's do. My advice is to resist the temptation for automation. Especially as an admin. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Neutral Pending answer to Q 9 above.  ;-) Leaning support per Drmies. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Editor is very experienced, but with many admin editors becoming bossy and trigger happy with new editors who annoy them when they make a questionable edit or suspect them of being a WP:DUCK, my further opinion is pending. Hendry Little (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Neutral the oppose rationale cited by RexxS persuades me not to support at this stage. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• I see I have been mentioned above.
• User:Tavix and I are on "friendly terms" in the sense that we both work very hard at WP:RFD and we both kinda know each other's "style". In no way do we always agree on what to do with a redirect and very often we are in opposition to what to do with it, we work together to achieve WP:CONSENSUS but we come from different angles so that is just good for making the encylopaedia better to have different points of view. I feel that Tavix would make an excellent admin. I would not, I am a great right hand man but have never been good at that kind of thing, that is why I lurk at places like RfD because doing the gnomework and knowing all the bits and pieces and have a good memory so can quote things without needing to look them up, I am very good at, I would be an awful admin, but Tavix would be a great one.

Tavix is an excellent judge. When you say "on friendly terms" I have never met Tavix in real life, I do not know what Tavix' real name is, I don't know if Tavix is male or female, I don't think I have even looked at Tavix' user page for all I know he or she may have twenty cats and live in Trump Towers.

"On friendly terms" is just that we don't have to shout at each other at RfD even when we disagree we can be WP:CIVIL. Tavix would make an excellent admin. I wholly approve of Tavix' application for admin. I don't know how the admin rights can be dispensed these days but even if Tavix was given limited rights, at first, to deal with deleting redirects, as a kinda what's the word learning curve is not quite right, that would be an absolutely great help to the Wikipedia project and to everyone over at WP:RFD. I Wholly endorse Tavix' application for admin. I will probably go to RfD and find something that Tavix and I disagree on right now but that is exactly the point, this user is civil, treats others with civility, makes his or her point clearly (more than I do), and absolutely deserves to be an admin. I cannot put it more strongly.

To be absolutely plain User:Tavix has not WP:CANVASSed me in any way I only "know" the user from WP:RFD. But this user's exemplary behaviour and diligence there is enough, I believe, to say yes, this user should be an admin even at first with limited "rights". As I say, not being one myself, I have no idea how admin "rights" are dished out. Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This is actually the first time I have heard of this request for adminship. There is definitely no WP:CANVASSing going on here or at least if there is I am so insignificant I wasn't asked! Si Trew (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think User:Rich Farmbrough's comments should be taken in the context that there is a vested interest or conflict of interest there which can be looked into more deeply by others (request for de-admin, anyone?) Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: if your intent is to support or oppose the candidate, the general convention is to add a numbered !vote in the appropriate section above. RfA often functions as a straw poll: total vote counts matter even though they're not supposed to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:} my intention is to support but I only got wind of this because I was mentioned in a conversation above, before that I did not have an idea Tavix was even applying to be an admin. This is the clean hands doctrine so I am coming with clean hands as an independent witness if you see what I mean. Having now set my stall I did not want to move the conversation up to that section because I thought it might look a bit dubious and I should prefer if someone else did it, but yes I fully support this user becoming an admin. Will be a great one. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Not to the point. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@SimonTrew: I had not commented here prior to being notified by being mentioned, exactly as you were. Nor have I been in conflict with Travix in any way. I support his RfA. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC). @Rich Farmbrough: I must admit I was using you as a bit of an aunt sally in the argument above because and I am going from memory I think you de-admined and took off I forget the name of the bot (User:SmackBot) it was a good bot with a bloody huge stop button because you were in good faith so that anyone could stop it. We've had our run-ins over the years but I think always in good faith and I am being a bit of a fall guy now for going through all the Neelix redirects. I would put this at your talk page but I think it deserves to be said in public, Rich Farmbrough has edited and improved the wikipedia over many many years and we have had our run-ins and always sorted them out amicably. That's how we do it I come from one angle. Rich comes from another. Tavix comes from a third. We essentially get WP:CONSENSUS and we make the encylopaedia better, at least I hope we do. Si Trew (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Ugh, Rich, I need to put this plainly. When I said "Rich Farmbrough's comments" these were plainly not the comments on this discussion. These were in links to previous discussions and so on at which you had a hand (that is probably why you finaly got a mention). So what? You argue vigorously, you set out your stall, you lay your cards down, and we get WP:CONSENSUS. Now I can see why Rich was eventually notified. It would have been the merest of politesse to let Rich or me know that they have been kinda swindled into a discussion they had no knowledge of. Si Trew (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Simon Trew, I'll put this plainly: this section is a distraction. You weren't swindled into anything: someone pinged you. I'm going to close as much of this as I can, and I'll ask a crat to move your comment (for which I thank you on behalf of Tavix) to the "support" stack. Rich Farmbrough, always nice to see you. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2016 (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.