Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amatulic

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

Amatulic

Final (80/2/3); Closed as successful by (X! · talk)  · @078  ·  at 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Amatulic (talk · contribs) – The years I have been editing, I thought Wikipedia had more than enough administrators. I've been happy editing articles, doing user-level maintenance (dealing with vandalism, spam, article deletion etc.), and participating regularly in dispute resolution on Wikipedia:Third opinion. And even though I have a profession, a family, and a life outside of Wikipedia, I still have managed to log in nearly every day since 2006.

Along the way I've gotten occasional email from users who assume I am an admin, for some reason I can't comprehend. So I put a disclaimer on my talk page. My attitude toward adminship has been, "if nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." Recently, however, I happened across Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin stats, which described a surprising (to me) shortage of administrators. I realize that now might be a good time for me to pick up a mop myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As a normal editor, I regularly see backlogs, in places like WP:RPP, WP:AIV, WP:AFD and elsewhere. At those times I wished I had the ability to clear them. Backlogs would be my priority.

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

A: I am proud of the articles I have brought to good article status, such as stevia and Zinfandel. Although I haven't started many articles on my own, I think the articles I have started, such as Steviol glycoside, enrober, funding bias, and others, have contributed to the quality of this project. As an active member in WikiProject Wine, I am also the primary author of a draft guideline Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics), which I edit periodically based on feedback. Someday I'll propose it for official adoption but not yet.

I also take pride in my involvement in dispute resolution. I regularly offer Wikipedia:Third opinions on a variety of subjects unfamiliar to me; I find this to be a good way to learn about new subjects as well as exercise diplomatic skills. See User:Amatulic#Third opinions for a complete list.

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: Well, I deliberately become involved in disputes through Wikipedia:Third opinion. Generally, disputes don't cause me stress. I don't recall any incident where I lost my temper or acted irrationally.

I have been in debates characterized by flaring tempers. A couple that come to mind are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards and its subsequent deletion review, as well as an altercation with another administrator concerning behavior toward a user wrongly blocked as a sockpuppet (ending with both of us summing up our views on my talk page here). In those cases I remained civil although I may have felt differently inside.

How will I deal with it in the future? Same way I do now: step back, try to empathize with all sides (many of my third opinions find merit in the arguments presented by each side), and present a civil, rational, reasoned response based on my knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Questions from —fetch·comms

4. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user who has not yet been warned or received a sufficient number of warnings?

A: I will assume the cases where I have seen this happen will serve as precedent for acceptability. I have seen instances where a user is running a vandal-bot, damaging articles every few seconds. In such a case I feel it is best to block first, rather than go through the warning process while the damage continues unabated.

Addendum: Aside from that, generally I don't consider it acceptable to block a user without warning. Often vandals are simply first-timers testing what they can do, and need to be pointed at the sandbox. Further discussion on this question can be found in the conversation with Fetchcomms below in Support #10.

5. What are your weak points on Wikipedia? (What areas of work are you unfamiliar with, have problems doing, etc.) If you encounter something you are unsure about when working in your desired areas (RPP, AIV, AfD, etc.), what do you think is the best option?

A: I guess a weakness would be that I am not familiar with all the areas of work. For example, while I have identified a few open proxies, I am unfamiliar with the tools and processes related to WP:OPP — I would need some coaching to know what must be done to clear a backlog there. I would engage a participating administrator for help in an area I wish to participate in, if I don't know what I'm doing in that area.

Optional question from decltype

6. From your talk page: "No email unless we have had prior communication. Thanks!" What is the reasoning behind this requirement?

A: There were a couple instances in the past where I received email from editors who seemed to want me to resolve an issue "behind closed doors" without ever having communicated with me before (this is also the source of the "I am not an admin" disclaimer on my talk page). They deleted the note I posted on their talk page and persisted with email, without explaining why. So I put that sentence there to head off future occurrences. Maybe I was hasty in doing so, as it happened only twice. I believe I can remove that sentence without noticing any effect.

I have no problem when a talk page discussion veers off topic and an editor wants to continue the off-topic discussion with me in email. Or if there's a personal privacy matter that is best dealt with in email communication. Otherwise, I feel that issues concerning Wikipedia should be out in the open.

Many editors don't allow email at all — but I do. If I become an administrator, I believe I should continue to be available to anyone by email, but I prefer communication to be initiated in public. I am curious how other administrators configure their own email-ability.

Additional optional question from Groomtech

7. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: Do you want to rephrase that? I have two problems with the underlying premise of your question: the terms "issue orders" and "ban".

Regarding "issue orders": Being granted the use of a few additional housekeeping tools doesn't make an editor a figure of authority. Picture a regular company employee who has been given the keys to the janitor's closet. That's basically how I see Wikipedia adminship: a regular editor having access to a virtual mop. An admin has no more authority to issue orders than any other editor. An admin can engage, suggest, protect a page, or issue a block.

Regarding "ban": That word, to me, is different than "block". Admins have the ability to block users from editing to prevent disruption to the project, and with special exceptions (sockpuppets, name policy violations) such blocks are temporary because a block should be preventive, not punitive. A ban, on the other hand, is analogous to a restraining order. A restraining order is an order. I already explained that an admin shouldn't issue orders. I believe that a decision to ban would have to be made by ArbCom, and in that case an admin may enforce the ArbCom decision. If communicating with the disruptive editor isn't working, and there is no ArbCom ruling that offers guidance, an admin (or any other editor) may initiate the process that leads to an ArbCom decision, through a dispute resolution channel, or discussion on WP:ANI.

Additional optional question from Dlohcierekim

8. I recently speedily deleted this page that was tagged A7. (and have temproarily moved to my user sapce for this question.) Was my deletion correct? Why? Why not?

A: If I were an admin I would have declined deletion based on A7. I might have instead deleted it based on G12 (copyvio), as it looks like it was pasted from the company's history page on their web site.

If there were no copyvio, I wouldn't have tagged this one A7. If I had seen someone else tag it with A7, I would have placed a hangon tag and added a couple sentences to the article's lead to clarify the subject's notability.

However, I can see why it would be proposed for A7 deletion: it isn't immediately obvious that the subject is notable. Reading it more carefully, however, the article taken as a whole does assert notability for the subject: well-established company that manufactures military and space-related equipment that has been approved by government agencies and sold worldwide. A quick Google search reveals a profile by Business Week, and Google Scholar has several peer-reviewed publications mentioning this company's products. So there is a potential to meet WP:SIGCOV as well (I didn't check to see if other reliable sources besides Business Week gave the company significant coverage).

Note the description of A7 says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." The claims made look credible, and are easily verified by looking at the company web site (which I did). Indeed, their web site makes a strong claim of notability: "the world’s number one manufacturer of aerospace mass properties measurement instruments".

I view this article as a candidate for improvement rather than deletion. The copyvio issue can easily be fixed by deleting the company history from the article. That would leave almost nothing left, but it would be easy to insert a few lines establishing notability.

Additional optional question from Metropolitan90

9. Last month, you were the nominator in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Wagner (vintner), which wound up being kept with no other editors supporting deletion (the article has since been moved to Stanley Wagner (winemaker)). Could you comment on your current opinion of your decision to nominate the article for deletion and/or the recommendations made by the other participants in that AfD? Disclaimer: I was one of the "keep" recommenders in that AfD myself.

A: Ah, yes. That was a good learning experience. Lessons like this make Wikipedia enjoyable. (It was me who moved the article after the AfD closed). Note from my comment after yours, that your comment drove the final nail in the coffin holding my arguments. I was going to withdraw the AfD nomination at that point but decided to let it play out.

I proposed this article for deletion for two reasons: (1) I found no coverage for this person indicating notability, other than obituaries noting that someone died; and (2) after the author removed my prod, I really wanted to see what the community thought of the concept that notability is established when the only coverage found covers the fact that somebody died. The best way to get consensus, I felt, was through the AfD process. I didn't mind at all being the only deletion proponent, I had no personal involvement in the article, and I am always willing to be proven wrong, so I made every point I could think of to ensure that the community had the opportunity to shoot down each point.

It is now clear to me that it doesn't matter when the coverage in multiple sources occurred. For Wikipedia's purposes, it's sufficient that the coverage occurs, regardless of how notable the individual was while alive. I don't personally agree with that, but it is now clear to me and I accept it.

This was important to me because confusion between real-world notability and Wikipedia notability leads to no end of arguments in deletion debates. This is one of the reasons WikiProject Wine embarked on clarifying the notability guidelines for wine-related articles. This was a wine-related article, although I refrained from referencing WP:WINEMAKER in my AfD proposal because doing so would only serve as a distraction. Each wine-related deletion debate helps the WikiWine project to clarify its proposed guideline, which is derived from official guidelines but deliberately interprets them conservatively.

Further discussion can be found in Support #49.

Additional (optional) question from Toddst1:

10. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?

A: This question does not seem to be specific to adminship. You could ask it of any editor. I am unaware of any policy or guideline specific to administrators regarding contacting law enforcement, other than using the admin tools to block. I don't claim to know every guideline and policy in existence and am happy to be educated if I'm missing something.

That said, I feel that the essay Wikipedia:Threats of violence offers sound advice that should be followed by anyone, not just admins.

I imagine that, depending on the situation, Wikipedians with checkuser privileges can assist a report to legal authorities to identify IP addresses and geolocation of the user who made the threat. For additional information I believe a bureaucrat has the ability to check if the user's email address is associated with a particular internet service rather than a public webmail service like Gmail or Yahoo.

But you asked what I would personally do, under what circumstances, and why. I confess I hadn't given the scenario much thought until you asked this question. While there isn't any requirement to report such incidents, there also isn't any prohibition (that I know of) for any editor to report such incidents to law enforcement. We all have to live with our own conscience. So my answer is strictly personal, having absolutely nothing to do with adminship.

• I'll start with the "why": I have a personal sense of conscience, duty, and responsibility in my life that would compel me to act.
• Regarding circumstances: If I saw a threat that looked credible in the context in which the threat was made, I would act. If the context suggests an expression of venting frustration/anger from an editor who can be reasoned with, I would try to talk to the editor first.
• Regarding my actions: Given a credible threat, if it came from an anonymous IP editor, I'd geolocate the IP address to determine the appropriate locality to contact, and contact them, although first I would the incident on WP:ANI. If a checkuser is necessary to locate the user, I'd initiate a checkuser request.

I'll reiterate here my answer to question 5: There are areas of adminship I am unfamiliar with, and in such instances I would require coaching or advice from more experienced admins. I expect that reporting such an incident on WP:ANI would generate responses from other admins who have dealt with prior similar situations, advising me on further actions I should take beyond what I feel I must do myself.

Question from Colonel Warden:

11. To sample your contributions, I selected last October as the start point. I was puzzled to find that there was nothing for October and only one contribution between November and June. This was puzzling because I had read your statement above that you login almost every day. Please explain. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A: For reference, see the bar graph representation of my contributions that illustrates this single gap in my contribution history.

Real life happens. I stated in my introduction that I have a career and a family. A few life events coincided during that period starting at the end of June: (a) I got laid off from my job; (b) we had our first child the month before; (c) my wife's maternity leave was ending; (d) the daycare provider we had arranged had to delay our start date; (e) I had to be a stay-at-home dad as well as find new employment. I simply had to give up on many activities for three months or so, and Wikipedia was one of them.

Question from User:A. B.:

12. Here are 7 articles that were recently proposed for deletion (PROD). I picked them at random:

• Article Four
• Blasé Splee (EP)
• Cortex Chaoz
• Free YouTube Downloader
• Intellectual Decathlon
• Mark Shandii Bacolod
• Pink Bullet

Please work your way through this list giving us your comments on each. Some questions to consider:

• Could any of these articles have been speedily deleted? If so, on what grounds?
• Were any of these articles ineligible for PROD? If so, why? In this case what should have been done instead?
• As an administrator, are there any of these articles you would not delete after the PROD waiting period expires?
• If these articles were under discussion at AfD, what would your !vote (i.e., recommendation) be?
• Is there anything else worth pointing out about these articles?

I know your time is valuable; don’t feel you have to analyze and respond about all 7 at once; it's OK to piecemeal your answer. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are my assessments, and thank you for allowing a piece-meal answer as I look at each one:

• Article Four — I don't understand the prod rationale. This looks like a perfectly legitimate disambiguation page. I would not delete this. If this were an AfD, I believe it would be a speedy-keep. I would remove the prod (even after it expired) and correct the first link so that the full article title is shown rather than the redirect title, and change the word "specifically" to "such as". If nobody does this before the end of this RfA, I will do it myself after this RfA period ends. An expired prod doesn't suggest consensus; it may simply mean that nobody has looked at the article since the prod was placed.

• Blasé Splee (EP) — At first glance, this looks like a keeper because the band referenced has its own article, but the band's article is also prodded with the same rationale. I agree that the band, self-releasing their own albums, without any reliable source coverage cited, appears non-notable. I tried searching for sources and found nothing beyond blogs, social-network pages, and a profile in a local weekly Detroit newspaper. All articles related to this band have been prodded, all could be speedily deleted, but there is no harm waiting for improvements during the prod waiting period, in the event that someone can find sources to assert notability.

• Cortex Chaoz — To me, this is a speedy-delete candidate, except there isn't an applicable speedy-delete criterion to apply. A7 comes close but A7 doesn't apply to nonexistent games. The poorly-written content could conceivably be copyedited and merged into Crash Bandicoot (series) but I don't really see why that article should mention one unreleased non-notable game that nobody has ever seen or reviewed. This is a noncontroversial deletion. Without a speedy criterion to hang on it, a prod is the way to go. If the author removes the prod, I expect an AfD would quickly delete it.

• Free YouTube Downloader — This got deleted before I could comment on it.

• Intellectual Decathlon — I'm amazed that this article has existed in this state since 2006, for almost as long as I've been on Wikipedia. Can't speedy this one either (no applicable criterion), and I wouldn't be comfortable speedy-deleting an article that has existed for so long anyway. Google searching reveals a huge number of links that seem to mirror this article. Refining the search to exclude the words wikipedia, wiki, blog, and blogspot, I get a whopping 10 results, none of which are independent coverage or reliable sources. This game (and the Apple II) lived and died before Google existed, however, so it's hard to say whether non-digital significant coverage exists without access to Lexis/Nexis. Even so, 10 hits of trivial mentions doesn't suggest that any reliable sources will ever be forthcoming. The article goes out of its way to say that it was created by an editor with a conflict of interest, and although that isn't a reason to delete, it's valid to note in the rationale. After going through this analysis, if I were the admin confronted by an expired prod on this article, I would delete it. Any editor would be justified in taking it to AfD if the prod were removed.

• Mark Shandii Bacolod — I would err on the side of keeping this one. I would decline a speedy-delete. I couldn't predict the outcome of an AfD, but I suspect it would be keep or at least no consensus. The prod makes two arguments, non-notable and conflict of interest. Through the wikilinks, one finds that the subject of the article has directed a notable film, which was screened at two film festivals including a national film festival. This is a (possibly weak) claim of notability, and the article should possibly clarify that point, and source it adequately. Regarding the COI, I stated above that a COI isn't a reason to delete an article. A good editor is perfectly capable of crafting a decent article, even with a COI.

• Pink Bullet — Long-existing orphan article about a band that doesn't seem notable. History shows it has already been proposed for speedy deletion, declined due to length of existence. The article has had many contributors. The declining admin recommended AfD. The deletion proponent prodded it instead. The prodder didn't notify the article author, but that's OK seeing that the author hasn't been active since 2008. It's tough to find reliable sources on this band. I found one local online magazine in Brisbane, Australia (the band's home) profiling the band. My search revealed that the band almost meets WP:BAND criterion #5 for inclusion, having published one album through a long-established independent label (Red Eye Records), but not two albums. The article's history shows many interested editors but the edits are at intervals exceeding the duration of a prod. To me, this deletion doesn't look non-controversial. I'd rather see this one taken to AfD. This isn't an admin decision; any editor can perform the same analysis I have done, remove the prod, and take it to AfD. I would do the same as an admin if I encountered this article with an expired prod.

Question from Suomi Finland 2009:

13.: Do you intend to work on Categories for Deletion? If not, why not? If not, is it acceptable to not be an expert in category deletion policy? Should there be more documentation on what is allowed in categories, as is the case for articles? Where should a confused user go for category questions? Are you willing to answer all these questions?

A: I'll answer your questions in order.

Intent: I intend to work on things where I run across a backlog. I don't see why not WP:CFD. But...

Why not: I lack experience there; I believe I have posted only one comment to a CFD discussion in my entire edit history. See my answer to question 5 — I would have to get advice from another admin experienced in that area before I dive into it.

Expertise in category deletion policy: I am unaware of any policy document called "category deletion policy". In fact, the link Wikipedia:Category deletion policy is a redirect to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which contains step-by-step instructions regarding category deletion and references to relevant guidelines. I am uncertain what you mean by expertise. I think it is acceptable for an admin with no prior expertise in any area to volunteer to work in that area, starting out cautiously with help from a more experienced admin. Certainly studying all the relevant guidelines is necessary, as well as observing prior discussions and decisions.

Sufficiency of documentation: In addition to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion we have Wikipedia:Category names and Wikipedia:Categorization. They look sufficient to me.

Where should a confused user go: WP:CFD is a good place to start, and questions can be posted on the talk pages of any of the documentation pages for points that aren't clear.

Willingness to answer: Yes, provided I have time. Due to my schedule this week, questions posted within 8 hours of the closing of this RfA may go un-answered. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You didn't have to answer the last question! Just act and people will see. Sorry for the disjointed question!

General comments

• Links for Amatulic: Amatulic (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Amatulic can be found here.
• If it matters, User:Amatulic operates from the account name "Anachronist" on other Wiki projects (Commons, Wiktionary, etc.). That name wasn't available on Wikipedia, however.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at talk page. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 23:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Y not? Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
2. I've scanned a couple of the 3Os; that dispute resolution experience is invaluable. As were the contributions to that DRV. Absolutely a strong support. With bonus support for the self-nom.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support Keepscases (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Why not Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. High number of edits, longtime experience, continuous dedication throughout editing history, good content work that includes GA work and article creation, has uploaded several images, lots of dispute resolution work, appears to have good amount of experience at AIV and RPP (despite no automated vandal fighting?). Definitely a great editor and a great candidate for adminship. Swarm^Talk 23:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

   That's right, I don't use automated tools for vandal fighting. I guess I should, as I often find myself competing with them! ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

   Considering that nearly 100 edits to WP:AIV would suggest good experience in vandal fighting with automated vandal fighters, that's quite impressive. Swarm^Talk 23:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Support – sure! Airplaneman ✈ 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Why not?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Support Impressive level of experience, GDonato (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Weak support Q4's answer was a bit incomplete, but you've written a fair amount and 3O isn't always the easiest place. I'd trust you, and your answer to Q5 is something I look for. <spa n style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—fetch·comms 00:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    You asked "When, if ever, is it acceptable" and I gave an example that I felt was complete. I have added an addendum to my answer to make it more complete. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    Other times include socks of banned users, obviously compromised accounts, users making death threats, blatant username violations (such as "User:Fuckbitchesgetmoney"), etc. That was what I was looking for, really, but I might have been a little vague. —fetch·comms 01:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    I thought you wanted one example. Of those additional ones you mentioned, the sockpuppet example is obvious and I should have mentioned that. The other examples hadn't occurred to me but if confronted with one, I would probably block. I disagree, however, with blocking without warning in all those cases you listed. Doesn't context count for something? It is conceivable, for example, for an otherwise productive editor to lose his temper and exclaim "I'm gonna kill the person who...." In such a case of irresponsible venting, I would prefer to give the editor a chance for retraction rather than impose an instant block. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    That's reasonable. "Die in a fire" is a common Internet meme that can be misinterpreted as an actual threat. Something along the lines of, "I see from your user page that you live in Saskatchewan, I will hunt you down and murder you" is less ambiguous. -- Atama頭 22:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    Hmmm, add "trolling an RFA" to the list of things acceptable to block without warning, according to this:[1] although the WP:DUCK circumstance probably made this a special case. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

11. Support Experienced and trustworthy. Dispute resolution experience is a definite plus. Rje (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Strong support There's something about this RfA that screams ideal admin to me... mature, long-time trusted user, no blocks, great answers. Strong support from me. Tommy! [message] 01:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Support, positive contributor, good experience, good answers to questions. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Support The candidate has a long history of excellent contributions, and is obviously very well versed in procedure. Particularly impressive to me was a talk page where civility and good faith are maintained without compromising his ability to stand by his convictions. I see an editor with analytical skill, strong communication and commitment to policy, but with the added, essential trait of understanding that policy is the means to the end, and not the end in itself. It is also evident that he is quite prepared to carefully explain a position or an action, and open to revising that stance when appropriate. I have no doubt that these, and other traits I noticed in my review, would help him to become an excellent administrator.  Begoon^talk 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Support cursory review looks okay, big boost from the well-thought responses to support #10 above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Support It's a rare self-nom that gets my support... not because I dislike self nominations, but because so few of the people who pursue them have the experience I'm looking for in an administrator candidate. I've run across you at 3O before, and have confidence in your ability to handle the mop. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Support, because I consider you to be a net positive; your answer to question 4 was unimpressive; however, your reply to support #10 allayed some of my doubts. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 10:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Looks like a safe pair of hands to me. I like the dispute resolution experience. bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support I don't see why not. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 13:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Support Amatulic's breadth and depth of experience is impressive. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support - long-term Wikipedian (Jan. 2006); trustworthy (rollbacker, reviewer, no blocks); experienced (>10,000 edits)--Hokeman (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support no reason not to. Inka 888 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - excellent candidate. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support – Seems to be a trustworthy candidate. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Support trusted contributor, knows what he's doing. Pichpich (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Support, and going for it because there's a shortage is a good thing, the Oppose/Neutral are just looking for reasons to not support again. Esteffect (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    Your assumption of bad faith is noted. Townlake (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks for the support, but I disagree with your assessment of the Oppose/Neutral. The concerns expressed are valid. Evidently my introductory paragraphs left an incorrect impression that was far from what I intended to convey. If I left an unintended impression, the fault is in my prose. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    Your constructive approach to these observations is commendable, and I appreciate it. Townlake (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

30. Support - good answers, plenty of experience, seems fine overall. AlexiusHoratius 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Support So far no alarm bells are going off, everything looks good. I might ask a question later though. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Seems to be civil and accountable, a fine candidate. ceranthor 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Support. Going in to bat.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
34. SupportI welcome a volunteer who will join me in doing the routine housekeeping, and I think this editor will do so.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Seems good to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
36. Support - Great answers to questions, fine contributions, no concerns. -- Atama頭 23:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
37. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Support per "Supports #'s 2,5,11,12,14,15,19,22,34,36," a la Begoon. Good answers to the questions. Answers 8 and 9 show depth of thought and perception. Reading candidates talk page was a pleasure. User is polite, but there's a strength, a firmness underlying it. As Ceranthor puts it, "civil and accountable, a fine candidate". Dlohcierekim 04:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
39. Support - Here again, we see an editor who, with a mop, will make Wikipedia a better place. Thanks for stepping up, and best wishes. Jusdafax 06:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
40. Support. Good contributions, particularly AIV. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
41. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposer's concern is unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
42. Totally support. I can't see any reason why Amatulic should not be an admin! They seem to qualify greatly. Endofskull (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    Not that it matters (which is why my userpage is vague on the point) but for the record I am a "he". ~Amatulić (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

43. Support. I'm long familiar with Amatulic's contributions to the Third opinion project and think he'll be a terrific admin. – Athaenara ✉ 23:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
44. Support. - A level headed and regular user with sufficient experience in all the pertinent areas. --Kudpung (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
45. Strong Support. - Although I doubt it makes a difference at this point.--Stubbleboy (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Jmlk17 02:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Good user, understands policies and use them in a practical and effective way, per competent writing record YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
48. Support per "Begoon's list". Also answer to q.3 - editors prepared to wade into disputes yet keep cool: excellent. TFOWR 09:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
49. Support, reluctantly. I don't really want a deletionist becoming admin (and your stance on the Valhalla article didn't convince me), but your good work on articles and against vandalism shows me you deserve the mop. I also don't like your misuse of the Stanley Wagner AfD to make a general point about policy, but your explanation of the incident indicates there won't be a repitition of this. The experience of four years of editing shows, and there are good answers to the questions here. OK. Gray62 (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

    I appreciate your support, but the label you apply to me deserves a response. I don't consider myself a deletionist. I don't believe my history is weighted toward either deletionist or inclusionist. To me, those are both extreme points of view. I honestly can't understand labeling someone based on arguments presented in a single AfD in which the arguments were not only unanimous among the members of WikiProject Wine, but were also found compelling by the closing admin. Also I don't believe I misused the Stanley Wagner AfD to make a point. Rather, I used it to ensure that the article did indeed meet the criteria for inclusion that weren't clear at all to me at the time. At its core, an AfD is a consensus-generating tool. All AfDs are proposed based on the proposer's understanding of the criteria, whether correct or incorrect. Getting community consensus to ensure that an article meet the criteria for inclusion is, after all, the purpose of the AfD process. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

    Fair point. Looking into a few AfDs, it seemed to me that you much more often vote for deletion than inclusion, but, right, that's just my subjective view based on too few examples. I'm more of an inclusionist, and, honestly, I can't stand the amount of wikilawyering going on in some of the AfDs. I know that a good understanding of the rules is important for admins, but "legal" nitpicking drives less experienced editors (like me) out of those discussions. As for the Stanley Wagner issue, you wrote "I really wanted to see what the community thought of the concept that notability is established when the only coverage found covers the fact that somebody died. The best way to get consensus, I felt, was through the AfD process.". Sry, but for me this sounds like you exploited the Stanley Wagner AfD for a purpose that belongs into a general discussion about AfDs. I don't think debates about policy should take place in obscure AfDs, hidden in the long list, where only a limited number of editors will see it! Really, HOW would any editor have known that a general discussion about "notablility based on obituaries" takes place in THAT AfD? That's simply not the right place to establish consensus on a GENERAL point!Gray62 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

    I don't see why an AfD can't serve both purposes simultaneously, provided both purposes exist simultaneously. I thought my other responses and the AfD itself made it clear that I honestly felt the article should be deleted based on my (mis)understanding of the notability criteria for inclusion. At the same time, I hadn't ever seen a discussion of a non-notable person who suddenly achieves notability upon his death, so I wanted to see what the community thought about it. Several editors contributed to the discussion, and the opinions were unanimous about keeping the article. I admit that it did cross my mind to open a general discussion at the same time I opened that AfD, but a general discussion seemed less and less necessary as the AfD progressed. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

50. Support Lots of positives, few negatives. Some of the concerns that have arisen, I perceive as minor differences in interpretation of quite tricksy questions, e.g. when I read the answer to Q4 I was worried, but probably because I knew what Fetchy was looking for, and when I read your further discussion further down, I saw your measured consideration for the issues; I'd much rather see someone who actually thinks a bit than someone merely quoting policy, so I'm happy with it. I understand your prior reticence to apply, and I'm grateful that you've decided to help out. I checked out your contribs to Zinfandel over the years...nice stuff; the edits seem well-considered...so, my only real concern at this stage is, if the gain in an admin will be a loss in a content editor; I do hope not, and that you will see the tools as tools - a useful additional option, not something that takes over from the good stuff. From your responses, I believe this will be the case, so I will raise a glass of red to you. Best,  Chzz  ►  11:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
51. Support Good history and solid instincts. Should make a fine admin. Toddst1 (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
52. Secret ^account 14:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
53. Support - Good answers to questions. The candidate also seems to interact with others well. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support The question answers look great. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

    Indented: Doc's !voted above (31st support). TFOWR 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

    Whoops! Sorry about that. Struck out my comment here and struck out the doubt in my first one. I apologize, I plumb forgot about it. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

54. Support -- good answers to question 12 about the proposed deletions. I agree about 95+% with his assessments; the 5% difference involves judgment calls and gray areas and his opinions on these are carefully thought out (and just as valid as mine). What I especially appreciate is that Amatulic has a good understanding not just of our content rules but, more importantly the spirit behind these rules. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
55. Support--Guerillero | My Talk 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
56. Support, somewhat reluctantly. I ran into the candidate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Creek Vineyards and felt that there was a bit too much badgering going on, too many responses given too quickly, similar to the vintner AfD referred to in this RfA. That another editor would qualify the candidate as a deletionist, I can see that too, and I think that the tone adopted by the candidate in those two AfDs on some occasions wasn't friendly or collegial anymore. Now, I looked at some of the 3O cases (esp. the Senate discussion--where, frankly, I disagree, but that's another matter) and that unfriendly tone is missing there, and that's a good thing. I do not think that this candidate would misuse their enormous power given the mop, and I imagine that their possible deletionist temperament (that is, their love for strict policy) will be reined in sufficiently by the need to mediate, which obviously is something this candidate is pretty decent at. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

    "Badgering"? Not on my part. Notice that I was willing to withdraw in one of my early comments, and I made sure to acknowledge the arguments of others in a civil manner.

    OK, there's entirely too much discussion here regarding alleged deletionist behavior. I have participated in several AfDs, either as a commenter or proposer. I note that the AfDs specific to wine topics are the ones generating comments here, so some clarification is in order.

    Members of WikiProject Wine, including myself, hold wine-related articles — particularly winery articles — to higher standards than non-wine articles. These standards are outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics), which I and other editors crafted to reflect the views of the Wine Project. We view the existing criteria for inclusion as requiring a supplemental guideline for a topic as vast as wine, about which Wikipedia has nearly 3,500 articles. The Wine Project's proposed guideline attempts to provide a logical, rational interpretation of existing official policies and guidelines in the context of wine. And the proposed guideline's interpretations result in a somewhat higher threshold for inclusion than an inclusionist would be comfortable with. My behavior in wine-related deletion discussions have always consistent with the views shared by many WikiWinos as expressed in the proposed guideline.

    Here are two links to shed some additional light on what drives my personal behavior regarding wine topics:

    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter/01-07-2008#Wiki-Winos — establishes my involvement in the wine industry.
    • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine/Archive 11#Deletionism and my personal threshold — explains my reasoning for holding winery articles to higher standards, using my own family's winery as a basis for comparison. I have a personal threshold of notability based on direct experience.

    As an administrator, I want to make it perfectly clear that I would recuse myself from making decisions on wine-related AfDs, because I do have conflicts of interest, both in my real life and through my involvement in the Wine Project's proposed guideline. I apologize if this response may appear to have an impatient tone, but can we please put these deletionist/inclusionist debates to rest? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

57. Support because of the comment immediately above and because Amatulic kindly answered by bumbling question without ridicule. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
58. Support. Looks OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
59. Support. Good communicator, clearly open to listen to others and engage in discussion, and seems generally pretty clued up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
60. Support. A good editor who would use the tools well. Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
61. Support - Why not? The Wiki can use him. Nolelover (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
62. Support wiooiw (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
63. Support had a good experience with him at Talk:United States Senate, he seems like a reasonable editor. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
64. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 12,800 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, Rollback rights, autoreviewer, etc. Of special usefulness is his background as a scientist. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Never heard of the candidate, but can't find anything wrong. Courcelles 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
66. Support Seems to make good decisions and understands guidelines/etc, is good people, and small backlogs are good. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
67. Support: As a person who has had regular debates and extremely opposing points of view with Amatulic in the not so distant past, I believe my support vote might count for its neutral point of view. I believe that Amatulic, although not being particularly as active as some of the top editors I have seen on Wikipedia, is trustworthy enough for the admin tools. His discussions have exhibited maturity and even openness to change his points of view and accept mistakes. His contributions are what I should call acceptable for my admin standards. Best regards Amatulic. Use the tools well. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 05:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
68. Support No concerns. If only I had seen the Stanley Wagner (vintner) AfD I might have backed up Amatulic's argument, what a farce. Notability entirely resting on a single obit in the NYT (for a New York state vintner). Calm policy based arguments from Amatulic falling on deaf ears. I see Amatulic's AfD contributions as rational and intelligent. Polargeo (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
69. Support Good work at 30. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
70. Support I trust this candidate with the admin tools. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 18:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
71. Support - seems to be a reasonable chap. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
72. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
73. Support -net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
74. Stephen 01:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
75. Support. I've worked with Amatulic over at 3O and have always found their edits there to be helpful and useful. Keep on rockin'. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
76. Support - Exploding Boy (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
77. Support Appears reasonable, balanced, calm, intelligent and articulate. Valuable qualities. SilkTork *^YES! 07:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
78. Support, as the candidate is experienced, knowledgeable, and mature. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
79. Support I thinks there's a reasonable understanding of policy., DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
80. Support precisely the sort of wildly overqualified candidate I was hoping to tempt forth with my Signpost article. I'm sure you'll make a great admin - hopefully the sort who continues to spend most of their wiki time doing the stuff that you already do. ϢereSpielChequers 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Your Nom. statement gives me the impression of your "sneaking into the drive-in in the trunk of a car", or "The time is right their voting for everyone now's my chance" I'm not sure if this is the premise of the neutral votes feelings, but I formed this impression from your statement and I can not support feeling the way I do. Good luck. Mlpearc powwow 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   That's an interesting interpretation. I guess I muddled the message. I meant it more in the spirit of answering a call to duty: "Wikipedia seems to need me as an admin, so here I am, offering to do janitorial work in addition to my regular editing." ~Amatulić (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   Well, now that DougsTech isn't declaring too many admins... I guess every nomination is presumptuous. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Weak oppose. The way things went down at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Oregon_wineries_and_vineyards just a month ago leaves me unsure that the candidate is as knowledgeable about guidelines as I've come to expect at RfA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   I can appreciate and understand your concern. I must ask, did you notice who closed the discussion? I did. See my final response. Also please see my answer to question 9. This AfD, similar to the subject of question 9, was another gauge of community consensus, this time regarding list articles consisting mostly of red links that have a WP:SNOW chance of ever being notable enough to become blue.

   Admittedly, I proposed this AfD due to my ignorance of one key guideline, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates that was finally referenced near the end of that debate, at which point I immediately changed my own view to "keep" and closed the discussion. The fact that I had missed this guideline after all these years surprised me. However, I haven't really involved myself in lists, categories, and templates either.

   Respondents to this RfA nomination should be aware that I didn't create this nomination under the illusions that I make no mistakes and that I have perfect knowledge (see my answer to question 5 regarding gaps in knowledge). I created this RfA because I want to work on backlogs where I am needed, I felt it was my duty to offer my services, and I believe I have demonstrated sufficient experience, maturity, and responsibility to be trusted with the tools. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   Do you believe your final reply to Steven Walling at this RfA AfD demonstrated this "maturity?" Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry - who is Steven Walling? Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   Shawn misspoke. He meant a snide remark in the AFD, prior to Amatulic realizing he was in error, in which he says feelings are irrelevant. Dlohcierekim 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   (ec) Yes, it's the comment in the above linked AfD I was again referring to. It's not a huge deal, but I agree with Steven in this case that it was unwarranted. It isn't just the list guideline issue that makes me a little uneasy... this unnecessary sniping was a big part of it. Nothing more chilling to regular editors, imo, than admins with a nasty edge. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   .... I don't know, maybe there's some personal history between Steven and the candidate that sparked this. Sometimes people just get under our skin. At any rate, my opposition is based on a feeling -- here we go again -- and remains weak. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   No, I don't recall ever encountering Steven Walling before. In any case it wouldn't matter if a previous dispute had existed between us. I have repeatedly found myself agreeing with an editor with whom I've had a past dispute, and vice versa. For me, each new dispute is a fresh start. For example, I was involved in a rather bitter dispute with Colonel Warden (see question 3 above); and yet, his final comment in this AfD is what convinced me to close it.

   I agree with Shawn in Montreal that an admin with a nasty edge isn't desirable. There exist effective admins who are sometimes perceived that way (SlimVirgin comes to mind), but what I see is coldness from lack of emotion, rather than hot-headed mean-ness. I don't recall feeling nasty or angry during any dispute. There's a difference between a deliberately nasty reply and an emotionless reply that can be misinterpreted; the latter is a artifact of the medium where face-to-face conversations aren't possible.

   In the case of my reply to Steven Walling, I was simply responding to a "me too" comment that did nothing more than agree with an argument that I felt failed to explain adequately, in terms of existing policies or guidelines, why the article should be kept. At the time I wrote the comment, my internal state could be described as civil, to-the-point, and emotionless (well, perhaps a touch impatient). Only after Steven Walling characterized it as "snide" did I realize how it must have come across to others. But I saw his reaction only after Colonel Warden posted the argument I sought within a half-hour, which convinced me to close the AfD. In hindsight I should have offered an apology for the tone of my comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose for deletionist tendencies. AfD hero (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   See my comment to Support #56. I do not have deletionist tendencies. I simply hold wine topics, specifically, to high standards. And I fail to see why this is relevant, especially since I would recuse myself from making wine-related deletion decisions. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for the response. In consideration of a more detailed look at your edit history, I will change my opinion to weak oppose. AfD hero (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Based on ...? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I disagree with the premise that apparently motivated the nomination. I will not discuss the issue here, as the argument is already going on in numerous other places. Before you respond to this, please note it's in the Neutral section. Townlake (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   As is, your comment comes across as saying you disagree with the concept of running for adminship simply because of an apparent "shortage of admins". Is this correct? Swarm^Talk 02:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   If that's what Townlake meant, then I agree; an apparent shortage shouldn't determine an RfA. That wasn't my motivation; it was just the most recent contributor to my decision. My motivation is given in my answer to question #1. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   This is a valid point to raise, even though I'm pretty sure it will prove not to be the case. Going neutral is no different to making a passing comment on the talk page in my opinion. --WFC-- 03:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   That's what I was hoping Townlake could clarify. Do they disagree with running because of the lack of admins or running because you want to help clear backlogs? It's just a vague comment IMHO. Swarm^Talk 04:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   Put it this way - the candidate stated quite clearly their motivation for running above question 1. Townlake (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   In my opinion, an apparent shortage of admins is as good a reason as any for any level headed editor with a reasonable editing history to run for office, particularly if there has been an open call for people to take the plunge. It should not however under any circumstances unduly influence the decision of the closing bureaucrat. If I understand rightly, this is exactly the kind of candidature that WereSpielChequers probably hoped to encourage through his Signpost article. Whether Amatulic's candidacy meets the approval of the community is a separate issue.--Kudpung (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

2. I guess I'm on the fence. I don't find any reason to oppose and I'm satisfied with the explanation regarding the confusion over the motivation for this RfA, but for some reason, I can't quite fully support, so here I am. I could probably be swayed to support, so I'll keep an eye on this RfA and re-evaluate my position before the close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
   • If you could be swayed to support then for what it's worth, I think he would be an asset. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   • And there seem to be some good points raised in at least Supports no. 2,5,11,12,14,15,19,22,34,36 (and others) that might help with the 'swaying' process. Yes, one of those is mine :)  Begoon^talk 03:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

3. On the one hand, I see some good work, on the other, I am not satisfied with a number of responses, in particular Q4 and its various follow-ups. Not quite enough for me to oppose, as the user has not indicated a desire to work in WP:UAA. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   If you are looking for an answer as to whether or not I would block without warning when I see a username such as the example given in Support #10, the answer is yes. I didn't address it there because it seemed obvious. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   (had to interrupt my reply due to emergent weekend errands)

   Regarding working in WP:UAA, my edit history will show my awareness of the Wikipedia:Username policy via my submission of a handful of usernames to WP:UAA. The ones I submitted were pretty clear violations (such as spammers who name their accounts after their company). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

   "To me, this is a speedy-delete candidate, except there isn't an applicable speedy-delete criterion to apply. A7 comes close but A7 doesn't apply to nonexistent games."(q12) - This suggests a misunderstanding of CSD. I really appreciate this editor's respect for consensus - see q9 - and while I realize that discussions at AfD can be a source for change in guidelines (ala jury nullification), I'm not sure how I feel about deliberately starting AfD's in order to start that process as a "gauge of community consensus." It's almost pointy to do this. I think this candidate makes reasonable answers to most of the questions here and I don't feel like the work Amatulic would do cleaning out the mentioned backlogs would necessarily be problematic, but I'm hesitant to support based on what I feel is a somewhat weak understanding of guidelines and appropriate behavior. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   The criteria for speedy deletion seem pretty clear to me. When I saw that article about an unreleased game, CSD was my first internal reaction. Why should I deny it? I never claimed it was a correct reaction. Regarding "pointy AfD": as I stated in my response to Support #49, I thought it was clear from my responses here, and my AfD itself, that I honestly felt the article should be deleted at the time I proposed it. Therefore the AfD was legitimate regardless of the motive I emphasized. I'm not playing games here. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, the criteria is clear to you, which is great, so maybe I'm off in the weeds - I'm not trying to say you're going to make bad decisions when clearing CSD backlogs or anything like that. But the thing about CSD is that we generally want any page deletions to be done only with a discussion, we just have CSD because if we sent articles outlined at wp:CSD to AfD instead then AfD would get swamped - it's like a reluctant admission that we don't have time to properly deal with them. So for something like a game that was never released, the thought that "well this is so obviously ridiculous it ought to be speedied, too bad there is no CSD criteria" kind of misses the point of speedy deletion - that's what prod is for, not CSD. wrt afd's, you're right, I'm not saying you are guilty of being pointy, I probably shouldn't have even said that word; my apologies. I'm mostly reacting to this statement from q9: "after the author removed my prod, I really wanted to see what the community thought of the concept that notability is established when the only coverage found covers the fact that somebody died. The best way to get consensus, I felt, was through the AfD process." I just don't think that AfD's are the best way to start this discussion. Better choices, I think, would have been asking for commentary at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources, the talk page of the editor that removed your prod, or the discussion page of the article. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I am aware that CSD and PROD exist for non-controversial deletions, which would swamp AfD if those other mechanisms didn't exist. My gut reaction to that particular article was that deleting it wouldn't be controversial, it's unlikely that an article about a non-existent product could ever be improved, therefore speedy-deleting would trouble no one. But it should be evident from my analysis that I don't act on my gut. And yes, I agree I could have approached the Stanley Wagner article differently rather than kill two birds with one stone. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   We're sort of talking past each other, but anyway upon thinking about this I don't think these are really reasons to oppose an RfA, so I'll move to support. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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