Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amorymeltzer

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

Amorymeltzer

Final 54/3/8; success Andre (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs) – I would like the introduce everybody to Amorymeltzer. He has been with us since December 2005 and has over 8500 edits in his name, including about 30% of them in the mainspace. Some of his accomplishments so far include a good track record at Wikipedia:Articles for creation as well as being a volunteer at OTRS. He has also provided some WP:3O's from time to time. Every time I see Amory, he is always trying to be courteous especially with newcomers who don't know their way around. In addition, he is versed in the speedy deletion policy and tags many articles that need to be deleted, many of them being talk pages of nonexistant articles or other-space pages and redirects to nonexistant pages. With his experience with OTRS and his civil demeanor, I think he would make a good administrator and would be a net positive to the community. We can always use more administrators who are willing to be welcoming and courteous especially to newcomers. MuZemike 21:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

co-nom by Ched. I noticed Amory several months ago, and was immediately impressed with the insight of his posts. In various RfA pages, a few "boards", and several deletion discussions, I noticed that he did his research, checked to see what our policies were, and posted with the maturity of a much more experienced wikipedian. Looking over his stats impressed me: Good work at several reference desk boards (Humanities, Science, and Misc.) Some time ago I mentioned to him that I thought his efforts were very good, and asked him if he was interested in thinking about a possible admin. position in the future; and his reply was along the lines of "I'm not experienced enough right now, but once I've learned a little more I wouldn't decline to help" (paraphrased). That type of a response impressed me, and I continued to notice his posts. Not driven to emotional or confrontational responses, and a dedication to the project, I think that Amory would make fine use of the the few extra tools. I've noticed that he often works with redirects, and I think his work on Macbeth, Earwig, and Planet shows an understanding of what our article building is all about. I have confidence in this editor, and I hope the community will see fit to provide him with couple extra functions to aid in the building and protection of our project. — Ched :  ?  22:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you both very much for your kind, kind words. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Mostly G8 deletions, hopefully saving the C:SD queue some extra work. I'd also like to help out at Redirects for discussion, as in the past that has been my prefered XfD locale and is usually at least a few days behind schedule. I am potentially interested in granting rollback and userfication requests, and would help with {{editprotected}} requests where appropriate.

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

A: I try and bounce around a bit but in terms of number, the most significant would have to be my 3,100 deleted edits, the overwhelming majority of which are G8 nominations of abandoned talkpages and broken redirects. The rest are mostly a smattering of R3, G2, and G10 nominations. I'm also active at Articles for creation. AfC is a lot of fun and it feels really good, so I try and help there and at WP:AFC/Redirects as much as possible. As noted above, I also contribute regularly at the Reference Desk, mainly RD/S, H, and M, and occasionally give third opinions (although I wish I was a lot more active there). I'm a reader first and foremost, so aside from other project-space discussions and some anti-vandal watchlist work, a lot of my content contributions have been as a result of what I stumble across: tidying up pages, punctuation, and grammar. I'm a scientist at heart, so I love sourcing (such as at Earwig, Macbeth, Eddie Green (criminal), and Francis Crowley).

All that being said, I'm probably most proud of the help and advice I gave to User:Jxc5 over a three month period regarding two articles. Discussions were at User talk:Jxc5#Sorting out accuracies.3F, Talk:Jeffrey Hyland, and Talk:Charles Lockwood (author)#More feedback. On a more selfish note, I'm also fond of the minor changes I proposed at MediaWiki talk:Movepage-moved and MediaWiki talk:Confirmdeletetext, as they are probably my most visible work.

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: Nope and Nope. As stated above, I am a big fan of WP:Third opinion, and I think it is a great place to start for simple issues. Theoretically, there are no good reasons for a conflict to start (aside from a scholarly disagreement on content), but as they tend to occur I think the relevant principles outlined at WP:Third opinion#Providing third opinions are a good place to start for any conflict - be polite, try and understand all sides of the issue, and back up any opinions or decisions with a calm and reasoned rationale. We're all human here, so I think AGF and WP:BELLY are great guides, superseded only by the fact that seriously, it really doesn't matter. There's simply no need to get worked up over anything.

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

4. Soxred's tool tells me that, excluding redirects, you've never started a new article. Is that really true?

A: Yup. As I say above and below, I came to Wikipedia to read, and it is there that my interests lie. That's why I work with redirects, I think, because that's where a lot of the actual usability of Wikipedia comes from. I have yet to find an article I wanted to read that did not exist, and I'm more than content to work with what we have now. I do not see an inherent difference between starting an article or working on a current one.

4a. I see you have an ambition to work with CSD. Would you agree that many of the problems and issues with CSD arise when a brand new article is tagged for speedy deletion within five seconds of being started? And if so, how would you answer Jusdafax's criticism below, i.e. that someone who's never started an article has insufficient context to see things from the contributor's point of view?

A: I would absolutely agree with that assessment. I have avoided NPP because AFAICT it encourages swift judgment and deletion; I have no desire to harshly judge people's work the instant they create it, and fully support a movement toward waiting a period of time before adding a speedy tag (as long as it was a good faith article i.e. not G10 or the like). As a contributor, I don't have any particular attachment to anything I create here; thinking otherwise would go against the spirit of WP:OWN, something I keep close to heart. I would point to my work in Articles for Creation and with editors' requests for help as areas where I have strived to help initiate new content in new areas, and proof of my ability to comprehend the creative process, especially from the perspective of new editors who should not be expected to have read everything. Content is content, and it shouldn't matter if it is for an article you created or one that has been around since 2003.

Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert

5 I have noticed that even though you registered in 2005, you would spend several onths without even one edit and the first time you made more than 3 edits per month was in April of this year. As an admin, would you be absent from the project for that amount of time (with little to no edits) in the future?

A: I don't consider the period from '05 to '09 as absent from the project, but rather that I just never started. Late 2005 saw a lot of lifestyle changes for me (school, family, etc.) and while I registered to correct an error I had recently resigned a similar post and was wary of getting committed to something that I knew could be so consuming. During that period I used Wikipedia avidly, and had my account to make my reading more enjoyable: the modern skin, my watchlist to keep track of cool articles, and especially the popups gadget. I would not have accepted these gracious nominations today if I did not think I would be around to make use of them. I certainly do not intend to take any significant leaves of absence.

6 Have you ever promoted an article to Good article/Featured article status?

A: No, and I don't intend on it. I do plan on improving Macbeth (among others) as it is my favorite play and I have already done significant research on the subject for my own edification. With that in mind, however, I think the best articles are those maintained by many, many people, and I have no desire to display a star or a plus on my userpage. I would not nominate an article I worked on for such a status, as I am not after recognition and this is not the place to get it. (I will say that the GA reviewing process interests me, and would some day like to get involved in the project.)

Additional optional question from Epeefleche

7. What is your opinion of the Admin Recall proposals here?

A. In a word, lengthy. The work one editor did a week ago to try and coalesce some of the recurring themes together into a semi-cogent trend was really excellent. Up until now the focus has been on creating a process, and there's been no real consensus achieved for any of them. Instead, we might want to consider shifting the focus away from fully-fledged processes and start considering the core values desired in a functioning recall system. What is listed at the end of the talk page there is a good framework, and I think that's the best way to proceed at this point - there are plenty of options and they are varied enough that a good range has been presented in multiple ways. Hopefully we can find some common ground (e.g., everyone likes initiator concept II, even in proposal X which everyone hated). The opining sample set isn't enormous, but it's enough for a start. I should also note that I think highly of CAT:AOR.

Additional optional questions from  Btilm 

8. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is an actual, technical denial of the ability to edit while a ban is the more nuanced removal of the privilege to edit, often applying only to specific pages or topics, as a result of significant dispute resolution. A block is one method of enforcing a broad ban, but is more often used to prevent disruption such as recurring vandalism. This is different from a lot of other websites, where the two are often one and the same, leading to the fabled Banhammer. I do not intend to block editors, and do not usually enjoy discussions aimed at banning an editor.

9. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: Only on those who use cool-down blocks, because they deserve it? Seriously though, never in the history of humanity has saying "Calm down" to someone during an argument done anything but make them angrier. Cool-down blocks are exactly the same.

10. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: I have found it to be pretty hard to try and cite WP:N without also referring to WP:RS and WP:V as well - the strength and value of our inclusion criteria come from how well all those policies are interwoven. The creation of an article on a professional athlete may not have multiple reliable sources, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't retain it. Normally sources are required to prove notability, but in this case we as a community have decided that a professional athlete is automatically notable, therefore there must be sources to find. For a different example, take articles such as One-night stand and Booty call. Not a wealth of sources discussing the subjects themselves, but they are certainly notable in our society. It's nice to err on the side of more information (when discussing non-BLPs) but still, notability is a requirement for inclusion, not a guarantee. When Bill Clinton underwent surgery, it was all over the press. Could we make it a separate article? Probably, but there's no real need to when it fits neatly in Post-presidency of Bill Clinton. The type of coverage is also important. Often sources are used to prove the subject exists, but not why it is notable. I am in no way notable but there are enough reliable sources to prove I am alive; that doesn't mean I should get an article. The convenient fact is that most subjects with coverage not necessarily worthy of inclusion tend to fail the reliable requirement.

In short, I think the beauty of our criteria comes from the way they work together. It's impossible to look at one without considering another, which is a great way to build an encyclopedia.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

11. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. The short answer is that I wouldn't put myself in that situation, and would instead invite a braver, more experienced sysop to do the honors. The long answer is that I would weigh a number of factors, knowing to tread lightly and keep in mind that the "default to delete" option is available. In essence, it would boil down to a characterization of the discussion that took place. Was it a mostly straight-forward AfD, with Deletes saying not enough notability and Keeps saying enough notability? If so, and the article is sufficiently neutral and doesn't give undue weight to certain incidents, there is no need to alter the default keep outcome of a no consensus AfD. However, if the article and any notability is minor or isolated or largely hinges on a controversial incident or two, or if the author her/himself has voiced an opinion (whether via AfD or OTRS), all of that would have to be weighed. The burden for BLPs is on inclusion, and I would definitely give the article a thrice-over to remove any unsourced, questionable material raised at the discussion. The concept of Do No Harm would be a valuable guide here, as well as the core principle to respect dignity and privacy.

12. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. I think the policy is stellar, it's just the implementation of it that can be troubling. It's a fact that BLPs, given their number, form a disproportionately large portion of the complaints received about articles, and most of that comes from the subjects themselves. It's never that the policy isn't working, just that we aren't effectively or correctly applying it. We as editors need to be meticulous when it comes to BLPs, because otherwise the policy isn't being used. The fact of the matter is that every editor has personal opinions and while most of us try to keep them under wraps most of the time, not everyone makes a tight seal. That becomes a major concern as more and more countries begin to recognize stronger protection for personality interpretations of intellectual property (discussed, among other main theories, in a truly amazing essay here). We also have a responsibility to recognize all potential avenues for BLP violations; recent discussions over offensive categories are the first that jump to mind.

As for myself, aside from some statistics that ended up involving BLPs, I have given BLPs no special attention. I do not find those articles pleasing be involved with, mostly because I don't really know or care much about celebrities and their lives, nor the kinds of sources they tend to be discussed in. Any BLPs I have worked on (Charles Lockwood (author), Jeffrey Hyland, and Keammar Daley) have not hinged on BLP policy, but others such as notability, NPOV, and WP:COATRACK.

Additional optional questions from Bwrs (talk)

13. Have you ever made major revisions to an article as a result of which (you later learned) the article was promoted to WP:GA, even if you were not involved in the promotion process? Bwrs (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Lambanog (talk)

14. Are there any instances where you feel WP:IAR or WP:BOLD was correctly implemented against an established guideline? Could you please cite these cases.

A. Well, (ignoring petty semantic arguments about how WP:IAR is policy and WP:BOLD is probably the most well-established guideline) I find most cases of both to be largely appropriate, and are often used in addition to other rationales. Usually when either is invoked on their own, it isn't against some other guideline but rather that there was a (relatively) novel case, and is usually done in the name of WP:BURO and whatnot; being bold and ignoring rules are good rationales for doing most good things. That being said, I think the strongest example in my mind where both were invoked was last month to close the Colorado Balloon Incident AfD. That was a beautiful close (spawning a rather lovely outpouring on the closer's talkpage) and endosed at DRV. A less appreciated one can be found in the recent A10 proposal on WT:SPEEDY: Articles with those titles ("Who is Hannah Montana?") don't fit nicely into a category (Arguably G6, but I don't like G6 very much) but definitely don't need to be kept. IAR makes for a good db rationale. Also, it's not really relevant, but I think WP:BRD is wonderful.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Why is this being transcluded and voted upon when the victim candidate hasn't accepted and answered the questions? tedder (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  Because I forgot to give him his last rites and testament :) Sorry. MuZemike 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as co-nominator. MuZemike 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Support unreservedly - Amory is one of the best candidates I've known in a while. Shimgray | talk | 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Support, no problems here whatsoever. — The Earwig @ 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - passes muster in my ivory tower. Crafty (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support-No real reason not too.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, looks good. --Aqwis (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
7. About time. ceranthor 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - it appears he has a plan and is well-versed in the topic. Sebwite (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. I always thought you were a she!!! D: I'm very sorry Amory. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   It's the pink, isn't it? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

10. Looks good. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Support, appears reasonable and knowledgeable. Dekimasuよ! 10:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Looks more than clueful enough to wield a few extra buttons. Pedro :  Chat  11:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Clueful, knowledgeable. In fact I'm wondering why you're not an admin already... Until It Sleeps ^{Happy Thanksgiving} 12:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Has obvious insight into wikipedia policies and procedures. Not initiating an article is of no significance in terms of admin work. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Support, great candidate, no problems with giving Amory adminship. I was recently wondering when he would run an RfA. JamieS93 12:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. Over the...well...months, I have formed a favorable impression of Amory, and a review of his deleted contributions a few weeks ago didn't change that. Significant content contributions are always a positive, but this candidate has my support regardless. decltype (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Support most certainly. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. Solid candidate and per Pedro. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Support, appears to have the requisite experience and clue, outweighing opposition concerns. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - no problems here. If he's good enough for Ched, he's good enough for me. Not everyone is an artist. I don't see that giving him a few extra buttons would pose any problems. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Support like whoah. Keegan (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
22. Support no concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Good communication skills. Sole Soul (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Everything appears to check out. Warrah (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
25. Weak Support. Now, I am not exactly one of those who thinks a admin must have huge amounts of content creation, but I feel it is clearly beneficial to have some experience of the GA/FA process as this helps give experience of some areas of admin duties. DYK can also help with this too. The lack of this (as shown in question 4) as well as the answer to question 6 gives me pause in this RFA. In spite of this I am a great believer of as long as the person in question will be unlikely to misuse the tools and has decent experience in the areas they wish to go into, there is no reason to oppose, therefore a weak support in this case is called for. Regards. AtheWeatherman 20:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, trusted and experienced editor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
27. Strong Support. Thoughtful reasoned response to question 7. All else looks good as well. Look forward to a new thoughtful admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - fully meets my standards; large number of edits, Rollback, good sense of humor. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
29. Support as being sensible, courteous, and drama-free. Although it doesn't change my support, I do want to say that I disagree with the part of the answer to Q7 about admiring AOR—it works for the admins who don't need it! As for the opposes, it seems to me that the admin tools are not about content creation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - strong and steady - no reason not to support.  7  00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - Good insight into policy and procedure. Article creation issue not a huge concern to me as long as good understanding of the use of the mop/tools of admin work is there.  Skier Dude  ►  02:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
32. Admin tasks and article writing are two entirely separate skill sets. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
33. While I'm worried about article contributions, being a OTRS member is a easy support for me. Secret ^account 16:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
34. Solid candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
35. Duh. Tim Song (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - I'm familiar with Amory's work on Wikipedia in non-article space, and I've been impressed. He's done enough article work to satisfy me (I don't think GA/FA/DYK is needed). -- Atama頭 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Though some worry over the lack of content creation, carrying the mop entails being able to dedicate onself to Admin duities... and in this, the candidate appears reasonable and knowledgeable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
38. Yes, sure. iMatthew ^talk at 02:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
39.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Amorymeltzer. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Only good interactions, a keen eye this user has. Good luck!Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - Excellent answers to my questions. Good luck with the tools! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
42. Strong Support: This is a near perfect Candidate - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. This candidate is a good editor. I wasn't big on article contributions, either, until I went for RFA, and I'd like to see the candidate pitch in a bit and help with some of the light work, but I'm not going to fail to support a good faith editor who wants to help out with other areas of the project. Plenty to be done, as they say. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. I have seen many of her contributions, I'm sure that she will do great as an admin.--Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

    It's "his" and "he" :) MuZemike 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

    So I'll change to weak support ;)--Gilisa (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

45. Theleftorium 20:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - a great editor who can be entrusted with the tools. Airplaneman ^talk 06:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
47. Support per my nom statement — Ched :  ?  15:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. I can see no objections! —Finn Casey * 01:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. While I would like to see more content contributions, I think Amory has a solid grasp of the various admin areas and therefore is unlikely to cause any problems. Additionally, as he has not worked much in the article creation side, he may be seen as an eminently neutral admin in just about any dispute. This may be quite useful. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
50. I don't see why not. A8UDI 14:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
51. Support I can see that this user is dedicated to be an admin. He took some time to answer these questions and would be beneficial to this project. Btilm 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
52. Support per Ched. The candidates has made useful contributions to the encyclopaedia. FAs and Gas are not required to become an admin, and it would in my view be potentially damaging to the FA process if they were. ϢereSpielChequers 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) candidates
53. Support I can find no reasons why they should not have the mop. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support per WereSpielChequers. Clearly qualified and trustworthy. More OTRS admins are always a help. For those who want content experience, WP:AFC seems much more valuable than GAs or FAs. As administrators we are much more likely to deal with with the dregs of new articledom, improving them to be "good enough" than dealing with disputes on the cream of the crop. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - While I have been the first to support a candidate, this is the first time I have been the starting opposer; I am sorry to be the first here, and in the face of nine supports at the time of this writing. As I have said before, I am a big believer in Wikipedia administrators having had at least some meaningful experience in the field of article writing, the GA/FA process, and starting new articles. This candidate does great work in the areas already mentioned in the opening statements, but the focus is narrow. I strongly feel that personal experience of actually writing and/or substantially improving an article, including conflicts over content and working out compromise is very important, in that an admin may encounter a variety of situations in this area. Suggest the editor, regardless of the outcome here, give it a try. Thanks for your work, which is indeed is in important areas, and my best wishes. Jusdafax 05:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Some experience in audited content work is a requirement for me, and in this case CSD work and the candidate's other contributions don't outweigh that concern. (more info) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   Comment It looks like to me that this Wikipedian wants to do more of the admin duties on Wikipedia. By all means that is fine with me. There have been previous elections where Wikipedians wanted to become admin and work on the administrative side of Wikipedia, and they won.  Btilm  22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per question 11. Default to delete on BLPs has just been discussed extensively, and there was no consensus to allow it beyond times when the subject is requesting deletion. Absent that, that option is not available, the last misunderstanding on that caused enough trouble. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Per User:Jusdafax oppose. Looks to be a good candidate but I am also a strong believer in some sort of content. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   NOTE: Unless I am mistaken, you mean this vote as an 'Oppose' and not 'Neutral'? It could be important at this stage of the process. And thanks for citing me, which I actually believe is a first for me here. Jusdafax 06:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   No, I meant to remain Neutral, as there are no other problems I can see. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   May I boldly ask you to consider joining the few opposers on the grounds that this !vote establishes a precedent? As I say, the candidate is obviously very wiki-useful, but has little to no experience in content creation and openly states they are unlikely to ever participate as an article writer with a personal stake in a GA/FA process. I contend a Wikipedia administrator must be more experienced than this and at least willing to become so. Given the continued tide of support (17-2-1 at this writing) every !vote will be be crucial. Thanks to you, and all who are feeling reservations about this candidate on the grounds I have outlined, for your consideration of my argument. Jusdafax 14:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   I see no precedent here. Speaking as an admin who has made some 70,000 edits and thousands of blocks, protections and deletions over several years, I would point out that I don't believe I have ever contributed a single original sentence to a good or featured article process. I have no plans to either. Would you rather not have me? It is true that extensive content work can provide the necessary insight into what editors need (or don't need) from admins, but this experience can also be obtained and demonstrated from working on more background tasks. This user has shown quite extensive familiarity with the policies they are likely to be dealing with, and enough clue to either seek advice or not get involved with anything they're not. Though you're free to have your view, I contest that this opposition is unfounded in this case. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'll be completely frank, if I may. You are, of course, a good to very good admin. I contend you could be even better if you were willing to grow further and participate in the core process that makes the encyclopedia exist. I also contend you will gain a deeper, richer appreciation of the frontline efforts being made every day in the fluid creativity that make this a permanent work-in-progress. Allow me to respectfully challenge you to attempt this on a subject/article you find deeply interesting... and by extension, to ask more of our admin candidates. Rightly or wrongly, I feel we must ask that not only are Wikipedia administrators excellent 'cops', but they have a strong personal understanding of the nuances of article writing, collaborative discussion, content dispute and conflict, and even the deep divisions and disagreements that can lead all the the way (in a worst case) to ArbCom. This process, in my view, is where many of the hardest decisions in this project take place. A broadly informed, active adminship is vital to the growth of the project as a whole, and to us all as individuals with a stake here. Thanks for your consideration of my polemics, and for your work. Jusdafax 16:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, even better. We are all looking for self-improvement; most of the time we get by with good enough or happily enough. I won't undermine your representation of this ideal, but when it's made I think there is some responsibility to consider carefully whether the individual user already demonstrates the requisite understanding for the task at hand. Did I mention I've never edited any Arbcom page? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   I must say I respect you for that, and feel that I again must say I honor your contributions. Thanks for your measured tone and thoughtful reply. Jusdafax 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm struggling to decide at the moment. I'm not one of the "must have a FA" crowd, but supporting someone who's never produced audited content and never started a page either, strikes a false chord with me. But in fairness to the candidate, I'm not sure whether this is entirely rational, so I'm reserving my vote while I decide about that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral per the answer to question 6. I feel that admins must have some valued work that proves that they are a good editor not just vandal fighting ect. Feel free to sway me though as I will continue to watch this RFA and I may change my vote.--Coldplay Expert 17:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

   Evidence of being a good editor is there. Not abundantly, but it is there; check the history of Macbeth, for example. That wasn't my concern—personally I'm just a bit bemused by the apparent lack of pro-active article work.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral Keepscases (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning Weak Support. Per S Marshall and Coldplay Expert and particularly per answer to question 4. I think the RfA's focus tends to be solely on technical aspects, but I think it's also vital to have a considerable experience in contributing to the encyclopedic aspect of WP. I think that being the creator of an article is much tougher than editing an existing one because it is you who has to defend the notability, etc. and face CSD and the like. Creating an article that stands this test might demonstrate an even better understanding of the rules of CSD than being the person who nominates for deletion! You are active in Articles for Creation, why not create an article by yourself? That being said I like your other contributions so If there is anything else that particularly impresses me about your RfA I may move to support but for now I am neutral.Valley2city^‽ 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral leaning Support It looks like Amory's RfA is likely to pass, which is part of the reason why I'm putting a wishy-washy vote in the neutral section rather than voicing "weak support," which has always sounded like [damning with faint praise] to me. Anyway, Amory will be a good admin, no doubt; I trust him with the mop, and expect his possession of it to be a benefit to the community. Reviewing Amory's history, I see he has a solid record at WP:AfC, WP:RfD, and WP:RD, all of which would compel me to support. He also has a clear idea of what he wants to do with the tools and where he would be most needed – another thing that would compel me to support. His minor work copy-editing and sourcing articles also looks pretty good, not to mention his successful proposals in the MediaWiki Talk namespace. All these things would make Amory a fantastic candidate for adminship – if he had some article work under his belt. Understanding article-building, at least in my opinion, is absolutely crucial. Amory may well understand article-building enough even without creating a single non-redirect, but I'm not sure of that. Regardless, I'm sure he will be an excellent administrator and wish him well, with a promise to switch my vote to support if this RfA becomes a closer call. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Per Question 11 Mr.Snoppy (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

   Indenting vote from indefinitely blocked user. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

7. Neutral, only because I am relatively new to this area of Wikipedia, otherwise I would list support. I'm commenting because I posed a question. Was hoping for examples related to content creation in answer to my question but answer would be thorough enough to overcome my disappointment in that aspect. — Lambanog (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral I do not like the candidates answer to Q11, but understand that has has added the caveat that he will not be working in closing BLP AFDs. RP459 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2009 (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.