Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Aervanath: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:10, 10 November 2008 editPixelface (talk | contribs)12,801 edits →Oppose: oppose← Previous edit Revision as of 15:12, 10 November 2008 edit undoScott MacDonald (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,363 edits 20Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
===]=== ===]===
<span class="plainlinks">''''''</span> (]) <span class="plainlinks">''''''</span> (])
'''(47/19/3); Scheduled to end 12:35, ] ] (UTC)''' '''(47/20/3); Scheduled to end 12:35, ] ] (UTC)'''


{{User|Aervanath}} – One of the issues that has brought me to oppose people in the past has been the lack of substantive article building, it's an area that I generally find very important (primarily in vandal fighters) because it represents a person who knows what it means to put one's heart into the project only to have somebody tag or delete their work. Yet here I am nominating a candidate with minimal article building experience, so what is the difference? Well, the biggest difference is that my expectation isn't really for article work, but rather something wherein the candidate contributes to building the encyclopedia and Aervanath does that. Generally, people who lack article building experience are vandal fighters or fill particular niches. Aervanath is the later. Aervanath has a proven track record of discussing policy and procedures. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with his stances, one doesn't have to look far to realize that he has a ] Which leads me to the other big difference between Aervanath and the typical person without article building experience, Aervanath does his edits manually, which means that people can see how he thinks. {{User|Aervanath}} – One of the issues that has brought me to oppose people in the past has been the lack of substantive article building, it's an area that I generally find very important (primarily in vandal fighters) because it represents a person who knows what it means to put one's heart into the project only to have somebody tag or delete their work. Yet here I am nominating a candidate with minimal article building experience, so what is the difference? Well, the biggest difference is that my expectation isn't really for article work, but rather something wherein the candidate contributes to building the encyclopedia and Aervanath does that. Generally, people who lack article building experience are vandal fighters or fill particular niches. Aervanath is the later. Aervanath has a proven track record of discussing policy and procedures. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with his stances, one doesn't have to look far to realize that he has a ] Which leads me to the other big difference between Aervanath and the typical person without article building experience, Aervanath does his edits manually, which means that people can see how he thinks.

Revision as of 15:12, 10 November 2008

Aervanath

Voice your opinion (talk page) (47/20/3); Scheduled to end 12:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Aervanath (talk · contribs) – One of the issues that has brought me to oppose people in the past has been the lack of substantive article building, it's an area that I generally find very important (primarily in vandal fighters) because it represents a person who knows what it means to put one's heart into the project only to have somebody tag or delete their work. Yet here I am nominating a candidate with minimal article building experience, so what is the difference? Well, the biggest difference is that my expectation isn't really for article work, but rather something wherein the candidate contributes to building the encyclopedia and Aervanath does that. Generally, people who lack article building experience are vandal fighters or fill particular niches. Aervanath is the later. Aervanath has a proven track record of discussing policy and procedures. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with his stances, one doesn't have to look far to realize that he has a clue. Which leads me to the other big difference between Aervanath and the typical person without article building experience, Aervanath does his edits manually, which means that people can see how he thinks.

Aervanath is a niche contributor, and people who know me, know that I like nominating niche candidates. While vandal fighting candidates are a dime a dozen, it is the niche candidate that brings a different perspective to the project. It is the niches were we need different sets of eyes, and people with the bit may overlook. Aervanath contributes to a virtually unknown area: The Orphanage The Orphanage is a Wikiproject that attempts to ensure all articles are adequately linked. In other words, Aervanath does contribute to the development of the project---just not in a stereotypical manner. There are reasons a person working the Orphanage might need the tools, but I'll let Aervanath explain them.

When I asked Aervanath about conflicts or other potential issues that he thought might endanger an RfA, Aervanath mentioned three things. 1) A case where he was a little bity but that is almost 2 years old, so I think enough time has passed that it isn't an issue. 2) He also mentioned a dispute with a well respected editor (but one with a reputation) related to links in articles. Looking at the discussion, I found Aervanath's behavior in the discussion was civil and courteous despite some serious allegations. That he distanced himself from the debate when the other editor started to make it personal and that others sided with him has to be taken as a positive. 3) About a month ago an admin, User:Cirt informed Aervanath about the essay pertaining to non-admin closures at XfD. Cirt wanted to let Aervanath know some people object to non-admin closures of non-unanimous XfD's. In his note, Cirt wrote, Though I tend to think your closure assessment was correct, might be best to leave these types of drawn-out discussions for others. Though so far your judgment seems pretty good, so I'll leave that up to you. While he wasn't an admin, I found myself agreeing with his decisions as well.

The biggest reason, however, that I think Aervanath deserves the bit is because he is already an admin---we just need to make it official! A quick look at Aevanath's talk page will show you somebody who is civil and thoughtful. A person that people come to seeking guidance and help. When I see people who are sought out by others, that IMHO, is the most important factor in granting the bit. Of course, the fact that he responds to help request is also a boon.---Balloonman 02:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: After that glowing recommendation, I have to accept.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well, as Balloonman said, I do mainly focus on WikiProject Orphanage. The admin tools wouldn't really help in directly de-orphaning articles, except for the occasional CSD candidate that I come across during my orphan scanning. However, it would allow me to support the project by personally contributing to the maintainence of {{orphan}}, {{articleissues}}, and other fully-protected templates that are associated with the project. I think I'd start helping out with {{editprotected}} requests, as well, since it's a logical extension of my CAT:ESP patrolling. As I do some responding to {{helpme}} templates as well, I'd probably also start tracking {{adminhelp}} requests. In addition, I've also started contributing at WP:Requested moves recently, and that's an area that could use another admin.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: This is a really hard question for me to answer, because I have never taken anything to Featured or even Good status, and I don't by nature stick around one particular topic of article, so there's nothing concrete that I can point to and say "Hey! I did that." I don't really think of myself as a wikignome, but I guess that best describes my work. That said, I'm proud of the way the WikiProject Orphanage page looks now, as I've taken the main responsibility for maintaining it over the last 6 months. I would be proud of how many articles I've de-orphaned, but I don't actually know, and I've never bothered to count, so it's probably not as high as it feels like, and there's so many orphaned articles I feel like I shouldn't brag about that.
I'm also proud of the non-admin closures I've performed over the last few months, with a record of exactly zero being taken to WP:Deletion review.
But I think my best contribution to Misplaced Pages has been assisting other users. My work as an account creator, requested moves clerk, and CAT:HELPME monitor all help the encyclopedia by helping my fellow editors, and that's what makes it worth it for me. I'm not a great researcher, but being able to make it so the actual researchers and writers can get on with their work is, for me, a worthwhile goal.
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: The conflict that caused me the greatest stress was when I was accused of trying to "ruin" the encyclopedia. I don't actually think that Tony and I are all that far apart on the correct amount of linking, and now that I go back and review that discussion without the immediacy it had then, I see that he wasn't being as WP:POINTy as it felt like then, but that really made me angry. I think any of us would get hot under the collar with that sort of accusation. I at first responded civilly, but later got a little huffy. I kind of wish I'd dropped if before that, but I did in fact drop it, so I don't feel like I was complete m:dick. Basically what I got out of that experience was that sometimes it's best to step back from the situation and go do something else to get perspective back. If I find myself getting really steamed about something, I know that's the time to go take my dog for a walk.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Dlohcierekim Hello, Aervanath. Thank you for submitting your RFA. You may remove or not answer this question if you so choose.

4. When you look at speedy deletion candidates, do you search for sourcing and verifiability? Or do you consider the article entirely on its merits as it sits?
A: I consider the article as it relates directly to the speedy deletion criteria. For most items, this has nothing to do with sourcing or verifiability. For criteria A7 and A9, which have to do with notability, I will do a quick Google search for the topic to ensure my suspicions. I've been surprised a few times that something that seemed on surface to be completely non-notable turned out to have quite a few potential sources. If it does, then I will add a referenced sentence or two to the article to ensure nobody else comes along and re-tags it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional follow up questions from Dlohcierekim

5. In dealing with the other classes of CSD nominees, do you check for sources to see that a plausible sounding is in fact not vandalism or a hoax?
A: Looking back, I think my answer to the last question was probably too narrow. In general, when considering an article for deletion, by whatever route, if the article looks plausible then I will look for sources. Since hoaxes aren't eligible for CSD, I would PROD it or send it to AFD if I couldn't find any other sources. Vandalism is certainly eligible for CSD, but if an article looks plausible enough to prompt me to look for sources, it is probably not outright vandalism, and therefore not eligible for CSD.
6. In looking at unsourced articles, do you seek and add sourcing whenever possible?
A: Usually I'll go and try to find a few sources to back up the notability of the topic. If it's not a topic I'm interested in, then I won't spend the time to add inline <ref> tags, but I will put them into a references section for other editors to dig deeper into.
7. Why have you have removed speedy deletion tags with the edit summary " speedy declined," giving the impression that you are already an admin?
A: I use that edit summary because I thought that was the done thing, regardless of whether you're an admin or not. I generally try to use edit summaries that I've seen commonly used so that there's no ambiguity about my edits. "Speedy declined" is only two words, and it very concisely describes my edit, so it seemed very natural for me to use it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Aervanath, it is appropriate to give some sort of explanation why. I'll typically add at least something like "important company & seems not exclusively promotional & can be improved" or whatever fits the situation. As an admin, it will help to always explain what you're doing. The person who placed the speedy deserves at least some kind of indication. DGG (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Balloonman

8. A lot has been made from the fact that your article building experience is limited, yet you have over 2300 (40%) edits in the mainspace. Can you explain what it is that you do in the mainspace? Can you provide some examples of some of the challenges that you've encountered working there? And finally, of those 2300 edits, what percentage are manual as compared to tools?
A. Well, the last question is easiest. According to SQL's editcounter, I have 141 edits using various scripts. Not all of those are in mainspace, so probably less than 100 edits in mainspace are script-assisted out of that 2300. As to what I do, here's a typical sequence of events, as illustrated by a case study, 2008 Sydney snowfall:
  1. I find the article and add some sources.
  2. I go back some time later and remove a section of original research that isn't supported by the sources.
  3. I perform a minor fix or two .
  4. I either find some other articles that should link to this article, or find that it already passes the orphan criteria, so I remove the orphan tag.
Some other typical edits: responding to an editsemiprotected request, making minor contributions to the Ted Stevens page , and responding to requests at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves ]. You'll also see me removing copyrighted material from articles.. It's nice when you realize that there's actually something salvageable about the article.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Optional questions from Aitias
9. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. Yes. If the page is obviously vandalism, or a copyright violation, then that would be a reason to ignore the hangon tag.
10. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. I would look through the applicant's contributions looking for some evidence of vandal-fighting. If it's there, and there aren't frivolous reverts, then I would grant it.
11. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Misplaced Pages?
A. Very rarely. According to our criteria, the picture would have to be irreplaceable. For example, a picture of a person with a distinctive look for which they became known, but they no longer look like that. For example, if Marilyn Manson were 80 years old now, and living in an old-folks home, then a picture of him in full make-up at the height of his career would probably qualify, as long as there were no free equivalent.
12. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
A. In the situation you describe, it seems clear that there is no real conflict of interest. Vandalism is vandalism, whether it's on my userpage or not. I would block the IP, and then report at WP:ANI that I'd done so. This way, if another admin feels the block was improper, it could be quickly reversed. It would have to be clear vandalism of my userpage, though. If I felt there was any way that somebody else might think it wasn't vandalism, then I would report it to AIV so someone uninvolved could act.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Aervanath before commenting.

Discussion

Moving great discussion relating to necessity of article building to main RFA talk page. Strongly encourage those who are interested or feel it is necessary to discuss there and to read discussion before !voting here. Copied also to this RFA's talk page... but I think the discussion should continue on the Main RfA talk page, as it has wider implications than one RfA.---Balloonman 20:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Every one of our very best admins, with no exceptions that I can see, are at least moderate content creators. Many are mainly process janitors - but almost none exclusively so. In fact, if you examine all the admins that the community gave support to in arbcom elections, all have serious content contributions. (Indeed all of our present arbs have done major content work). The problem is that people who do content a lot, seldom have the time to hang about here, and so it is the people who do who set the criteria, based on their own interests. I'd frankly like to ban anyone who has not some limited level of content experience from being an admin - the project would certainly benefit. Editor first, janitor second. Someone said "Some just like supporting more than creating" - absolutely fine by me. But not participating in content contributions at all, or almost at all, is not. Admins need clue, an ability to communicate in English, a grasp of NPOV, an ability to recognise what's good content from what's not. Now tell me why on earth would anyone possess all those skills, and hang about an encyclopedia for months on end, and never contribute content????? Now, maybe there could be the odd person who has those skills and doesn't ever use them to build content, but we are constantly seeing such candidates at RfA (and we are seeing them all support one another). I find this strange and worrying. Now again note, I am only looking for very minimal content relating to article building, the sort of thing most people with the skill base needed to be an admin would find themselves doing almost accidentally if they spent months on this project. How can you view thousands of articles and never once use want to your skillset to substantially build the content of at least one? I find the easiest explanation to be that the user does not, in fact, possess the skills needed to be a good admin. The skills of a content builder and the skills of a good admin are somewhat commensurate.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
See discussion at wt:rfa---Balloonman 23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Support
  1. Absolutely! I was just wondering what was taking you so long to apply for adminship. All my encounters with you have been positive, and you really do put a lot of effort into some of the more neglected areas of the encyclopedia. I'm confident you'll do great with admin tools. ~ mazca 12:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Excellent nom, Balloonman! Sam 12:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support, good contributor. -- Mentisock 12:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support clean block log, good contributions where they are needed, good nominator; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy 13:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Aervanath and I had a recent exchange about two articles which needed to be merged. S/he had a solid grasp of how Misplaced Pages worked. While Aervanath asked me to do the merge, s/he had a pleasant tone while explaining that that s/he didn't have the background to do the merge (I had enough background). Royalbroil 13:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    To clarify, background on the subject, not background on how to merge the articles ;-) ---Balloonman 15:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    You're right, I meant background on the subject/topic, so thanks for the clarification. Royalbroil 19:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Herm, thought he was an admin already. Best of luck. —Ceran 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support With a nod to the oppose regarding content creation, but on balance a net positive. Pedro :  Chat  14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Adminship is not about article writing but about cleaning up. So there is no reason to deny the tools to a good contributor. SoWhy 14:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    From another point of view: its about cleaning up other people's article writing, though.--Banime (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    Adminship is not cleaning up other people's article writing. Not at all. Tan | 39 17:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - I can see that he/she is an avid Wikipedian and has been working hard. He/She deserves Adminship :) DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support - I've never met this user before, but looking at his contribs and nomination - I'm very impressed. iMatthew 17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Good contribs. America69 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    Support - No reason not to trust this user. — neuro 18:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Debating over stance, no longer support, not sure if I should neutral or oppose. — neuro 02:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support. Though I wish you would have taken my suggestion to get some article building experience first. Good luck anyway! Malinaccier (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    Weak Support - niche candidate. WP:WTHN. Cheers, RockManQ 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Switching to Neutral
  14. Support - Niche candidate is always cool. Article building doesn't have to be there if the user can point out clue levels. And the user seems trustworthy. Enough in my book. NuclearWarfare My work 19:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support as candidate has never been blocked (I would not always hold blocks against editors as if you are around long enough someone might accidentally block you or block you in bad faith, but never being blocked is a good sign perhaps) and also as any of the discussions in which we both participated the candidate seemed reasonable enough that I would probably trust judgment in closing discussions. --A Nobody 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - I don't care if the candidate has article work, but I do care for the maintenance this user does. macy 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - Very good contributor. Good luck for the adminship. ApprenticeFan (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  18. Admins do not need to have work creating articles. Creating articles and doing admin work are two completely different skill sets. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  19. Yes Article creation is one important way to understand how this place works enough to push the buttons, but it certainly isn't the only one. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support per the Why Not? Doctrine - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. I am not convinced by the opposition. bibliomaniac15 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support any editor can validly remove a speedy tag except the creator of the article--see WP:CSD, the italics at the top. I consider practice at this excellent preparation for adminship, because it lets us see the quality of the decision-making. Looking, I think he's been doing OK here. DGG (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support A civil, good faith contributor, but I still think I'm right about the "orphan" template though... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  25. Strong support - Trust this user + WP:WTHN --Flewis 02:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Article writing isn't a very important skill for an admin, other topics should be looked at as more important, which he succeds in. Voyaging 03:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  27. Weak support. Although I do like to see more article building from candidates, overall, I trust the candidate will properly handle the tools. DiverseMentality 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support The user is well experienced, and the only strong point brought up by the opposition is lack of article building. Even though Aervanath hasn't created many articles and doesn't have any GAs or FAs under his name, he obviously has a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies. He has also made very valuable contributions in maintaining Misplaced Pages, which I think has made up more than enough for the lack of article building. I think this experience and a good understanding of policy is what's gong to help him as an admin, not creating articles. He should definitely get the mop. Chamal 03:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 03:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  30. Weak support: WTHN ? But plz promise to work more on article building -- Tinu Cherian - 04:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    I've already started.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Perfect . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 05:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support per nom. Experienced user, no problems. Verbal chat 09:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support - THEREISMORE so keep up the good behind-the-scenes work. ~ User:Ameliorate! 10:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support, the oppose camp's main argument that you have only a limited amount of edits flawed, in my opinion. Yes, it is important that those elected to be Administrators should have some experience, and be serious about there contributions, but I think that quality is more important here than quantity. Editors who contribute to a limited range of articles but contribute well and provide high-quality information, are worth far more to any encyclopedia than just someone who builds up his edit count with hundreds of minor grammar corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.Marlow (talk • contribs) 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support, my natural inclination would be to oppose as the process of article building creates "a person who knows what it means to put one's heart into the project only to have somebody tag or delete their work." (see nom) but the candidate seems to understand this principal(see answers to question 8) and contributes some references to articles created by others rather than just adding a template and leaving others to do the legwork Mjchesnel (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  35. support - Garion96 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - My personal opinion is that a maintaining an encyclopedia and building an encyclopedia can be kept separate. If you can do both, excellent but if not, never mind. I have no objections to this user becoming an admin. Ollie Fury Contribs 18:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support - Checks out for me...but a bit more article editing would help! Cheers. Imperat§ r 18:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Seems more than fit for the role.--Koji† 20:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support - this candidate can be trusted. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support His work shows he will make good. Article work is not required a lot. — JoJo • Talk • 21:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support Just because Aervanath doesn't write a lot of articles we should not get all carried away and start saying this editor isn't a contributor. Writing the content in articles is merely one way to contribute constructively to this project. Knowing how to correctly block someone doesn't require extensive article writing experience. Aervanath has shown that we can trust him/her with the mop. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Em, please do study what the opposes are actually saying. I would not oppose on the grounds that he "doesn't write a lot of articles" - it is the fact he's written virtually nothing. The bar here, for me, is extremely low.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  42. Weak support admins really should have some content creation experience and so it was with that in mind that I set out to find more reasons to oppose this editor yesterday, but my search came up bare (except for a few minor lapses in judgment that failed to show any worrisome pattern) so I guess I will go with a weak support as IMHO article lack of article writing is not a sturdy enough pillar to support a whole Oppose. Icewedge (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support per WP:WTHN. Content creation is not part of the role of admins, and so admins should not have to be content creators. Terraxos (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support Why not.--intraining 02:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support- I'm not concerned about the lack of article writing. As I said in another RfA, Misplaced Pages is a big place that requires, unfortunately, that people spend time on things other than writing articles. Aervanath, from what I can see, is involved in doing some of these things and does a good job. This user would be a gain to the 'pedia if given the tools, and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned. It would be a different matter if there was some sort of correlation between a user's lack of article contributions and their likelyhood of going rogue and abusing the tools, but there isn't. Reyk YO! 09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    The only way to ensure that admins don't fall prey to WP:Adminitis is by making sure that they engage in article writing. Many admins are busy socializing, telling others what to do, and they have no time DYK, GA or FA. This has a negative impact on Misplaced Pages. And the only way to ensure that an editor understands the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages (such as WP:N) is by analyzing their article work. Thus it is important for editors to write articles before they become admins. AdjustShift (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support I acknowledge the oppose !votes, most of which are perfectly reasonable and logical reasons to oppose an RfA candidate. But I believe this user's access to the buttons will be of benefit to the project with little or no possibility of misuse. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support Although I agree with the reasoning of the opposes, and although I've disagreed with Aervanath on several style issues, Aervanath's mainspace edits, his instincts, and his temperament tell me he's not going to be a bad admin. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support - WTHN, "it's not a big deal" and THEREISMORE all describe what I think. Cheers, —Ed 17 14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Lack of article work. Sorry, I don't demand a FA, GA or even a DYK, but I do think admins need to have some idea about the frustrations of content creation. If you can't point to a few articles that you've made some significant contributions to, then I can't support. Respectfully suggest that you get a little (I don't ask for much) content experience and then return. Doing layout on some wikiproject just isn't comparable. Being mainly a process admin is fine, being exclusively one is not so. Do9n't be discouraged, please try content editing and then come back. You might even like it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Reluctantly, you have good contributions in your area but I also like to see a decent amount of article writing from admins. Usually Balloonman does as well so I took an extra hard look at your contributions when he nominated you but I still can't really see any of the amount of work that I like to see with admins in articles. I'm sure in a few months I'd support (if this one doesn't make it), good luck. --Banime (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per surprisingly too poor content building of the candidate. You only created "6 short stubs" for two years (on and off though) that seriously require your attention first before inviting people to your party here. An admin willing to dedicate to niche areas for keeping Misplaced Pages clean and healthy? Well, you're determined to "clean" articles to which many editors may devote their time and energy for some amount of time. The user page of the candidate introduces his/her "earlier contributions" (June 2008 -.-;;) to creation of two articles; Modesto Varischetti, David Woolf Marks. If I were the candidate, I would not even mention the stubs on his/her page with just two lines and "huge warning template(s)" hung at the top of the pages. At at least s/he should've expanded them yesterday if s/he thought of the RfA seriously. Why does content building so matter to admin wannabees? Because as we look trough your created/expanded/edited articles, we can see whether you understand core content policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR along with WP:NOTABLILITY, WP:CITE, WP:DUE, and others. I could not be convinced that you do so per your articles. I'm not also satisfied with your AFD activities, especially at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur M. Dula You said you just nominated for deletion on behalf of an IP user instead of letting it be PRODed. Before bring it up to AfD space, you should've checked that the IP user's idea of "lack of notability" was correct. I'm also not sure why you thought of Unspeakable Vault (of Doom) failing to notability guidelines (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unspeakable Vault (of Doom)). I can't support you at this time because I don't know what is your strength to have the admin tools. Vandal fighting and de-orphanage? Well huggle is a good tool made for the purpose and for the latter, you don't need the admin tools.--Caspian blue 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Sorry. A lack of both article-writing and admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    Hey there Epbr, I was able to over look the article building explicitly because I did see admin related experience. He has a fair amount of experience dealing with policy discussions and debates. He is also sought out for his advice and intercession. To me, this is the most important factor a potential admin can possess. Do people trust him to help out? Do they seek him out? If they do, then they are IMHO an admin and act in an adminly manner.---Balloonman 18:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose — Sorry, I think an administrator needs to have editing work under his/her belt before applying for adminship. If you gain just a little experience (I'm not asking for GAs, FAs or DYKs, just experience) then I'll be willing to support this otherwise exceptional candidate in future. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Lack of article work. AdjustShift (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. A few clearly erroneous AFDs could be outweighed by enough positive contribution of content, but in this case they aren't. — CharlotteWebb 22:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, switched from Neutral Reasons provided below in Neutral section, strengthened by the cogent arguments made by the Oppose camp. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. The recommendation offered by the nominator (and the candidate's cheerful acceptance of it as "glowing") troubles me. A proven track record of discussing policy and procedures, without actually writing the encyclopedia, means clue? No, no, and no. Not in my book. Please get down and dirty in the encyclopedia first, Aervanath, and then I will take another look at your candidacy. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
  10. Oppose. This is an encyclopedia where we above all are supposed to be writing articles. If you show a dedication to adding content and get the important experience in WP policy that it entails, I may vote for you in the future.--Berig (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Sorry, absolutely nothing personal, but I believe fundamental questions of credibility are being touched here. Admins should have a record of article creation as a matter of principle. I don't want editors to suffer possibly unpleasant consequences of admin actions by someone who has not enough experience as an author. As the nominator mentioned, the candidate already is an admin in a way and does a commendable job. While the extra buttons might assist in that kind of work, I do not see a real need for them. Adminship is not a decoration. Kosebamse (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Per lack of article work. --Folantin (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  13. Strong oppose. Scott MacDonald and Bishonen sum my view up perfectly. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. – iridescent 16:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Switching to strong oppose per this. If you had admin powers, this user would now be blocked for "being called Fullyang which is also the name of a website". (Number of edits to anything remotely related to said site – or anything else for that matter – zero.) – iridescent 17:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Misplaced Pages in an encyclopedia. We're all here to build it. If you can't, (even to some small degree, ie creating a non-stub or non-maintenance-tag-page or even expanding a stub to a respectable start class article) well you don't belong. Moral support You seem like a decent enough candidate. As I see that you have potential in article work, I'll be looking out for it. While I don't think it is time yet, I think you will be sucessfull on RFA #2 (if you do indeed start working on articles, which I don't doubt you will do.) ~the editorofthewiki ~ 17:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    "Don't belong"? Tell me you misspoke here. Tan | 39 17:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Echoing Tan here. You can oppose him for whatever you like, but saying he "doesn't belong" because he doesn't fit your criteria is pretty douchey.--Koji† 20:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Did he say this user doesn't belong, he did he say that if a user can't build the encyclopedia then they don't belong. The second is a valid opinion, surely?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    I think every user belongs no matter what small thing they do. Belonging as an admin is another story, which is probably what he meant (or else he does have a pretty negative opinion of most users). --Banime (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Let me clarify: I didn't say that Aervanath shouldn't belong as an admin'. I know it has nothing to do with content contributions, but still, I think that you should help improve the 'pedia. If anything, you should help fix one of your only content contribs so it doesn't have a fat, ugly tag at the top. I'm not asking for much--just improve your content work and I guarantee I'll be supporting next time. ~the editorofthewiki ~ 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    "Don't belong" (to the encyclopaedia)? Please prove me wrong here, that's how the original phrase is read to me (and perhaps, others). - Mailer Diablo 23:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Prove? He's subsequently clarified what he meant to say. No need to go on.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  15. Weak oppose, echoing others' concerns above regarding a lack of article work. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  16. Sorry. Scott up at oppose #1 says all that I can. Garden. 21:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  17. Insufficient interest in content writing. east718 // talk // email // 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  18. Echo the above about lack of quality article writing. I'm quite surprised to see that you can't get an article to DYK, GA, nor FA in 1 year (I already taken the fact that you took 1 year wikibreak between March 2007 and February 2008 into consideration). And oh yeah, being a wikignome isn't a "get out of jail free" card because you'll be surprised how many wikignomes out there have at least a DYK, GA, or FA (if not more) under their belts. OhanaUnited 05:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    oppose Insufficient experience in substantive matters 68.148.40.121 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Adminship is more then wikilawyering and wikignoming. You don't need the mop to fight vandals. Spend more time writing articles then reapply. Minkythecat (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    You oppose makes me question how closely you looked at the candidate, a cursory review would show he's not a vandal fighter. If he were, then I would be insisting on more article building as well. He's a niche contributor, who participates in an area that most people do not. I recognize his mainspace edits as contributing to the project because they are manual edits intended on building the project, not automated ones to 'protect' it.---Balloonman 14:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, I recognize the name since you volunteered and summed up Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise. Even though I disagreed with a few of your interpretations, I think you did an OK job there, but I still don't think you're ready to be an admin at this time. I think you acted well in your conflict with Tony1, but I worry about a possible rush to judgement with the username thing iridescent brought up, the AFD you started because an IP added a prod tag, the fact that there are only 3 articles you've made at least 10 edits to, your claim that A7 and A9 have to do with notability... Maybe later, but not right now. Speaking of article work, I know that right now Misplaced Pages desperately needs an article on the subject of notability, since so few seem to understand the concept... --Pixelface (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Switching to Oppose Ironically, as per comments from the nominator -- the candidate lacks content creation history and is extremely niche focused without having wide experience across Misplaced Pages -- and from the candidate -- who clearly states that his ongoing work in The Orphange doesn't require admin tools. There is no serious reason to oppose, but no overwhelming reason to support. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Neutral (from Support). I'm torn here. I do love niche candidates, but the oppose camp has some pretty good points. Cheers, RockManQ 02:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    One thing that keeps coming up in the oppose camp is the lack of article building experience, perhaps I should point out that Aervanath has over 2300 (from what I can tell) manual edits in the mains space. Are they to one article? No. But he does have a solid record of working in the mainspace, his edits there, however, are a little different from the typical candidate. They are working on fixing an issue that many people over look, deorphaning articles. This can be challenging, but more than that, it allows you to see how he thinks. I'd much rather support a person with 2300 constructive edits, than a person who let's Huggle/Twinkle/etc do the thinking for him.---Balloonman 03:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Whilst orphaning categories is useful, it isn't content creation, so it really has nothing to do with the reasons people are opposing.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    I might switch back later, I just...don't know. I need some time to think. Cheers, RockManQ 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    Oh and I was mainly referring to the AfD's in the oppose camp. Sorry should of made that clearer. Cheers, RockManQ 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    LOL... shows you what happens when you make an ass out of u and me (EG ASS-U-ME)---Balloonman 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral De-orphaning articles help this encyclopedia to make the most out of its database, but I personally think that admin can tag an article with a speedy, but another admin should do the honors, because everyone makes mistakes once in a while. I also feel like you want the admin tools to edit protected articles, which makes me worry. Yet, your edits are of very good quality. Oppose... Support... so I have to be neutral. Leujohn
    Would you mind elaborating on your concerns about Aervanath's desire to edit protected articles? He's mentioned that he plans to work on the {{editprotected}} requests (a logical extension of the {{editsemiprotected}} stuff he already does), but is there something else that causes you to wonder? Thanks ~ mazca 12:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral needs more article work... YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Aervanath: Difference between revisions Add topic