Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Taelus

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

Taelus

Final (69/5/2); Ended 11:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC) – closed as successful by —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Taelus (talk · contribs) – Self nomination. I was arguing with myself about whether I should do this now, or wait a while longer, and I have arrived at the conclusion that it is up to the community whether I am ready, or whether I need more time, thus I am creating this RfA. A short bit about myself before the questions: I have been a user of Wikipedia for several years now, although for most of them I was an IP editor who performed gnome-like edits. I had created an account but didn't really see the need for it at the time, thus ended up editing on a wide range of IP addresses, shared by a large pool of UK users as they were dynamically assigned. Eventually I was assigned a blocked dynamic IP address, and I dug up my old account, and here I am. As an IP editor I had looked at some of the behind the scenes work, such as AfDs and the like, but never contributed to them at the time. Since I began editing under my username again I have spent more time at venues such as Redirects for Discussion, AfD and Proposed Deletion.

Whilst my edit count is just above the 3000 mark, I have been editing articles since October 2005 as an IP user, and began truely using this username in May 2009, which would be the same time that I dove into the project space to help out there. All in all, I present myself to the community for their decision as to whether I am ready, or whether I should wait. Thank you for your time. Taelus (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2010 (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: I intend to take part in closing RfDs primarily, as they can become backlogged at times. I would also help with closing AfDs, and handling expired proposed deletions. I would also be willing to help userfy deleted articles that have potential if they are given time to be worked on. I would also be comfortable helping in anti-vandalism areas, but I would only handle blatant cases here, as it is not my primary area.

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

A: Whilst the majority of my article edits are small, adding references, cleaning up, expanding sections slightly, I did write one article: Console exclusivity, which I am proud of because after the hard work finding suitable sources it read decently. Other than that, another major article edit I performed was re-writing and adding many references to parts of Warcraft. Outside of the article area I would say my best contributions are creating and cleaning up redirects and disambiguation pages, as well as discussing at RfD, as this is an area of particular interest of mine. The navigational parts of the Wikipedia project are small and simple, but can have such a big difference on the end-users, the readers.

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: I don't think any other users have really caused me any stress. As an IP editor I don't remember really interacting with other users much at all, as I did gnome edits and moved along, or left a comment on a talk page and moved along. Since May however I have been very involved in discussions to gain consensus at various venues. The only "conflict" that I can think of, although that depends on your exact definition of the term, would be editing World of Warcraft shortly after some breaking news regarding China. I initially made a mistake in how I phrased my additions, which lead them to be reverted, after which I rephrased and re-added them, going to the talk page to discuss. After a rapid cycle of bold editing and discussions the situation was resolved and the article updated, the problem had been I was viewing the source as soon as it had come out, and they had rapidly updated and clarified what they had said without me noticing, which lead to debate over what the reference specifically said and what was original research. Personally however I would call this a "passionate debate", as there was no conflict between users involved.

Additional optional question from Phantomsteve

4. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?

A. I would firstly re-perform my layout changes, as this is separate from the issue that editor raised. If I had not cited the information I added for some reason, I would find citations and re-add the information with them backing it up. If I had given citations and the user had reverted, I would contact them via their user talk to ask specifically what is wrong with the citation provided, and would discuss on the article talk page to attempt to gain consensus on inclusion. No admin tools are suitable to be used in this situation, as the admin tools should only be used with consensus anyway. Additionally, I would attempt to find a second citation relevant to the information to include in order to corroborate the points made. The most relevant policy would be WP:V.

Additional optional questions about xfDs from Phantomsteve

5. Could you please answer the following questions related to xfDs:

a. In an xfD, what would cause you to ignore or discount !votes?

A: I don't think I would truely ignore any !vote, as I would review them all upon closing the XfD. However, I would attribute different weightings to !votes depending on what they argue, as the point of the XfD is to gain consensus, discussing policy and points for either side of the argument. A couple of well thought out and policy based points would be more convincing than a flood of "Keep I like it" !votes for example. The only votes I would consider truely discarding would be duplicate !votes which add no additional arguments and sockpuppet !votes which attempt to misrepresent consensus.

b. Could you explain in your own words how you would judge the consensus in an xfD?

A: Consensus is based upon the strength of arguments from all sides, as well as to an extent the general feeling on the topic, in order to permit room for WP:IAR. I would judge the consensus from reviewing all comments in the XfD and viewing what the most convincing, supported points are. For example, if there is a strong, convincing point which is supported by others it would gain consensus over say a larger number of "Its useful" and such comments.

c. Under which conditions would you close an xfD before the 7 days have elapsed?

A: If the page blatantly meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion I would perform an early close, and I would also consider closing a discussion slightly early if the WP:SNOW clause applied, and there was no real chance that consensus would change on the issue.

d. In which cirumstances would you relist an xfD for another week to allow concensus to be reached?

A: If there are convincing arguments on both sides of the debate and a roughly equal amount of support for each, I would relist the debate in order to let it gain consensus, as this would provide more time for discussion on the points. However, if it was clear that a relisting would not help provide consensus, for example if the XfD had been previously relisted, I would close it as "no consensus".

Additional optional question(s) from Ottawa4ever

6. This question is meant to be a hypothetical question that may be encountered as an admin. Assume a new user (<3months experience) asks for your advice about nominating a certain article for deletion. The user is asking how they should nominate the article and what they should say in their opening statement about why they are nominating the article. The user identifies the article to you, Lets say its a small city in an South American country and appears well sourced, The user feels that the articles sources are not reliable. Assume that the article in question is also appearing on DYK when the user asks you this question about deleting this article. How and what would you respond to the user? Please feel free to make any other assumptions, and this is strictly an optional question. If it appears like the question does not make sense I will be happy to re-word thanks.

A: I will assume that by "appears well sourced", that the reliability of the sources used does not stand out as suspect. I would respond to the user by highlighting a few points from WP:BEFORE, as well as linking them to that page specifically. The points I would make to them would be: One, are there any alternative sources available that they feel are more reliable? Two, have they considered tagging the suspect references with {{verify source}}, discussing them at the article talk page, and perhaps a relevant WikiProject?

I would also do a search through the project namespace to see if the names of the sources in question have been discussed in the past, in order to see if there is any prior consensus on their reliability. Assuming that there was not, I would advise the user to tag the suspect references and discuss at the talk page, no doubt some involved at DYK would be able to comment on the reliability of the sources from previous experience.

I also made the assumption that as the article went through DYK, that the disputed sources do not back up anything potentially harmful, and highly doubtful, as per the documentation on Template:Verify source.

I hope this answers your question adequately, as there are several assumptions that can be made. If not please feel free to ask a follow-up question.

Questions from ArcAngel

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

A: Never, because the term "cool down block" is in my mind contradicting itself. Blocking someone who is annoyed will only further irritate them, as well as risk creating an air of 'Right and Wrong' in a debate or argument, which is not helpful nor constructive. A block should only be used to prevent distruption to the encyclopedia, not to 'punish' a user.

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

A: A ban is something implemented by the community, ArbCom or by Wikimedia and that is enforced by the community. It means that the person banned in question is not allowed to edit under any circumstance, until the ban expires, or consensus on the ban changes. A block is a technical restriction which aims to prevent disruption by removing a user/IP addresses ability to edit for a period of time. A block is generally performed by one administrator, although it may be endorsed by others, whilst a ban is generally implemented via consensus.

9. Someone creates an article about a software product you have never heard of. What speedy deletion criteria would you tag the article with?

A: That entirely depends on whether the article is referenced or not. I am sure there are many notable software products that I have never heard of, thus applying a db tag would not be appropriate using this method of judgement.

Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana

10. What's your opinion on IAR?

A: In my opinion, WP:IAR is something which enables users to be bold when editing, and which enables discussions to encompass points which simply wouldn't come up if we followed policy to the letter in every circumstance. Of course, IAR is often misinterpreted as something which can be used to trump other policy, or over-ride previous decisions, however I believe that misses the point. In my mind, IAR is something which can be used in discussions to gain consensus, to allow a comment along the lines of: "I know this is what we usually do in this situation, but this is a special case in which a different course of action may result in greater benefit to the project."

So in summary, I think that IAR is one of the things that characterises Wikipedia's style and method of operations, as it encourages contribution with the long-term goal at heart, rather than trying to memorise a "set of laws" to apply without flexibility. Whilst our policies and guidelines are very important and almost always applicable, there will always exist exceptions on the very borderline of them, which is where IAR can come in during discussion periods, and the bold, revert, discuss cycle.

Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert

11. Can you explain a bit as to why you had a slow start here. You seem to have made no edits for about 30 months. (This question will not change my !vote, I'm just curious)

A: As I said in my nomination, I simply edited from a large range of IP addresses until the activity picks up on this account. I don't really know why I did this at the time, but I assume I created the account because I noticed I could, then never really used it as I could make all the little edits I did without needing to log in. It wasn't until I hit a blocked dynamic IP that I found this account again, and then I continued to use it ever since.

Question from User:Atmoz

12. Since you plan on closing RfDs, please explain your view on the essay Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap.

A: The statement that "Redirects are cheap", and the comments that go with it, are basically an extension of Wikipedia:Don't_worry_about_performance. The point of the essay, and the use of it in RfD's is to highlight the point that we should not delete redirects just because "its rarely used" or "there are too many similar redirects" or "they will find it in the search box anyway", because there is no real cost to keeping such redirects, and thus there is nothing real to gain from deleting such redirects. In my personal view, it is a reminder that we should be focussing on whether the redirect is useful and helpful to readers as a navigational aid, rather than making judgements based solely on statistics about page views and other available redirects.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

13. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. In this scenario I would probably leave the AfD for an admin who is well experienced in BLP to close initially, however assuming that I had to be the closer in this scenario, I would have closed it as no consensus, defaulting to keep for the short term. Whilst I cannot see the deleted article to gain the full picture, the gist I get from reading through the AfD is that this was a borderline case by current policy, with some claiming the sources were enough to pass criteria, whilst others claimed this was not the case. Additionally it seems that some of the sources were on the borderline of what would be classed as a "significant" mention in a third party source. I don't think the AfD would really have gone either way if it had been relisted as community consensus was split, I will also presume that information in the article was not harmful as no comments at the AfD suggest that. Whilst there is an entire debate about defaulting to keep or delete, as closing admin I don't think it would be my place to decide which to do, and thus I would follow current policy and close as no consensus, default to keep. The article could then have been renominated after the large discussions on BLP which are ongoing at the moment, and more in-depth comments could occur at RFC on policy (as has happened).

However, in a different scenario where opinion is divided roughly down the middle on a BLP which is based off potentially harmful content if the sources are debated to not be reliable/verifiable etc, I would close as delete, as the wider communities consensus on doubtful and potentially harmful information is to remove it until it can be agreed that it is properly verified.

Obviously its difficult to give a "On all split argument AfDs I would do this", because every scenario would be different, but as a summary I would be likely to close as no consensus, default to keep, or relist the debate unless the majority of content in the BLP which was disputed was potentially harmful, as BLPs are very important to ensure we give the correct information thus being cautious is best.

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

A. I believe that the current BLP policy is good, as its intentions are clear and positive, however of course as with anything it is hardly perfect. BLPs are a very important area, as having sloppy articles in this area can easily bring the reputation of the encyclopedia into question, and thus I think it is important we have firm unambiguous requirements for such articles, including their sourcing. I do however support the general idea of no consensus defaulting to keep, and I opposed the proposal to make no consensus default to delete on the principle that it would be a blunt implement, it would possibly help out in certain areas, but it may also result in the deletion of some articles which are able to be salvaged. In my mind, no consensus means that more discussions need to take place to gain consensus. Defaulting to delete isn't really no consensus to me, as it suggests that the consensus is to delete rather than keep. The only case I would support no consensus as delete, as explained in the above question, would be if an entire BLP was dependant on potentially harmful information with sources whose reliability was called into question, as wider community consensus is to remove such potentially damaging information and only re-add it once it is agreed to be reliable, so if an entire article was comprimised of this nothing would be left effectively deleting it.

I have not done too much work with BLPs, mostly I have sourced some of them when I stumble across them, and removed uncited dubious information. I have also probably endorsed some uncited BLPs for deletion at Proposed Deletion too, if sources could not be found with a check.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

15. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: In my opinion, Wikipedians should be able to contribute to the encyclopedia without becoming the subject of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, after all our policies that support this stance are there for a reason. However I dislike the term "right" because it is abused so frequently in the world as a justification for things. Being able to edit Wikipedia is a privilidge, and editors that abuse this privilidge will have it withdrawn from them via our warning systems, blocks and bans. As for what I will do to uphold such would be to enforce our existing policies, such as WP:NPA, alongside the rest of the community in order to maintain the editing enviroment that this project was intended to have.

Additional optional questions from Minimac94

16. Two users are engaged in a dispute over an article. The dispute continues. What two things would you do?

A: Presuming this is a content dispute, I would recommend the appropriate venues to discuss this, such as the article talk page, Requests for Comment, getting a third opinion, and I would also warn them not to get involved in an edit war over the topic, informing them of our relevant policies here about disrupting the encyclopedia. If an edit war was already underway I would protect the "wrong version" in order to encourage discussion rather than mindless reverting, and to avoid further disruption to the article. Additionally, if they had already been previously warned about edit warring and had continued to disrupt the article with their dispute, and/or they were not willing to constructively discuss and were using other processes such as the talk page or an RFC to attack each other, then it would be a situation for a short block to prevent additional distruption.

Hmm, this may be more than two things, but I just ran with what would go through my mind at the time. Hope that is an adequate answer for you.

Question from User:SilkTork

17 Could you expand upon "I would also consider closing a discussion slightly early if the WP:SNOW clause applied". It may help to look at WP:NotEarly. SilkTork *^YES! 11:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A: What I meant by my statement would be that if an article stood no chance of being deleted, for example if it had been given a bad faith or pointy nomination which had resulted in the only response being a large volume of "Keep" !votes which were based strongly from policy, I would consider closing the AfD as "Speedy Keep". (Although this also brings in WP:SK, as this is different from WP:SNOW.) If there was absolutely no concievable chance of the article being deleted, it would do no harm speedy keeping it, and removing the template from the top of the article. The absolute opposite could also apply here, with an article taken to AfD because it had its proposed deletion removed with no comment, that gained a large volume of strong policy based "Delete" !votes.

I will however stress that these situations would be rare, as WP:SNOW only applies to very obvious scenarios in which it would be non-contriversial, and where there is no doubt. In any scenario where there is even a tiny amount of doubt, the discussion should be left to run for the full seven days. The purpose of early closure is to allow common sense, as some articles are very unencyclopedic and unsuitable, yet may not meet a criteria for speedy deletion. In such a situation, early closure may benefit readers by removing such unsuitable information more quickly. After all, if we followed the 7-days rule to the very letter, it would risk Wikipedia becoming the "Personal web host for seven days, if you make your content not meet any of the speedy criteria."

In summary, I would not perform early closures unless it was very blatant that the page was unsuitable for Wikipedia, and a large volume of !votes agreed as such without any opposition after several days, and it would be arbitary to sit there watching the clock knowing no more can really be said.

Clarification, re-reading my response to a concern raised, I can see that potential ways that my comment may be read. I would thus like to clarify that I know that WP:SNOW has been depreceated as a method of closure at AfD, and is not an acceptable stand-alone reason to close early. In my answers I was utilising the term as an essay which is an extension of WP:IAR. I do not think it is right for discussions to be closed after only being open a few days simply because a flood of delete/keep !votes are at it with no opposition, and I want to make it clear that I would not use WP:SNOW as a way to pass my own judgement early. The only situations at XfD in which an administrator themselves is allowed to make an early judgement is if the page falls under one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or if there is a reason to speedy keep. My apologies for any misunderstandings, I was simply wary of phrasing myself in a way that would make me appear to be inflexible in exceptional circumstances.

Question from User:DGG

18 In closing an XfD, if the general trend of the comments was strongly towards a delete, and one person appeared a few hours before the close, listing plausible additional sources that might or might not be sufficient to address the concerns, how would you handle it? Suppose the trend was strongly towards keep, and a late participate like the above appeared and gave a reasonable explanation that indicated the only sources might not independent of the subject--a question that had not been raised in the discussion, how would you handle it? DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A: Presuming that there had been no adequate discussion over the new points raised in the few hours remaining, I would relist the discussion to allow time for such discussion to take place, and possibly notify those who had previously commented on sourcing so that they could review what had been found, then allow a different administrator to close once discussion has taken place as this may make me an involved editor in the discussion. I feel this is the best option, as per WP:Consensus and its subsections, consensus is built from discussion, and consensus can change, thus it would not be correct to perform a close when consensus has not been reached due to incomplete discussions, as this would liken XfD to being a vote, which it is not. I would do the same in the reverse instance you gave, if the arguments about sourcing were being contested with a reasonable explanation, more time should be given to allow consensus to form, especially as the additional time required may only be one or two days, and WP:RELIST states that it would not have to mean a full 14 days discussion, it simply requires that consensus is gained.

I believe the key words here in your question are might or might not be sufficient, as this implies that it is not clear either way. It is not the closing admins job to decide in the case of no consensus, thus they should not close here by making their interpretation of the sources/new deletion argument the final word.

Additional optional questions from Booksworm

19. What is Wikipedia's greatest strength?

A: In my opinion, the greatest strength is the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia without needing to jump through any hoops first. Whilst this obviously carries its disadvantages, the fact that we theoretically have a community of editors with no weakspot/blindspot of knowledge is our greatest strength, as Wikipedia is able to carry information on a wide variety of topics.

20: What is Wikipedia's greatest flaw?

A: Hmm. Possibly it's greatest flaw at the time of writing this is that there are so many articles, it is difficult to patrol them all, which can cause problems with BLPs that few ever see. If you had asked me for a suggestion to improve Wikipedia, it would be to embark on a project to attract and retain more editors. After all, as I stated earlier, editors are our greatest strength, thus lack of them in certain areas can be our greatest weakness.

21. To what extent do you feel that age (and/or experience) plays a role in the success (or failure) of an RfA?

A: Whilst age is significant to a group, I would say that directly it has a small effect on an RfA (Mostly because unless someone is specifically asked it may not come up at all). Experience however has a significant role, as experience with policy and different situations is the way to analyse candidates.

22. (to shamelessly borrow a question from decltype) — Would you mind briefly summarizing your language skills in "Babel"-format (e.g. "en-N, es-2, de-1")?

A: en-N (Native UK English more specifically), de-1 (Basic ability with German, have knowledge of the grammar and style, equipped with a dictionary can probably understand texts relatively well, and have basic conversation slowly).

Hope you don't mind me expanding in brackets, but it saves an additional question if anyone was curious.

Additional optional question from User:DESiegel

23 What do you think of the essay Wikipedia:Process is Important?

A: It highlights some good points when it comes to the decision making process for admins and editors, and reinforces some of the ideas that I put forward in an earlier question about IAR. The essay gives good reasoning as to why processes are there and why we should follow them, using IAR as a rationale in discussion rather than as a trump card which allows a process to be skipped. After all, as rightly pointed out in the essay, process is there by consensus, and thus it is only fair on fellow Wikipedians to discuss and gain consensus on exceptions, barring an emergency. I also agree with the essay in that the community is the essential tool for building the project, and agree that process and policy should not be rigid, but be flexible.

The final line of the essay is also very important in my view, and could possibly be highlighted more, as whilst we do have processes from previous consensus, consensus can change and thus it is important that discussions are raised about exceptions, flexibility and use of process. However, the key point of the essay in my mind is that it encourages us to discuss possible change to process, rather than invoke IAR to bypass it, as discussion would lead to improvements in the long term, whilst simply bypassing a process continually would leave it unchanged.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• General Comment: How do we protect against a problem user from opening a new account, being good for a "short while" and then becoming a problem Admin ? - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, there's two ways, Prof. Either we make everybody wait a long time before promotion in the hope that the 'problem user' won't wait that long; or we deal with problem admins. The first option has the disadvantages that we make good candidates wait unnecessarily, and it still doesn't guarantee that the 'problem user' won't wait for whatever period anyway. Messy as it is to deal with problem admins, I think it's the better option. See WP:CDA for developments. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF is still a fundamental policy, Ret.Prof. As long as that remains, we cannot assume that any potential admins will be problems simply because they've been "good" for a "short while." The answer is to get a workable de-adminship process up and going, so that we can remove admins once they're revealed to have become problems. GlassCobra 16:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • • • • And why is that not happening? - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, after a brief review I've seen many intelligent contributions in Wikipedia-space - more admins at RfD would be helpful. Edit count is a little on the low side, but it's plenty for me given that you seem to know what you're talking about. ~ mazca ^talk 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Contributions I have seen appear to be fairly intelligent. Experience in RfD a plus. Experience in WQA a minus :-). A little too light on the content contribution for a strong support but not without some good contributions. Polargeo (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Strong Support: How's this for irony? About eight hours before, I searched for this and was surprised to find the page didn't exist. Taelus is always very helpful and polite towards myself and other users, pointing out where people need to improve and how they can do so. The answers to the questions up at this time show a good knowledge of policy, how the admin tools should be used et cetera. No blocks is always a good sign. User doesn't have rollback, but I believe they can be trusted with it, based on some vandal fighting with Twinkle. Edit summary usage is a perfect one hundred percent. Contributions are a healthy mix between the right areas for what Taelus plans to do with the tools. The only potentially concerning thing would be the low edit count, but we have no way to know how much work she did as an IP, especially since it was dynamic. However, her contributions under this account have been very good in my experience, though I'll keep flicking further through the contributions, see if anything worrying catches my eye. If anyone cares to read it, here's Taelus' editor review. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Strong Support: It is only recently that I have had the pleasure of meeting Taelus but his contributions are 100% positive from what I have seen. He regularly contributes to assessing different articles in Wikipedia:VG and gives helpful summaries on what needs to be worked on. I think this editor would go far as an administrator. There is no evidence so far to prove that he would do wrong with the tools. The 3000 edit count shouldn't be a problem, especially since most previous edits have been using an IP address. Good luck with the RfA. Phynicen ^"Chat" 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   "she", actually. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

5. Support predominantly per "why the hell not"? A spot check of the candidate's contributions shows a demonstrated knowledge of policy and guidleines, for example the WP:VG ratings and some clueful contributions to RfDs along with good maintenance work such as this AfD. I see absolutely nothing to make me think Taelus is anything other than fully qualified to wield a few extra tools. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Support I see no cause for concern in the candidate's contributions, and do not feel that they would misuse the tools. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Seems to be a skilled and courteous editor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Support And trustworthy on top of it, Martin! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Seems to have a good head on their shoulders. –xeno^talk 17:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Seems to meet my standards of, "Why not?" Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Support – looks good on nearly all aspects. I've worked with Taelus before, and the user certainly expresses a desire to continue to do good to the project. –MuZemike 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Yep; no issues as far as I'm concerned. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Support. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Support. Giving this editor the tools can only be a benefit to the project. Excellent answer to Q10 only re-inforces my confidence. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Support Per 6. The answer is solid. Theres a little bit more that could be said to the user in the question, but the necessity of what needs to be illustrated to the user has been outlined by you. Its an open ended question i think. Im sure you will use the tools well, Good Luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Support User has a clue, and while edit count might seem a bit low, it's certainly fine for a great user like Taelus.  fetchcomms☛ 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
18. STROOONG Support Whoa. This editor really blew me away with her question answers. She looks great, and I think she will be with the tools. Buggie111 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Upon a light review of her contributions, and some good answers to the questions, excellent even, I'm enthusiastic to support. ceranthor 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Support - Taelus has decent contributions and experience in article space (enough for my standards) and shows strong clue with policies and guidelines. Also, my interaction with her at the WoW talk page was very positive, when such discussions are often anything but with different editors. -- Atama頭 23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Support, solid character who I can't see using the tools controversially. WFCforLife (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
22. Support I would like to see anyone come up with a good rational to oppose. No one will be able to. Taelus seems to be "squeeky clean". I doubt that you'll screw anything up :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Strong Support Good Question answers, good stats otherwise, seems like a good egg. Can't ask for more. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Support No concerns, why not? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
25. Support Definitely seems trustworthy. Steven Walling 07:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Support. A solid, level-headed editor. +sj+ 08:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
27. Passes the eyeball test. BLGM5 (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
28. Support Very good and well thought answers to questions; maybe I would have preferred a bit more confidence when dealing with policy but, for example, the way she answered Coffee's questions is extremly equilibrated. I'd say she should use the mop with a bit of caution, but well, who shouldn't? --Cyclopia^talk 15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
29. Doesn't seem like anything is wrong. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
30. Support - No problems here! smithers - talk 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Support She knows what she's doing- giving her a mop will be a net gain for the project. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Support Good answer to Q16, long experience and high quality posts. I'd admire Taelus to go for it. Minimac94 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
33. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
34. support Everything looks good here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
35. support An appropriate candidate for the mop. --StaniStani  04:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
36. Support Clearly an intelligent and considerate editor who thinks carefully before acting, understands the relevant Wikipedia policies well, and focuses on the Wikipedia spirit rather than a rigid interpretation of rules. Has a specific area of admin interest that needs extra hands. Answered questions well. Low number of edits isn't really a problem for me, as I see no reason to doubt her honesty in relating her IP-editing phase. Oscroft (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
37. Support per above. I like easy calls like this. Şłџğģő 08:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
38. Changed to Support after Taelus reflected and adjusted her response to my question. I appreciate people who demonstrate an ability to reflect and adjust. SilkTork *^YES! 10:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
39. Support Answers show a good understanding of policy —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
40. weak support no reason I can see to oppose. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

    If there's no reason to oppose, why is it a "weak" support? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

    meh -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

41. Support An examination of his edits reveals that Taelus has been a helpful contributor at RfD for quite some time now. His participation in AfD debates also looks substantive and helpful. I encountered Taelus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex Post Facto, where my impression was a positive one. Taelus is refreshingly low on drama, and while he hasn't got a whole lot of content work under his belt, what he has done looks fine. His answers to the questions inspire confidence as well. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
42. Support - quality answers to questions from what I see, and nothing to persuade me that there would be a potential abuse of the tools. Looks good to me. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
43. Support Strong candidate. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
44. Support no concerns here. Airplaneman ^talk 05:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Good editor, good answers. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Edit count is a bit low but the answers to the questions have been great. Answer to #15 is the best response to that question I've ever read. Everything else looks fine. AlexiusHoratius 15:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
47. "Why Not?" Support per Happenstance. GlassCobra 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
48. I think so, yes. Whilst 3000 is right at the bottom end of what I would generally consider as a good indicator of knowledge, answers all round are very solid, excellent in many cases. I see nothing that indicates they'll go mop-mad. GedUK  15:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
49. Strong Support – I have recently had an opportunity to see Taelus dealing with a difficult dispute in which I was involved. At all times she was polite and constructive. She has clearly demonstrated to me far more clue when interacting with others than some who have many times her logged edit count. As an admin she will be a real benefit to the project. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
50. Support --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
51. Support I don't see any reasons for concern with this editor. The answers to the questions are thoughtful and 3000 edits are more than enough to demonstrate that she has a clue. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
52. Support I see at least 8 months of solid editing, and her early contributions show that I can significantly WP:AGF about prior experience editing as an IP. She's polite, has a sense of humour, and has generally provided good and thoughtful answers to the array of questions posed. A lot of positives, and I can find few negatives - she has my trust. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
53. Support The editor displays quite a balanced perspective towards handling specific issues on the project and is quite honest and clear about situation analysis. I personally believe the editor's communication perspective is her/his biggest strength. We need many such editors for the growing project. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 12:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
54. Support I've had a few interactions with Calmer Waters Taelus, and all of them were positive. Would be a great admin. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

    Comment: Wrong RfA. XD --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

    Ouch...I supported both... The Arbiter^★_★^★ 17:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

55. Support evidence suggests reasonable chance of net positive with tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
56. Support: Lack of edits but a reasonable chance of being a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
57. Support - per solid answers to questions. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
58. Support The response to my question cleared up the only point I had significant doubt about. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
59. Support - Has abley demonstrated the qualities required and will be a welcome addition - especially in her stated areas of interest. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
60. Support - No issues. Probably a net positive. Can't imagine any abuse arising from it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
61. Support: meets my standards. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at ≈ 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
62. Support, even if somewhat weakly. The "low" edit count by nowadays standards is compensated by high clue, and 5 years on the project. Pcap ping 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
63. Support, particularly based on the answers to Questions 4, 5b, 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 23, as well as history of successful interactions with a variety of users. Having edited largely as an IP for a while myself, I can understand and accept the candidates statements on that score. I'm a bit teoubled by the answer to Q9, as it seems to misunderstand WP:CAS#A7, a hot-button issue with me. Taelus should remember that any reasonably credible claim of significance, even if it does not rise to full notability, and even if it is not supported by references, is enough to prevent an A7 speedy and require a Prod or a deletion discussion, either of which gives time for sources to be found and an article to be edited to demonstrate true notability if possible. (Of course this doesn't apply to copyvios and other things speedy deleted for reasons having nothing to do with notability.) But this one matter doesn't bother me enough to prevent me from supporting, though i hope Taelus will review A7 and the other CSD before using the delete button on things tagged as CSDs, and indeed before tagging such. I also hope he observes he "tag-and-bag" system (a best practice but not required) under which an admin will normally not speedy-delete a page unless another editor has already tagged it, if no one has the admin will tag for another admins's review. (Blatant libel in a BLP might be an exception, although blanking and tagging might be enough.) In any case, I trust Taelus with the tools, and am glad he is willing to take on the job. DES ^(talk) 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
64. Support. Answers to questions show a high level of clue and are also very articulate, which to me is as important as experience. No-one has uncovered any behavioural issues. Good luck. Martinp (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
65. Weak support - she's barely meeting my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
66. Support She seems to be capable and willing to do the job...Modernist (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
67. Support Looks good. Ray^Talk 07:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
68. Support No problems here. Razorflame 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
69. Support Last minute, but it never hurts. NJA (t/c) 09:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Changed to support Moral objection I was ready to support as there was nothing solid to object to, and a quick sample of Taelus's interactions showed someone who was reasonably thoughtful and helpful, if slightly inclined to revert. The comment that she would close an AfD per WP:SNOW was understandable - after all, not everyone is aware that opinion on using SNOW to close AfDs has changed over time, and the current consensus is to let AfDs run the full seven days unless they meet the specific criteria of WP:Speedy keep or WP:Speedy close. However, I thought it worth prodding her on that, pointing to the current guidance, so she could review the guideline and adjust her thinking in line with consensus. I had no doubts she would do that, and returned here to support after looking at some of her contributions. Then I saw she had answered my query and defends using SNOW in an AfD, giving an argument as to when and why she would use it, and that she would use her own judgement to close an AfD early, despite guidance that she should not. I am just a little concerned that she is so dogged on a minor point, has not really understood the guidance she has been offered, and has indicated that she is prepared to ignore consensus guidelines in order to follow her own opinions. This is perhaps only a minor point, though I feel it worth bringing up as a moral objection so that Taelus will take something away from this AfD. SilkTork *^YES! 12:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I would not at any point use a close as a method to get my viewpoint/judgement across, however I recognise your concern. I will re-assure you that I certainly would not be rushing to close anything early, but I also hesitate to bind myself to a "One answer meets all scenarios" point, for example there are situations in my mind where an early closure would be suitable such as here. Thanks for your guidance and question, happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with an existing guideline or process the appropriate procedure is to open a discussion regarding your point of disagreement and aim to adjust the guideline or process. Working directly against consensus creates conflict. If you are not happy with the seven day rule because you personally feel "it would risk Wikipedia becoming the 'Personal web host for seven days'", and you feel it "arbitary" to follow consensus because you don't agree with it, then you shouldn't get involved - as an admin closing an AfD the community expects you to follow consensus in both the discussion and the process itself. I am now switching to full oppose as your continued defence of your viewpoint rather than letting the matter drop is not encouraging. It is less dramatic to let your statements and actions stand by themselves, and let others make up their own mind. SilkTork *^YES! 13:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

SilkTork, I have looked over your question and Taelus's responses... Respectfully, I believe you are reading more into their responses than is warranted. They are proposing to follow consensus in an AfD, not willfully ignore it in policy. That said, I feel a clarification by Taelus that they understand that WP:SNOW is deprecated in AfDs would probably be wise. --StaniStani  20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose Limited edit count, little to no content contributions, majority of the edits are from the last 6 months. Off2riorob (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Way too low of an edit count. I understand responsive opposition to the "too low of an edit count" statement, usually I would too, but let's be clear about this. I want editors to know the project as a whole, and more importantly to have made enough mistakes that their character is apparent. This editor effectively started in May 2009. Only three pages created. There is a moderate new page patrolling (175 out of < 3k edits). A 2.4 edits per page ratio means a high emphasis on a set number of pages, which is fine. All told though, I just don't think, this editor has enough widespread experience to be an admin. There are loads of editors that could meet these criteria within 8 months too. I have no problems with the editor, but I want more verifiable experience. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose per "I believe that the current BLP policy is good". Despite the qualifiers afterwards, that statement worries me GTD 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Honestly, per above. Less than 3K edits just isn't enough. Call it editcountitis or quantity vs. quality, but really your tenure is short, your edit count is low and your project space contributions don't exude experience. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose I don't think he would need to ask why. WuhWuzDat 21:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

   Could you clarify your oppose? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well, I would (and this doesn't strike me as very well-reasoned). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

   It is perhaps due to thisRFC involving Taelus. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

   If this is a "retaliation" oppose for the RFC/U, I don't think that is appropriate, but it's only fair to give Wuhwuzdat a chance to elaborate before drawing such conclusions. -- Atama頭 19:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I am tempted to do a WP:POINTy oppose simply to counteract the "Why not" votes. Nothing turns me off a candidate faster than "Why not", it's like saying: "As far as I know you haven't done anything to suggest you need or deserve the mop, but since you haven't eaten more than 3.5 babies in the last fiscal year as per my arbitrary criteria I'll mechanically support like a tool". Administrators are a big deal, no matter what you delude yourself into thinking. RfA is one of the greatest expressions of community trust. Would you trust strangers based on a "why not"? Apparently so, because that is what you are doing here. Just because malicious admins are difficult to avoid doesn't mean we should just give up, sysop everyone, and let the ArbCom deal with the mess, that defeats the entire point of the process. Let's tell our kids to get in vans with strangers, after all we have the prison system to deal with it if anything goes wrong. Bad admins do irreparable harm to the project, if not to content then in reputation and community trust, and if you're concerned that RfA standards are rising - I say, good, great, maybe we can claw back some street cred that some of our current admins have cost us. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

   If a candidate shows that he/she understands policy and guidelines and there is no evidence to indicate that the candidate cannot be trusted with the tools, then why should we think otherwise? That doesn't mean blindly approve people that have no edits, but editors that have shown an understanding of policy and guidelines can generally be trusted. I disagree with you, adminship is not a big deal and, in all honesty, there isn't anything an admin can do that is irreversible. If an admin gets promoted and goes rogue, it might cause disruption for a bit, but there are procedures in place to deal with that. All we can go on is what the candidate has proven to us that he/she can (or can not) do, and that is all that is necessary to make the decision. No arbitrary edit count or time period can make a decision that is purely based on qualitative understanding. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

   Don't overstate the "procedures in place to deal with that." Adminship is important largely due to the fact that there are few procedures to desysop, and all of them are extremely cumbersome. I have no opinion at this time as to any !vote, no criticism from me as to above sentiments, but I think Happenstance's point is well taken. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

   Fair enough. And my response was not an objection to his opinion, just a statement that I don't think it's as big of a problem as it is led to be by his statement. The "procedures in place" I was referring to was those for emergency desysop as it was with regards to severe disruption on the site. I have been a proponent of the recent community deadminship proposals and totally agree with your assertion that the other processes (which would be used in the overwhelming majority of cases) are in fact cumbersome. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral I feel that the canidate is ready to be an admin. However, I am also feeling the desire to oppose him for various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   Any chance you might be interested in elaborating on those reasons? Trusilver 01:19, 31 January 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.