Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MER-C

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

[edit] MER-C

Final (68/35/7) Ended 03:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

MER-C (talk • contribs) – MER-C is a user who constantly is fighting vandalism and is a good overall Wikipedian. Nwwaew(My talk page) 22:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. MER-C 10:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a spurt of busyness in real life which won't go away for the next month or so. Also this is now a foregone conclusion, so I'm withdrawing. I'll be back here in early December, probably with a few more articles under my belt. (P.S. if I do make a speedy mistake, let me know about it. Thanks) MER-C 08:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Co-nom if I may please My first ever nom, and for good reason. MER-C is a fantastic vandal fighter, who has already shown tremendous dedication to the project. I guarantee there isn't one AIV regular who hasnt seen his name dozens and dozens of times. In fact, according to Voice of All's statistic tool, from his last 5000 edits alone, over 270 of them were to administrator noticeboards. Apart from his anti-vandalism efforts he's incredibly humble and civil, with a fantastic attitude, one that will be a credit to the mop and bucket. I asked him about adminship many weeks ago, and he replied that he thought it was a bit too early (testimony to his maturity - normally if a sysop offered to nom a user they'd jump at the chance). Anyway, his contribs speak for themselves, all I can say is I feel sorry for the vandals come 7 days time! :) Glen 11:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  No problem with a co-nom any co-nominations here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Co-nom as well, I nominated MER-C for adminship a few weeks ago, but he declined stating that he needed more experience. I respected his decision and told him that I would be glad to nominate him whenever he felt he was ready. MER-C is a great vandal-fighter and he would be a valuable asset to AIV and Admin Noticeboard, among other things. Even with only a few months of experience, I have strong confidence in this user's potential. Nishkid64 14:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A:

I plan on doing what I have always done - whacking vandals, helping on AFD (and nuking the ones I would !vote speedy delete for) and finding deletable pages through dead ends, spam hunts and RC/NP patrols. I feel that my efficiency at performing these tasks would increase when given the mop. I also plan on blocking vandals at WP:AIV - I edit at a time when there are hardly any admins around and I end up trying to clear the list anyway - and doing speedies and prods. I can also answer any unblock requests that show up on my RC feed and have done so in the past.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:

I'm definitely pleased at keeping the vandals and spammers out. I've only been here for three and a half months and it could be said that I am Willy on Wheels' most hated enemy (better sprotect this RFA right now :) ). I've been responsible for the deletion of around 200 pages of userspace spam in the last fortnight. I'm a regular participant at AFD, often !voting on AFDs with little votes. I've been bombarded with admin-like requests over the last month which led me to put up "I am not an administrator" in big, bold and red letters. I've tried to arouse the dust at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martian Geography, to some success.

Finally, here are some testimonials:

• "MER-C IS A FUCKING BASTARD!" - Willy on Wheels [1]
• "M E R - C D I D W T C L O L" - Blu Aardvark here
• "He is a deletionist chinese communist censor" - Communism vandal, see source | contribs.

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

A:

I've tended to avoid content disputes, as they are counterproductive. If someone had disagreed, it was mostly due to a mistaken revert. Though I've been in many a conflict with a vandal. I think the things that have caused me the most stress are my "broadband" connection and database lag of up to ten minutes(!), though the vandals may occasionally cause me to walk away for five minutes. Most potential conflicts about deletions and such have been defused on my talk page before escalating out of control. MER-C 11:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Malber (talk • contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A:

IAR is the codification of common sense. For example, you might have an "article" about someone that barely asserts notability, e.g. being in some random band but looking at the editors and noticing the amount of superlatives used, you see that it is hopeless vanity. Being autobiographical is also another deletable concern. It makes sense to reach out for the delete button. It also allows one to take into account mitigating circumstances, e.g. strongly warning a user who violated 3RR instead of a block.

Snowballing is for debates where consensus has been achieved, or in the case of making a decision to delete hopeless articles such as the example above. Prod would be too ineffectual for that, since the author can easily remove the prod and we're back to cube one. MER-C 12:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A:

Generally no, unless it has been discussed on WP:ANI. MER-C 12:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

6. How important is it for an administrator to keep a sense of humor?

A:

Very. One couldn't cope with the crap from the vandals unless you saw their comments as a joke (as per above). MER-C 12:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Gwernol (talk • contribs)

7. Could you explain, with an example, where you think the borderline between an article that should be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:A7, one that should be Prodded and one which should be taken to AfD is? What would you do with User:Gwernol/HillstoneLows and why? Thanks. (with apologies should there actually be a band called Hillstone Lows)

It's about assertions of notability. Speediable articles don't assert notability (but not all articles that don't assert notability are speediable). Also in this basket would be articles that assert notability weakly (e.g. the only assertion of notability is a discography section or the mention of a few local gigs) AND are autobiographical containing superlatives. I'd go straight to AFD if the claim to notability is rather strong, e.g. finished highly on a highly rated TV show.

To clarify this, let's pretend we ran a Wikipedia Idol (tm) competition and someone felt the need to create articles on various contestents. Articles on editors who just auditioned and were "rejected" would be speediable. If they got past the auditions stage but not in the top 25, then I would speedy it if it were autobiographical or prod it if it wasn't. Prods would be from places from 25 to 12 inclusive and AFD would be if they made it to the finals. The top three, if they've released something, will be kept.

As for the article mentioned, that'll be a prod. MER-C 08:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from trialsanderrors (talk • contribs)

8. Could you expand on Q2 and point out your editorial contributions? It's a bit hard to sift through your reversions to find them.

Most of my editorial contributions have been to deleted articles, saying they are not fit to stay. However, there are a few here, here and other Martian geography articles. The dust is settling again as Mars is in solar conjunction. Most of the real information is locked up into subscription only journals, which I don't have access to. I'm also wikignomish. MER-C 09:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC) MER-C 09:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Imoeng (talk • contribs)

9. Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?

I'm not really sure (but there's only one way to find out :) ). There's the potential for me to get caught up with admin tasks (e.g. clearing out prods, which is somewhat backlogged right now) but the greater bandwidth efficiency would offset that somewhat. MER-C 14:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Bishonen (talk • contribs)

10. I'd like to try to understand the diff Silensor cites in his Oppose !vote number 3.[2] Perhaps I'm not reading your actions right, and there are no words by you to read (which is precisely my worry). Reverting three times with no comment is not a good way to interact with a newbie trying to contribute in good faith (for there seems to be plenty of room for reading the anon's actions in that light, even if he/she shows a certain lack of Wikipedia clue). And then, by way of sole communication, to insert escalating warning templates on their talkpage... what's that about? The main issue was surely the insertion/removal of the potentially libellous material, no the AFD template which you focused on. The responses show the other person's frustration with being treated as if by a robot. Could you please tell me

• • Is this your standard interaction style with perceived vandals (who may in fact merely be good-faith new users)? or an unfortunate exception?
  • Did you think you were restoring the AfD message at Antelope Valley High School every time you reverted, even when you were restoring something else--IOW, did you fail to look, as the user "Dave" seems to think? ("Perhaps you should take a look at what you're doing before you mindless revert someone."--he even gives the diff!.)[3]) Did you consider replying to him on the user talkpage?
  • Would you consider slowing down these types of actions, to leave yourself more time for more (=any) and better communication? Please note that I'm not for my part very interested in a legal argument as to whether the removed material was in fact libel or not (such as Joe's paragraph below). It's the way you handled the user that concerns me. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

A:

Yes, it is standard interaction with perceived vandals. However if they do bring up a mistake on my talk page, I am more than happy to correct it. That particular incident was a mistake on my part, nothing more. As soon as I saw the edit summary and knew of my mistake, I stopped and moved on. Yes, I did think I was restoring the AFD notice. As for slowing down, I have to some extent but my slow internet connection and the rate of vandalistic edits confine me somewhat. MER-C 10:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Late question by Malber (talk • contribs)

11. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?

A:

If any one of the following two is true:

• It's not in the main namespace or the talk namespace.
• The creator of the article should have something to do with the company, e.g. is similar to the subject's name or someone related to the company mentioned in the article, or for a fairly old article, the creator has no other encyclopedic contributions. MER-C 09:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

---

General comments

• See MER-C's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See MER-C's edit count per Tangotango's edit count tool as of 11:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Glen 11:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

• Is three months (and a half, apparently) really that short a time to be editing Wikipedia? I think it's plenty of time to get acquainted with the software and the community, especially if one has been editing at the rate MER-C has. Adminship is no big deal, so barring some obvious deficiency in an editor's abilities, I don't think it's in the project's best interests to tell good editors to "try again later" simply because they fall short of some particular target. --Slowking Man 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - outstanding editor. Gracious too. Honoured to be first to support. --Dweller 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support per my comments above as wannabe co-nomm'er Glen 11:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - the usual cliché, could have sworn he was an admin already! Budgiekiller 11:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
4. WTF? I was supposed to nominate! - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   I feel compelled to address Gwernol's point below. Yes, you have an error rate. Everyone does. Though I do not have the diffs to back it up, I remember undoing your actions a couple of times. Taking your statement as true, namely, that you have a 95% accuracy rate, where there isn't any systemic to understand relevant policy, I would be ok with that. You would assuage a lot of opposers if you promised to each opposer personally before this thing closes to never zap articles outright, but to submit them for review as a non-sysop would. I am surea half-dozen would be happy to switch on those terms, handing you the mop. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Support, great vandal fighter and a prolific editor to boot. —Xezbeth 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Erm... support per Budgiekiller. Excellent user. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. This user often makes reports on WP:AIV, so I believe he could use the extra buttons. Errabee 12:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, excellent vandal and spam fighter, only good interactions with him. Kusma (討論) 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support as one of the nominators- I keep seeing him reporting vandalism, I think he should have the tools to take care of it in the first place. Nwwaew(My talk page) 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support - one of the best vandal-fighters on Wiki Alex Bakharev 12:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Dammit If I'd known you had any plans for adminship, I would've co-nommed you with pleasure. riana_dzasta 12:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Clearly a good faith editor, but I do find a few hasty CSD taggings, after looking into it per Steel's comment. However, it was literally just 2 out of his last 1,500 contributions. Granted it's not very easy to browse deleted contributions anymore, even if some invalid taggings did get deleted, it was obviously by someone we already trust with admin tools. I'd put forward that everyone makes a mistake or two, and often users knowingly tag something borderline for deletion with the trust that the experienced admin will look into it and make the right decision. So that someone tags something for deletion suggests, but doesn't prove, that they'd just straight out delete it as an admin. Same with vandal reports. MER-C is clearly dedicated to the project and I have every reason to think they'd exercise discretion and make a good admin. --W.marsh 13:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Superlatively strong support. MER-C is a fantastic and reliable new page patroller and vandal fighter. Granting him sysop tools would only help improve our project. -- Merope 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Support I see him all over AIV and he could certainly use the buttons. Good luck! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - Normally I wouldn't support someone with as relatively little time on the project (I usually like to see at least 6-9 months), but I've seen MER-C all over the place and I think he could have an immediate positive impact. That said, I would ask that he initially exercise a little restraint on speedy article deletions, per some of the concerns listed in this RFA. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Support, good vandal fighter, I see see him around reverting vandalism. MER-C is commited to Wikipedia and will make a great admin. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per noms. Rama's arrow 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, great vandal fighter, good attitude. NawlinWiki 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Strong Support Outstanding user, one of the most common names I see around. Excellent work, will make a fine admin and use the tools wisely.--Húsönd 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Seems like a good vandalfighter. (aeropagitica) 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Sem him vandalfighting, been very impressed by it --Mnemeson 15:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Excellent fighter of spam and other vandalism. Only 3 months here, but 18000 edits overrides any concerns there. He seems comfortable justifying reverts and explaining his position. I'm certain will be a top administrator who will use the tools effectively. — Moondyne 15:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
23. Support; partially took part in my spam crusade.--Andeh 15:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Strong strong support, I have seen enough of MER-C on RC Patrol. He'd do a good job with the tools. Best of luck, buddy! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, MER-C's not an admin? Really? · j e r s y k o talk · 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, even though you're not a Jew named Putnam from California USA ;) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong Support, He seemes to be a good candidate and I have seen some of his work, Kudos =) EagleEyes 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Support A very strong vandal fighter and a good editor as well. The added tools given to him would only benefit this project further. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
30. I keep thinking he's an admin, since his name comes up so frequently in RC feeds. Fully support. --Slowking Man 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Good user, I;ve had nothing but good experiences with him on AfD. Plus, I actually borrowed a template from him.-- danntm ^T _C 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Great vandal fighter, very supportive of this user. (just got edit-conflicted supporting) Hello32020 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
33. Naconkantari 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
34. Enthusiastic support definitely one of our best vandal fighters, I see him on WP:AIV (and CAT:CSD) all the time. There was just a big backlog there yesterday which he could have helped clear - a lot of the reports were his anyway. I do not think his reports are too unreliable at all, there are occasional ones that I deny because they have stopped, but this is usually due to the delay between him posting and me responding.--Konst.able^Talk 20:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
35. Strong support. Very diligent and personable. PJM 21:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
36. Strong Support as co-nom. Nishkid64 21:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    MER-C IS SOON A FUCKING ADMIN! ~ trialsanderrorsONWHEELS 21:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Moved to Neutral

37. Support. Absolutely. Deizio talk 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
38. Block, {{impersonator | Can't sleep, clown will eat me}} Support, {{Greatest vandal fighter since | Can't sleep, clown will eat me}} Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
39. Ladies and gentlemen...we have the new Curps. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
40. Piling-on Support.--Lord Kinbote 04:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
41. Support for being the quickest non-admin reverter I've seen. james^(talk) 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Although I am sure he isn't Willy On Wheels worst enemy I am sure he'll be a great admin SOADLuver 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Excellent user. I've seen him a lot on AIV. He's not perfect, but, IMHO, he could use the tools. Alphachimp 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Thud... Thud... MER-Czilla is coming... Vandals are scared... They are shuddering... they know they cannot escape the powerful MER-Czilla! Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 11:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong Support This guy is great, Having him as Admin would be great for wikipedia--Seadog.M.S 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
46. Support per nom. Michael 15:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Is this a joke?! He's seriously not an admin!? What a fantastic candidate! I'm thrilled to be able to support. Srose (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
48. Strong Support, Surprised MER-C isn't an admin already. Casper2k3 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    Support. He may not have written article, but he certainly has cleared the way for others to do so. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

49. Support I keep vacillating on what I think about admins having extensive article-writing experience, but in this case I like the extent of his specialization. Wikipedia is like a leaky boat in a river of sewage; we need people to bail out the constant influx of crap. Opabinia regalis 23:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
50. Support MER-C is active in AFD and is a great vandal fighter. He's also helped me handle a possible copyvio where the contributor claims to be the author (see article Hyperthermia). zephyr2k 01:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
51. Support - excellent vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per Mr. Lefty. —Khoikhoi 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    Weak Support -- "Support" due to good work on vandalism. "Weak" because it would really be good to have more article editing experience -- even if MER-C then never edits again, at least he better understand editors' thought processes and values. He will, after all, be serving the editors if made an admin. (Promise me you'll write some articles.) --A. B. 04:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Changed vote reluctantly to "oppose". --A. B. 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Additional comment: As I read more comments, I think MER-C should slow down a bit when it comes to using CSD -- maybe take an extra 2 minutes to check out page histories, Google for notability, comment to article authors, etc. --A. B. 13:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

53. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
54. Merovingian ※ Talk 21:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Awesome vandal fighter, very unlikely to abuse the tools. --NMChico24 22:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
56. Support I've seen him around while vandalfighting and in AfDs, and I've never seen anything I didn't like. --Daniel Olsen 00:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
57. Strong Support MER-C often beats me to fighting and reporting vandals, and I come across MER-C's edits often. By becoming an admin the damage that each vandal can do will severely reduced, if I didn't know better I'd say that MER-C is a tawkerbot offshoot. I was considering nominating MER-C but noticed on the talk page that a nom was already here. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
58. Strong Support no objections whatsoever, MER-C has deserved adminship for quite some time for his outstanding efforts in vandal fighting. SMC 10:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. Substantial edit history in short period of time. Answer to qwernol's question does not indicate overly zealous deleter. However, 'ware burnout rate.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
60. Support Antivandal work is excellent! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
61. Support. Very dedicated anti-vandalism work, has struck me as a potential admin from some of our first encounters with each other. I'd be happy to work with him in that capacity. Luna Santin 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
62. Strong Support Hell yeah! Molerat 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
63. Support Time with project is a reason to oppose? Not for me. Wikipediarules2221 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
64. Support - thought he was already an admin - Familiar face on WP:AFD .`Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
65. Strong Support I've seen this user tirelessly fight off vandals on my userpage as well as soooo many others, a tribute to the best of Wikipedia, MER-C deserves full admin powers.--Fabio 04:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
66. Support nice kid. Works hard. Wish he'd write more -- Samir धर्म 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
67. Support After seeing this user around, I think they are ready for adminship. It is my view that even if someone has not made many article edits improving articles this does not matter for the administrator - normal users can make edits just as easily as administrators. -- Casmith 789 10:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
68. Support--MONGO 11:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. MER-C is clearly an up and coming user, and I see him at AIV regularly. However, In my experience I've found him to be a somewhat unreliable vandal reporter. A number of vandals he reports have either not been warned, stopped ages ago, are shared IPs with no recent warnings, haven't vandalised since their last warning, etc. Much the same applies to CAT:CSD. I've found him tagging things as spam which aren't spam, and so on. That, combined with an apparent lack of real encyclopedic contributions, means I can't support this RfA. I also really, really don't think 3 and a half months is long enough. -- Steel 12:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   "Vandals he reports have either not been warned" - diffs please? It's sometimes appropriate to go straight to AIV, e.g. obvious sockpuppets of banned users, inappropriate usernames, returning vandals, etc.

   "stopped ages ago" - that's due to AIV being mainly ignored for hours.

   "are shared IPs with no recent warnings," - my rollback script doesn't open AOL talk pages and it's likely that these pages aren't seen by the intended audience.

   "haven't vandalised since their last warning" - diffs please?

   "things as spam which aren't spam" - my idea of spam is different from yours. The creator being a single purpose account is a very strong indicator.

   "lack of real encyclopedic contributions" - Adam Smith said in The Wealth of Nations that specialisation is one of the keys to improved productivity, see here. This can be applied to Wikipedia. With that, I'm signing off for the night. MER-C 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   There's nothing in your recent contribs to support what I said about AIV, however it is the general feeling I've gotten. Having said that without any diffs I'm happy for that bit to be given less weight or ignored completely. One question though, "The creator being a single purpose account is a very strong indicator.", how strong an indicator? And I'm familliar with the division of labour, thanks - I have studied economics. Being an administrator isn't just about reverting and blocking. -- Steel 13:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I think that MER-C has a very good grasp of what spam is, at least as set out in these criteria here. (Which, admittedly, I wrote, but with input from other editors.) Users with names identical to the corporation or product they post about are clearly single purpose accounts and their posts should be deleted. In cleaning up CAT:CSD, I've been pleased to see that MER-C has been judiciously using the spam criterion (e.g., never applying it to articles about people or bands, etc.). Just my two to three cents. -- Merope 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   [4] [5] [6]. -- Steel 12:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

   And again, within a minute of stumbling across the above. [7] [8]. MER-C, please check page histories before tagging for speedy deletion. -- Steel 12:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

   I tagged more than 50 articles for speedy in the last couple of hours and who knows how many in the last 24 hours (in fact, they're disappearing right now). It's a pity that evidence of good speedy tagging is self-erasing. From what I've seen on the deletion log and contributions and the feedback I've got (nothing recent until now; in the past insignificant to the amount of tagging I do), I reckon I have a 95% accuracy on speedies. MER-C 13:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose - per lack of time with the project, and poor answer to part one of question 4 (IAR should not be used to change the requirements for speedy deletion) --T-rex 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Umm, Ive never commented on an oppose before in an RfA (with the possible exception of my own), but let's go back a couple weeks prior to the introduction of g11, and say you found a blatant spam article on a non-notable ab-roller or similar piece of junk. Written in the 1st person, a total blatant advertisement telling you how to get rock hard abs. You wouldn't nom it (just clarify what I meant) tag it for speedy deletion? Glen 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, I would defientlly nominate it for deletion, however the appropriate way to do so is through AfD or WP:PROD. The problem I saw with that responce is more the casual use of IAR, rather than the idea that the article needed to be deleted --T-rex 17:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Better yet, I've found viagra spam (complete with spelling it vi@gra) and even a Nigerian scam e-mail created as new articles. I suppose those deserved 5 days on AfD since we can't IAR to make speedy deletions? --W.marsh 17:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   You're kidding right? I thought they only did that to avoid email spam filters lol! Glen 17:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   But as new articles, they would qualify for speedy deletion, and no acception to IAR would need to be made --T-rex 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Ummm... no prior to G11 (advertisements/spam) non-notable products were not "technically" speediable; they did not "fit" A7 (An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject). So if you believe that it's in Wikipedia's best interest to have spam about ab-rollers, vi@gra and nigerian banking scams on the site for five full days under AfD or prod then, fine. But in my mind thats exactly why IAR is there Glen 17:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Opppose per concerns addressed above, and answers to question s. It is my feeling that this person is not quite ready for adminship. Most recently I've witnessed this person revert "vandalism" by someone who was trying to remove unsourced libellous remarks. [9] As if that weren't enough, MER-C then proceeded to warn that person for doing so. Sorry, but there is no way I can endorse this person at this time if they are going to be so careless. Silensor 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Comment This diff appears to comprise two different issues that one might understand from Silensor's oppose are properly conflated but between which exists a distinction that some editors might perceive to be meaningful. The editing behavior is unquestionably bad: (a) one should never revert or rollback without explanation any edit that is not plainly and exclusively vandalism, even where no edit summary from which one might appreciate good faith editing is given concomitant to the antecedent edit; and (b) the text removed was almost wholly, notwithstanding its being unsourced, probably unverifiable, and perhaps other-than-unbiased, unencyclopedic—the minutiae of a school's operations are presumptively that which Wikipedia is not—such that the excision was, on the whole, quite fine (if one wanted to return some of the text, such return ought to have been accompanied by note on the article's talk page in order that other editors might discuss the issue). The text was not, though, under any theory of United States law of which I'm aware, libellous, such that its return in no way placed Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Not only would it be exceedingly difficult for an educational institution to advance a claim of defamation, but a public institution (namely, one that is taxpayer-financed and government-run) would almost certainly not be permitted to advance such claim. In any event, though, the text was not libellous; the riot paragraph appears to be true (and even, were it not, would not be defamatory), and the second paragraph, while undoubtedly unencyclopedic and non-NPOV original research, is an assertion of opinion (even if it appears to be offered as fact) and thus not an actionable pronouncement. I mean only to suggest that any inference of carelessness and bad judgment from the diff ought to be made only as to the particularly poor editing and incivility evidenced by the diff and the warning rather than as to the concerns underlying BLP, et seq. Joe 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

4. STRONG HELL NO Oppose if he felt unready to be an admin a mere few weeks ago, I somehow doubt he's ready now. Plus the stuff Silensor and Steel brought up isnt so great. I just dont feel he's quite ready yet... maybe in a few months I would support, but just too green right now and appears to jump the gun alot.  ALKIVAR™ 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   It is quite clear to me MER-C has absolutely no grasp of what AFD is for. His current afd of AmigaOne states no "references" when there is most clearly a references section at the bottom (they are in an old non <ref> format). he claims a model of computer that is the most recent version of the Amiga is "non notable" although there is much evidence within the article to disprove that statement. I am certain now that if given deletion powers they will be improperly used. I will likely oppose this candidate should he run again simply because he doesnt appear to grasp what AFD is for. AFD is an integral part of an admin's duties on WP... if you cant understand what its for... you dont belong as an admin.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   I think this is probably due to pressure of people with their "6 month" rules more than anything.--Konst.able^Talk 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, he said he wanted a bit more experience on Wikipedia before becoming an admin (he specifically said a month more or so). Nishkid64 21:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   I just looked at that AfD and at the article's history. MER-C tagged the article for deletion after it had been edited over 70 times by 40 different users dating back to early 2003 with the comment "Notability not established. Not referenced." Before tagging for deletion, he made no comments on the article talk page, did not add a notability tag to the article and I don't think he left a courtesy note for any of the article's editors on their talk pages. From what I can tell, he did this in response to a complaint by an editor unhappy with his PROD of Samantha PowerPC Motherboard: "Why this page will be deleted? What about AmigaOne?". Interestingly, this all occurred just 2 days ago during the middle of this RfA, so I think MER-C is still struggling with the ideas we've discussed here. --A. B. 22:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose Obviously this editor's vandal fighting resume is impressive. However I have to oppose based on a few factors. First, I'm not comfortable with this editor's position on IAR and the example he gives. Yes, IAR means using common sense, but not at the expense of consensus. Band articles are the most contentious and emotional debates right now at AfD, and I'm not comfortable with an admin who would speedy a band article on the basis of his opinion that it's "hopeless vanity." It should go to AfD where the editors will have the opportunity to clean it up, make it encyclopedic, and cite sources to back up the assertion of notability. Second, the ratio of article talk edits to mainspace edits is quite low (6.9%) which shows little participation with the community in article content discussion. Lastly, editor only has 3+ months of experience. More time on the project will allow for more interaction with aspects of the project other than vandal fighting. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   While I respect and understand your opposition vote, I would like to point out that "ratio of article talk to mainspace edits" is a totally meaningless metric. It will be low for a vandal fighter and high for someone who goes around and tags talk pages with WikiProject tags or makes assessments. You can have 5000 talk edits and no content discussions, or zero talk edits and lots of content discussion at AFDs or WikiProjects or regional noticeboards or similar Kusma (討論) 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   To me, it shows that the nominee's attitude is "shoot first, ask questions later, ignore consenus." There's more to being an admin than vandal fighting—we all have the capability to revert and warn. I'd like to see a nominee that engages the community more than this one does. Frankly, I'm surprised at some of the support votes. This editor seems to pride himself on the enemies he's made, while many support voters have opposed nominees on the basis that they don't play well with others. Am I missing something here? —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

6. Racking up insane amounts of edits in 3 months vandal fighting is impressive (I must assume it's using VandalProof or some such), and appreciated, but does not make someone admin-ready. That, combined with the fact that I am "one of those" users who thinks 6-months is a minimum amount of time with the project leads to my oppose. Themindset 15:19, October 19, 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, reluctantly. I'd like to have supported but I absolutely detest a lack of article writing (even simple start-class articles). I'm not pleased either with concerns brought up above by Silensor and Steel. – Chacor 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   Administrators are the janitors and not necessarily the architects of Wikipedia. MER-C has more than 15k edits (someone correct me here) and is a bane for the vandals. It would do only good if MER-C is promoted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose As I went through the contribs I noticed the same thing others did, very little (if any) writing, and didn't follow up reverts with warnings in many cases. But also, he doesn't see to have his speedy judgement very well tuned, I find many cases where he's tagged something as speedy but was overturned. Examples: [10][11],[12],[13],[14] I just don't feel like he's ready for the delete button yet. And not to pile on, but he put lot's cleanup tags on articles, it'd be nice if he'd pitch in with some of the cleanup. It'd give him a better feel for content, he has a pretty narrow particpation range at the moment. This is not to diminish his work or attitude, but branch out a little and you're there. Rx StrangeLove 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose Oppose, reluctantly, for now. Although MER-C puts a lot of effort towards vandal fighting I see a bit too much "ready-fire-aim". Sometimes it is best to slow down and analyze what you are seeing before pulling the trigger. I'd also like to see at least six months of activity to demonstrate that the user has a long term commitment and not just a passing fancy. Finally, spread out into a few more activities on the Wiki. Even if it is just typo and grammar corrections, try to spend a little time on articles. When you see a short article, consider spending a few minutes on it to clean it up, link it somewhere appropriate, and put a stub tag on it rather than just tagging with CSD or PROD. Another way to spread out is to get involved in some Wiki-space activities. With that, I think you can be ready to try again before the New Year. Good luck. --StuffOfInterest 11:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   The more I look into this the more concerned I am. MER-C has been nominating a large number of Amateur radio related articles with apparently no attempts to check the subjects on his own. For one liners I can understand, but some of the articles have details and if MER-C had done even a simple Google check he would likely see some notability in the subjects. I'm now left doubting his motivations and see him possibly doing more harm than good. Having admin tools would create the potential for even more harm in his deletion sprees. --StuffOfInterest 00:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose If one uses IAR at all, one might apply it to a speedy deletion once in a year. Candidate's answer indicates poor understanding of "deep and subtle policy"; also, I share above concerns about experience in other areas. Xoloz 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Certainly a good faith user, but not enough actual article writing experience. In my opinion, solid experience in the main namespace is an absolute requirement for being a good admin. — mark ✎ 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per answer to #4. Answer leads me to believe that deletion is a better alternative than editing in many circumstances where the opposite is true, and the view that IAR "is the codification of common sense" is especially worrisome. A number of admins who believe the same are/were amongst the worst we have, and I'd hate to see an otherwise positive contributor head down the same road. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, reluctantly. I'm worried that giving MER-C the delete button will result in large numbers of articles disappearing without consensus or justification. - Richardcavell 01:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Which, if it theoretically happened, wouldn't be much of a problem. The offending admin would be desysopped and brought before the ArbCom, and the deleted articles could be restored at the touch of a button. Plenty of people seem to harbor nightmares of some admin suddenly snapping and going on a mad deletion spree, but I'm not sure why. All admin actions are reversible, which is why "adminship is no big deal." --Slowking Man 12:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    I think there are good reasons to be cautious in approving new admins. Wikipedia and its editors pay a price when an admin's behavior gets to this point: lots of hard feelings all around, many hours of editors' work reverted (whether through edit wars, overly speedy deletions or whatever), time consumed in various peacemaking processes, etc. So desysopping is a solution, but it ties up human resources better spent doing other things.--A. B. 13:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, that doesn't happen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose Death to Deletionists! -(I apologize, It's the idea, not the people.)Tnfiddler 03:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    That's not a very constructive comment. - Lex 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: This user's 12th edit, of which 8 have been in RfAs. --Guinnog 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    My comment was intended as humorous hyperbole, not as a personal attack, and as a believer in Democracy- I understand the importance of voting, especially when at odds with an influential faction. I had more edits, but the articles were deleted. Tnfiddler 03:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is not a democracy. Also, if you created a bunch of articles that are now deleted, that's probably a good indicator that the closing bureaucrat should ignore your vote. --Slowking Man 04:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose per Richard and Chacor. Sorry. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose. Per WP:BULL amongst other things. Another non-writing candidate who doesn't really need nor deserve the mop. Seems unable to understand we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not tear one apart. Is also seems unable to understand the meaning of Template:Proposed, and tries to enforce things such as WP:SOFTWARE as actual policy when it it clearly not, using it as a thin rationale to delete articles. Abusive admins with poor judgement, along with serial deletionists, are a greater threat to Wikipedia now than vandals.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Out of curiosity, what are your criteria for determining whether or not an editor "deserves" adminship? Adminship isn't a prize or a status symbol. Also, I feel your statement about "abusive admins" being a greater threat than vandals to be, at the least, wildly hyperbolic. Articles covered in goatse or with "JOSH IS GAY" inserted into them at random intervals are a bit more harmful to the project than admins making a questionable (and reversable) speedy deletion. --Slowking Man 12:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    Click on WP:BULL to see an important part of my criteria. Obviously you are oblivious to current events. Admin abuse of new and established editors has become rampant. When good contributors leave or become alienated as a result, it is not easily reversable. Nor is there any easy way to defrock abusive admins or hold them accountable to the community. On the otherhand, Semi-protection has made vandalism far less of a problem. There are even bots now who patrol for obvious and crude cases of vandalism. We already have a vandal fighting army..what we need now are more pedia and community builders who have the moral authority to better police a community of writers. The rollback button is "no big deal"... the ability to block/ban IS! Anyone who is too quick on the trigger with the delete key could find the block button equally tempting. I might be persuaded otherwise if the candidate promises to add his name to CAT:AOR. Otherwise, it's just not worth taking the chance.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    You make valid points, R.D.H., but you did not need to write "Obviously you are oblivious to current events" to make them. --A. B. 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

17. oppose. as i said earlier, it is a mop, not a rapier. i do not condone promoting users who fight anyone (including vandals) continuously. write an article or two. ... aa:talk 16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose due to the answer to question four - many recent controversies (need I mention the F word?) have been due to admins deleting articles which do not meet the speedy deletion criteria, we don't need more admins promising to do the same. Cynical 08:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose - reluctantly I have changed my vote. I think MER-C has great potential for the future but to date has been too fast to delete too many times. Cynical's highlighting (just above) of his response to Q.4 tipped my decision. I think WP:IAR should be the answer to "when all else fails ...", (i.e., existing policies and guidelines, forged by consensus, somehow fail to address a situation). WP:IAR should not be used to instead override the community consensus embedded in all this guidance. Furthermore, CSD is a potentially dangerous tool and if there is any possibility any 3rd, uninvolved editor might reasonably think an article should be kept, MER-C should use PROD. PROD is always a better choice for those articles on the borderline of CSD. I encourage MER-C to learn from this RfA, go back to the drawing board, and build a strong track record of more judicious deletions for a few months; I'd be happy to support a second RfA then. I also recommend he actually make substantive additions to some articles. Even if MER-C then never edits again, at least he will better understand other editors' thought processes and values before pulling the trigger. Several hours worth of article-building followed by reversion or speedy deletion engenders empathy for other editors and a sense of personal humility. --A. B. 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose - from Neutral after noting issues re: CSD per User:Cynical. I'm strongly concerned over User:MER-C's deletion stance. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Nothing personal, the user is obviously a great vandal-fighter, but the lack of any real editorial-type contributions makes me uneasy. Will support when the user has made major contributions to a couple more articles. Lankiveil 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
22. Oppose. Three months with no significant article contribs is at best a neutral for me and the handling of the situation Silensor points out tips it. (Is the response to Silensor supposed to be a parody of wikilawyering?) A supporter compares this user to Curps so I'll run with it. I first ran into Curps at 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake when he was adding content, responding to questions on the talk, and otherwise being a mainstay of keeping that article coherent and updated in trying circumstances. It wasn't until later that I realized that he was also a great vandal fighter. - BanyanTree 01:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
23. oppose good work against vandalisms but answer to question 4 concerns me and no real editing needs more time Yuckfoo 02:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose I wanted to support MER-C, as I thought his answer to my question was good and he has done some excellent vandal fighting work which has significantly improved Wikipedia. But I am concerned about this comment in response to Steel359 above: "I tagged more than 50 articles for speedy in the last couple of hours and who knows how many in the last 24 hours... I reckon I have a 95% accuracy on speedies". In other words just in the two hours before that edit he had mistagged 3 articles as speedies. Given his amazing edit count, I'd guess that he's tagged between 500 and 1000 articles incorrectly. That's several hundred editors whose good work got tagged for deletion. If your making that many mistakes, you need to slow down and be more careful. At least while you're a non-admin there is someone else checking your work. If you'd had the tools, you presumably would have deleted those several hundred articles without any safety net. Yes, we can undelete those articles, and editors can recreate them, but my guess is that's several hundred good editors we'd have lost if you'd been an admin. Please slow down and take more care about your work. Write a few articles, because then you'll understand the work that goes into it and be less hasty to delete things. I want to support you next time around. Good luck, Gwernol 02:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose I think Gwernol hit the nail on the head. Also per Bishonen. To recap; slow down a bit, check page histories before flagging them for deletion, communicate with people better, and above all write some articles. There must be something you can write about here. Sorry, as I know you are a good and well-meaning contributor, and that deletiona nd vandal fighting are important. --Guinnog 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Steel and badlydrawnjeff. Anchoress 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Due to relatively short time in the project, lack of substantial article contributions, and tendency to act hastily (as pointed out by several people above). Zaxem 09:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose (was neutral), further evidence of trigger-happy deletion tagging means I cannot trust MER-C with the delete button itself, sorry. Broaden your activities beyond whack-a-mole Vandalism Patrol, please. -- nae'blis 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose, unfortunately. As others have already said, slow it down and explore other areas of the encyclopedia you can contribute to besides vandalism. RFerreira 15:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
30. Very Reluctant Oppose. Although you may be one of the best vandal-fighters Wikipedia has ever had, and for that you deserve Barnstars, awards, and every reasonable commendation, Gwernol's reasoning leads me to change my vote. I hope you continue your excellent vandal-fighting and learn to be more careful in the future. You have served, and hopefully will continue to serve, Wikipedia extremely well but I don't think you are ready for the adminship at the present time. I would gladly support in the future, however. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose, per concerns about time here, narrowness of activity, and accuracy, none of which are a "red-line" in and of themselves, but don't make a comfortable combination. Alai 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Lacks experience. Needs 6-12 months of quality edits. Not swayed by the answers to the questions either. --JJay 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose As noted many places, clearly M-C is an excellent vandal fighter. An admin need to be more than just a cop though. Given more time and examples of content-work I would hope I could support. -MrFizyx 01:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose per Alkabar and A.B. Dionyseus 03:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
35. Reluctant Oppose per Gwernol, Silensor et al. Great vandal fighter but needs to slow down and consider the situation more carefully. Also, take time to indicate why you are reverting and take time to warn vandals. --Richard 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral at this time, leaning oppose per Steel above, just not as forcefully. I don't doubt MER-C's intentions, but three months is not really enough time, coupled with the overwhelming lack of Wikipedia_talk: edits. Vandal fighters are an excellent and needed resource, but as that's your area of expertise, I'd have preferred you not say you would start whacking what you think are speedies out of AFD. Weak answer to Q2 made me comment where I ordinarily would have passed by. Switched to oppose. -- nae'blis 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral, leaning oppose. — Where are the contributions? - I can not support a user who does not make contributions to the encyclopeadia - Spending all day reverting just does not cut it for me, i look for several factors in a candidate, one being the balance between contributions and vandal fighting, i see no contributions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral: A lot of edits, but, although a promising vandal fighter, 3½ months is a little too soon to ask for the mop. The way my standards see it, he should have waited till next March. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral There's no doubt that MER-C is a terrific vandal fighter. I'm an experienced RC patroller who came to the 'pedia around the same time (late spring/early summer 2006) and I know I still have way too much to learn before I stand for adminship; on the other hand, MER-C may have logged many, many more hours here than I have. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, so on the fence I stay. KrakatoaKatie 06:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral, pending answers to q7 and 8. Leaning towards oppose for relative newness and per Chacor. I looked (quickly) through all October's edits and didn't find a single instance of actual content addition. We do need people to delete things, of course. Just not sure at this stage if you are ready for it. --Guinnog 06:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose

4. Neutral at this moment, per Chacor. I prefer that you'd did some bit of article-writing. No, I'm not even asking for an FA here. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral with regrets. Sheer lack of editorial contributions would normally be an oppose, but I shift into neutral for your other contributions. ~ trialsanderrors 21:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning toward oppose - Some of his initiated AFD's seem a little too copy/paste for my tastes. Doesn't appear to perform a minimal check of notability or verifiability before tagging and bagging articles for deletion. I don't know if he'd be good with the delete link, although I won't hold that as enough to outright Oppose the nomination at this time. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 19:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Changing to Oppose for concerns over CSD. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

6. Neutral. I'ld love to support, but not enough mainspace contributions and a few too hasty speedies force me to give a neutral opinion. I just want to point out to the opposers that while MER-C may have erred too much on the delete side, it is quite normal and accepted[15] for new page patrollers to make this kind of error. I have done a lot of new page patrolling the previous months (not this month), and when you look at how much dubious articles (attacks, spam, vanity, hoaxes, ...) are still left after a day (which means that they are disappearing of the radar of most new page patrollers), you can better understand that those manning the gates don't have the time to check all speedies as thoroughly as they should in an ideal world. Fram 08:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral A little trigger-happy a little too often; go easy for a few months. Incidentally, there's one thing that disturbs me: the comment above it could be said that I am Willy on Wheels' most hated enemy (better sprotect this RFA right now :). Meant jokingly, of course, but yet another example of the kind of thing that all adds up to aggrandize the bore (or more likely group of bores) called WoW. This kind of thing is what's called feeding the trolls. Warn vandals curtly but clearly where needed, clear up the damage they do, block their edits if/when you possess the magic wand for the job -- but say as little as possible that they'll later be able to gloat over or show to their chums. -- Hoary 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   Indeed it's so surprising to me that people miss that point. I've seen so many admins make comments to the affect that they are waging the greatest of all wars against a vandal or making remarks to the effect of hah!, take that you #@$%@#^, and similar that it's clear many people are missing your point. Saying less or more simply factual and boring statements has very often successfully de-escalated various situations. If all of us took that under advisement we'd be farther ahead in building the project methinks, so kudos Hoary for bringing it up again. And thanks for reminding me to recommit to that. In fact there's a hidden, even stronger sense of fun and pride in not giving them the satisfaction of getting a rise out of you. Also, just for the record, this comment is only in relation to Hoary's comments, not this RfA. - Taxman ^Talk 14:39, 24 October 2006 (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.