Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Writ Keeper

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

Writ Keeper

Final (114/18/6); ended 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Writ Keeper (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to propose Writ Keeper for your consideration as admin. He is relatively new, at least from where I'm sitting, and has impressed me, quickly picking up knowledge of the policies and guidelines and conversing with editors old and new. He does good work in various areas where a tool comes in handy, such as recent changes and new pages patrol, and in associated pages like UAA and occasionally RFPP, areas where I trust his judgment and where he intends to put the tools to use. I looked at his CSD log, which is pretty impressive. He'll be the first to admit that he's no competition for Dr. Blofeld in the field of article writing, but with some gentle nudges (from Uncle G and me) he did produce two DYKs, Sülde Tngri (a Mongolian god) and Adab al-Tabib (a medieval Arab book on medicine and ethics). What I find interesting is that these are nice articles in underdeveloped areas, quite a breath a fresh air, and that he was willing to dive into something he didn't know much about.

Writ Keeper does other stuff--stuff that I barely comprehend, scripts and the like; others can judge, at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts, how good it is. Hey, I think he might be clever enough to delete the main page (he once made me make an edit I never made--I still don't know what happened), and that in itself is reason enough to support him. He tells me he wants to work with edit filters and title blacklists and has suggested a few changes that have been implemented. He's also a really nice guy: I haven't seen him lose his temper or get into conflict, and he does lots of helpful stuff for new editors.

Closing remark: he tells me, and I have no reason not to believe him, that he intends to stay away from ANI. How about that? Drmies (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Conomination from The Blade of the Northern Lights

I have to largely echo what Drmies says above, and perhaps add a bit of my own experience. As someone who patrols CAT:CSD and UAA with some frequency, I’ve seen Writ Keeper’s name on more than a few tags and reports, and I can’t remember having declined one yet. His 1905 deleted edits should quite nicely demonstrate the excellent work he does in speedy deletion and his thorough understanding of the sometimes counterintuitive policies surrounding it. He’s never had a problem calmly giving new users the right guidance and advice even in the face of a less than friendly attitude, one of the most important qualities of both a NPPer and an admin. And god knows we need more technically-oriented admins to do the really hard work to make civilized life possible for the rest of us. I have complete confidence he’ll make a great addition to the admin corps and continue to do an excellent job. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Mostly I'd start at UAA and CSD, also helping out at AIV, if there's a backlog there for some reason. Admin-y stuff that I'm already familiar with. I'd also be keeping an eye on RFPP, although I wouldn't actually be taking action there until I have a little more experience with it. Later down the road, I'd like to work on things like the title blacklist and edit filters, if those bits ever need help, though I definitely need to hone my PCRE skills first. Perhaps SPIs and stuff, I hear they need help every now and again. Really, my plan is to just help out wherever help is needed; I won't be rushing into anything headlong, but if I see an area that's chronically short on admins, I'll shadow it for a while, see how things work, and then start pitching in. As Drmies says, I have no desire to go near ANI, as either a commentator or a disputant; seems like we have enough of both to go around.

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

A: For my best single piece of work, I'm pretty proud of how Adab al-Tabib turned out, though my content creation is an admittedly short list to choose from. Writing doesn't come very naturally to me, but it is the most important part of contributing to Wikipedia, and a surprisingly fun challenge. It's funny: I wouldn't have said that content creation was that important for choosing admins before I actually started doing it, but now I see why people say that. Outside of content creation, I'm proud of what I do at 3O and the Teahouse; they're both pretty fun and, although they're still never-ending tasks like maintenance work is, they feel less...sterile than pure maintenance work does.

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: Nothing that really caused me stress, I'd say. I did get pretty annoyed at the SkepticAnonymous kerfuffle (the very first one) a few months back; wouldn't have remembered about it if I hadn't seen his name somewhere in the last week or two. It can be found at this diff; I'll let y'all be the judge. Context: I had watchlisted his talk page from a comment I left him about speedy deletion vs. prod; later I noticed that he had been blocked, so I popped in to try to give him some advice and things went downhill from there. My general strategy for dealing with Wikistress is usually to pop on some relaxing music, take a break, and come back with fresh eyes. I'm really not too worried about Wikipedia things; there's plenty other stuff to be worried about, no sense in worrying about this stuff, too. :)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

• 4. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A: Well, the first step for me is to go read WP:INVOLVED. :) I really have no desire to be a drama magnet, so I'm probably going to be interpreting that pretty broadly. Basically, any username or article name that I recognize will me an automatic flag for me to consider myself involved and/or ask another admin's opinion. If I don't really remember where I remeber them from, I'll probably take a look at their talk page history/archives, see if I can find my interaction with them. If it's anything more than nominal, then I'd consider myself involved. By "nominal", I mean anything more than a brief message between us; any significant conversation between the two of us (detailed, handwritten messages, or several back-and-forth messages) would count. Obviously, it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, as with everything, but when in doubt, I'd be asking other people for opinions. We're not that short on admins that I couldn't find someone to ask, so no harm in erring on the side of caution.

• 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.

• A: I don't think I can really give a concrete answer for this, because IAR by its nature is meant to be flexible and situation-specific. The key idea I try to keep in mind is that it's not what I think is best for Wikipedia, it's what Wikipedia as a whole (if there is such a thing) thinks is best for Wikipedia. It's more of a loose over strict interpretation of the rules (U.S. history analogy is the interpretation of the Constitution), instead of the rules not mattering. It's more useful for adapting the rules for novel situations that their formulation doesn't account for, rather than ignoring them outright. And one way or another, if I invoke bold or IAR, I better be ready to explain my actions, to have evidence on my side, and to be ready for people to disagree with it. Bold actions should (generally) start the conversation, not end it; then a new consensus can arise.

• 6. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A: The glib answer is that consensus is wherever the strongest policy-based arguments are. It's not a headcount, though headcounts aren't entirely irrelevant, everything else (mainly strength of arguments) being equal. There usually isn't going to be a perfect agreement by all parties (if only there was!), so it has to be weighed to the best of one's ability. The important thing is the strength of the arguments, especially their grounding in established policy; global policy generally trumps local policy. RfCs, XfDs, RMs, and DRVs are similar in this regard, but they all have a different action if consensus hasn't been reached. Generally, the default result of a no-consensus discussion is to preserve the status quo, though they can also be relisted if there just weren't enough voices to make the consensus clear. For XfDs, the default is not to delete. For DRVs, the default is to remain deleted. For RMs, the default is to leave things where they are, unless it's an uncontroversial move that simply hasn't been discussed much. For RfCs (the most general in scope of the four), the default is to preserve whatever the current state is, unless there are BLP or other overriding concerns. There are also differences in the possible outcomes. RfCs are more open-ended; they can have many different possibilities to choose between. XfDs are generally choosing between delete or keep, but have other potential options, like merge or redirect. DRVs are pretty much just choosing between "endorse deletion" or "overturn". RMs are usually just supporting or opposing the requested move, although people can offer other alternatives.

• 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Well, the first step for me is to look at the article history and talk page to see what's going on, and whether people are trying to discuss things or just blindly edit-warring. Next, make sure I'm not involved (as above). Assuming that I see a real edit-war and not reversion of vandalism or BLP problems or the like, if it looks like they're using the talk page, I'll probably post there, asking them to stop editing the article and stay on the talk page to hash it out. Probably drop some talkback notices, to make sure it's not overlooked. If they're not using the talk page, I'll probably post a message to each of their talk pages, asking them to stop editing the article and move to the talk page. From there, hopefully we can work things out. If that doesn't work, then warnings are going to start going out. If that doesn't work (and I should be making sure that there's time for them to react to the messages in between steps), then blocks or page protection might have to follow. The choice between the two would really depend on the situation, I think: I'd have to balance the disruption to others caused by full protection against the fact that blocking prevents the user from participating in discussion. I'd probably ping a more experienced admin and ask their advice if I'm not sure; I'd definitely try to apply common sense here (as with everywhere else), but I don't see anything really helpful on the policy pages.

• 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: Because I think I'd be more effective with the tools. I'd imagine it's an overused trope, but "admin-as-a-status" or "admin-as-a-role" doesn't really appeal to me. For one, there are admins I respect, but there are a lot of non-admins I respect as much or more, and there are a few admins (no names!) that I don't particularly respect, so I don't see it as "joining the ranks of the elite" or whatever. It's just a toolbox; one I think I could make good use of.

Additional questions from Amadscientist

My main areas of concern with new administrators are conflict/dispute resolution. Could you please address the follwing questions:

9. In regards to user conduct issues and the use of the block tool, many admin feel inclined to block and some inclined not to block. If an AN/I report was made against a user for civility and/or conduct issues and you regarded these issues as serious enough to deal with, please explain in general terms how you would determine whether or not a block would be justified and why you would consider not blocking as a better choice. (I give no example as to allow the candidate more room to speculate)

• A: Well, that's kinda a weird question, really, because it presupposes part of my response already. Conduct "patrol" is not something I have a desire to do, and so if I think it's serious enough to deal with, it's probably going to be pretty bad to begin with (not to mention that someone else will probably be on top of it). I'd imagine that I'm usually going to be asking for another admin's advice on matters of conduct and civility. One of the (few?) things that has been evident from the recent wiki-discussions on civility is that there are as many views on it as there are editors of Wikipedia. At least. Plus, there are culture barriers and even language barriers on occasion. So, I would be extremely reluctant to block for anything that's not really blatant, and even then, I'd still probably want a second opinion before I take action. The thing about blocking is that it can make people righteously indignant (for lack of a better term); it's more like avoiding or delaying the problem than dealing with it directly. Not to say that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's not always the right move, and it's a move that I would think twice, three times, etc. before taking.

So to summarize: You find the very question weird to begin with because the scenario assumes you see something you would be willing to deal with (which is the point). You see civility issues as "Conduct patrol". If it is that bad you assume others would deal with it and you would still require assistance from another admin on even blatant civility issues. You believe blocking makes people indignant and is avoiding the problem and would think hard before using it.

My (Amadscientist) follow up questions are:

• Arbcom has kicked back civility issues to be dealt with by the community. Do you not see yourself as part of the communtiy as an admin?
• If you cannot place yourself in a situation where you have to make a choice, why should I trust you in the future to actaully make the right choice?(whatever that might be)
• Please elaborate on the "Conduct patrol" comment. Is this to say that you believe admin has no place with civility issues on Wikipedia?

Replies, in no particular order:

• It's not that it's something I'd be unwilling to deal with. It's more that you're assuming that I've already decided that it requires action. The problem is that, in the absence of a clear, specific, actively-enforced community standard on the matter, your and my standard of what requires action might be different, so I'm uncomfortable with working on that assumption, since we could be starting from two different points. All I meant by the "conduct patrol" comment was that I, as an admin, wouldn't be looking for conduct disputes to handle; I would just be finding them in passing. I didn't mean anything else by it; certainly wasn't a value judgement on admins who deal with conduct disputes (I specifically avoided the loaded term "civility police", and put patrol in quotes, to try to convey this). Ditto with the "other admins are on it already" comment; all I meant by that is, since I would've probably just happened across it, it has probably been reported already, and the people who watch for such things are probably already on it. It's not that I would ignore the problem and leave it for others to deal with (I wouldn't), it's that others most likely will have dealt with it already by the time I get there.
• It's not that I don't trust myself to make the right choice; it's that, again, in the absence of a clear, enforced standard of what is or isn't incivility, I wouldn't trust any one person to make the call by themselves. There are too many subjective factors in incivility, which include the culture and language barriers I mentioned. Unless it was completely 100% blindingly obvious, I think I would always try asking for a second opinion on a civility issue, because my standards are different than yours, than the two or more people involved in the dispute, than anyone else at Wikipedia. The more eyes, the better: a larger sample size might average out to something approximating the social norms, whatever those might be. Your summary of my feelings on blocking are accurate.

I have another follow up on this and will post it tomorrow. Thank you for taking a moment to address my questions!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

10. Adminship is "No big deal", however once made an admin you will have more user rights than an average editor. With only about a years experiance on Wikipedia, could you explain why you feel you are ready to deal with issues with more experianced editors?

• A: Forgive me, but I don't really understand the thrust of this question; I already deal with more experienced editors. It wouldn't really be any different from how it is now: I go in with the knowledge that they probably know what they're doing, that I can be wrong, and that they're another human being somewhere, and treat them accordingly. One of the models of DR that I really like is that of 3O. In 3O, you can ask for a third party's opinion without giving them any sort of power or authority over you. That's like what I'd want for my interactions as an admin. I know that the tools themselves are a big deal (after all, blocking and deleting can have pretty big negative impacts on users new and old if misused), but I don't think that makes me any more authoritative.

I'm pretty big on forgiveness. LOL! But to be honest you pretty much got the jest of what I was asking as I am satisfied with that answer.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

11. Dispute resolution is an important issue and one admins should have a good grasp of. As an editor in the last year, could you provide any or all examples where you helped to resolve a dispute that was between two or more editors for any reason, including content, conduct or behavior?

• A: As I said, I do work at 3O, so I've gotten some DR experience there. If you'll let me cherry-pick a bit, Talk:Hedge_fund/Archive_1#Systemic_risk is one that got settled pretty amicably (really, the whole thing was pretty amicable all throughout; a pleasant change of pace). Looking at my edit history to the WP:3O main page should yield some links to the disputes I've taken on there. If you'd like more examples, let me know; I'm not averse to doing some digging for them. Perhaps on the talk page or something?

Hmmmmm. While 30 is a part of the DR process, I am more interested in how you actually resolved the issue. Of the example you gave, could you elaborate on how the dispute was resolved?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, fair enough. But I don't really have a set strategy when I go into DR. As someone once said, "I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things." I guess my strategy, such as it is, is to try to distill the dispute down as much as I can. I feel that a lot of disputes in general tend to snowball a bit; people start to go on tangents, which then get picked up and debated, and things spiral out of control once the cumulative wieght of the dispute gets too big to handle. I see my role as trying to refine the dispute back to the essentials, try to broker an agreement on those essentials based on policy and common sense as much as possible, and then suggest overall solutions that match the core agreements. Really, it's just common sense throughout, at least to me.

That wasn't an answer to my actual question, which was: "Of the example you gave, could you elaborate on how the dispute was resolved?" To clarify, how did you resolve the dispute you mentioned from WP:3O?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I first read the discussion from the two editors while looking at the article for context. If there are two specific versions of the article that the disputants are working with, then I like to have both open while I read, to gain context. I saw that there was a bit of a sidetrack with AWhiteC questioning Bryant about a COI, so I tried to clear that up at the outset. This allowed us to work on the real issues, since Bryant's possible COI wasn't affecting his edits problematically. There was another problem that seemed to be based on Bryant's misreading of a sentence, so we cleared that up next. The meat of the dispute was over the context of a quote; with the discussion now refocused, I allowed the two to go back and forth a bit, and when they appeared to be deadlocked, I stepped in with another variation, which was accepted by both of them.

I thought that was an excellent answer. Thank you. That satisfies my DR concerns.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from My76Strat

12. Do you believe you would feel an emotional pain if this RfA drew significant opposition, ultimately being unsuccessful?

A: Good question. Nope! As I said above, I'm really only interested in helping out with the tools. If I don't get them, no big deal; might be a minor efficiency loss for Wikipedia, but it's not that bad. I mean, obviously it'll sting a bit if people don't trust me, but I'm not perfect, and the tools can do a lot of damage if misused, so they should require trust. So, it is what it is. I like to think that I've been useful without them so far; no reason I can't continue being useful without them after this. Things will still get done; perhaps not quite as quickly with one more admin, but no big deal.

Thank you for that response; please indulge a follow-on consideration:

12a. I set the above question to allow the possibility that you could have answered with a simple yes or no. Please tell me the summary of your reasoning that moved you to prefer including additional extenuation's?

A:Two reasons: first, because it's been an aspect of this that I've been thinking about for a while, and I kinda wanted to get it down on paper (so to speak). To be honest, if you hadn't asked it, I probably would've said something to this effect in jc37's last question, but I thought it would fit better here. Second, because I don't see it as that straightforward; emotions rarely are. Would I describe my feelings as "emotional pain"? Not really. Would I feel some kind of negative feeling as a result of opposition? Well, yeah. I wouldn't say it reaches to the level of "emotional pain", but I would feel something.

Thank you for this response. FWIW I appreciate that you answered the question just as you did. Frankly if you had chosen to simply answer by saying "no", I'd have been disappointed. So again, thank you. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Hahc21

13. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

A: Well, one of the telling things about blocking is how many new (and some not-so-new) users refer to it as a "ban". They take it personally and see it as they're kicked off of Wikipedia forever, which is totally understandable from their end. The trite expression applicable here is "preventative, not punitive"; that is a sensible saying, but we have to remember that not everyone sees it that way. Blocking is a tool: it's a means to an end, not an end in itself, and so we always have to evaluate whether it's the best way of reaching that end. Part of that is recognizing that it can and will drive away good-faith editors. But sometimes it still is the best tool in the box; people don't always listen to their talk page (or know it's there), page protection has the nasty side effect of locking out other, totally innocent editors, and we can't just let editors keep disrupting the article forever. I wish it were otherwise: I sometimes wonder whether some sort of pop-up chat window might have a better effect than the big orange bar, and it would be a bit more human an interaction. If that were implemented and it worked, that could avoid a lot of blocks. But it's not, possibly wouldn't gain consensus with the community (WP:NOTFACEBOOK and all that), so all we can do is what we can with what we have.

Additional question from Glrx

14. Please comment on the notability of Pope John Paul II Elementary School.

A: Ha, I vaguely remember that, now that you mention it. It's probably not notable, though as a school, it obviously doesn't qualify for A7 or anything. Thinking back, I think that's why I wanted to work on it; I stumbled across it probably from recent changes, saw the speedy deletion tag, and thought, "Why not, let's give it a shot." I don't find anything in a quick Google/GNews/Highbeam search, and that squares with my vague memories of not finding any sources that weren't just the school website, so it probably doesn't pass the GNG. That's why I ended up not being able to write anything about it, though I wasn't familiar enough with Wikipedia processes at the time to actually nominate it or even tag it or anything. (Keep in mind that I was only two weeks into Wikipedia at that point.)

Follow-on question from Kudpung

My questions are always entirely optional and I would not expect anyone to criticise you if you choose not to answer. You conceded that Pope John Paul II Elementary School is probably not notable. It's clear that schools do not qualify for A7, so I'm asking a). how, with an admin's knowledge of policies/guidelines/consensus, you would expect a New Page Patroller to handle such an article, and b). how you would expect a knowledgeable editor to vote on Pope John Paul II Elementary School if it were brought to AfD for being unsourced and failing to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

15. Do you operate, or have you ever operated, other accounts on Wikipedia?

A: Yes, I have two other accounts. User:WK-test is my testing account; I use it to test scripts and the like without having to mess up my main account. User:White King is my "travel" account. ("Writ Keeper" and "White King" are references to the same thing, if anyone's curious; they can also both be abbreviated WK, which is handy). Both alt accounts are indicated on their user page; White King also uses the same signature as Writ Keeper, plus a little extra note. Now that I think of it, though, they're not identified on Writ Keeper's user page; I should go do that. I've operated no other accounts on Wikipedia.

Additional question from Tazerdadog

16. If given the mop, will you be open to recall, and if so, under what circumstances?

A: In a word, yes. I hear that a lot of people don't like this question, since it's inherently nonbinding. But, if a group of established (for a reasonable, non-excessive value of "established") users that would be considered uninvolved ask me to resign, citing a specific admin action that I've performed, I would ask a crat to remove my tools. After a while, probably a few days, I'd allow myself to ask for them back; the crat who handles the request (ideally but not necessarily the same one) would then determine whether they've considered me to have resigned "under a cloud", and that decision will be the one that sticks. I'm not going to pretend that that's a binding promise, since apparently it can't be one. But that's what I'd do.

Additional question from Chaser

17. What's the inspiration for your username?

A: I didn't come up with it, it's just the name of a minor character from Homestuck, a webcomic I read. "White King" (as in the chess piece) is another name for the same character, hence the name of my travel account as noted above.

Additional questions from I Jethrobot

18. You have correctly blocked a user for both general edit warring and violating 3RR on a given article, because they continued to revert despite several warnings. The user provides an unblock request saying, "I'm sorry if you thought that I offended other editors and edit warred. I want to keep contributing." How would you handle this unblock request?

A: Trick question! I wouldn't, because I already blocked them; uninvolved admin needed. :) In seriousness though, I'd try to get them to recognize what they did, perhaps by explaining edit-warring and 3RR in a little more depth. My intent isn't for them to put on a hair shirt and come crawling back, it's more that, if they don't understand what they did, they'll (a) continue the disruptive behavior, which is the entire thing blocks are supposed to prevent, and (b) probably be blocked again sooner rather than later. That said, I'm generally in favor of unblocks, on WP:ROPE grounds if nothing else. If they promise they won't edit-war again, and they haven't had a history of breaking such promises, that'd usually be good enough for me.

19. Do experienced editors deserve blocks of a different length or severity than newer editors for the same infraction (e.g. violating 3RR, repeated personal attacks, glamorous Reichstag climbing)? If so, what should be different? If not, why should they be the same?

A: Their block lengths should be the same in my eyes. If we're serious about prevention-not-punishment, blocks should be exactly as long as is needed to prevent disruption, and I don't see any reason why sheer, uncomplicated experience should be a direct factor in that. That doesn't mean that their history doesn't play a role; it obviously does if they've made the same infraction multiple times in the past. Also, it might affect my willingness to unblock early; though my baseline is in favor of blocking, a history showing that the infraction was a one-off thing, then I'd be more inclined to unblock, and if their history shows consistent, similar problems, I'd be more hesitant to unblock.

Additional question from IRWolfie-

20. When you say "global policy generally trumps local policy", can you clarify what you mean? Can you give an example with specific policies?

A: Sorry, that was a somewhat poorly-worded reference to WP:CONLIMITED, which says that local consensus from a group of editors doesn't override the consensus of the community as a whole. I meant to say "global policy trumps local consensus", since policy represents a community-wide consensus. What I was trying to get across is that, in the event of tension between an agreement of a small group of editors and a global policy or guideline, the global one wins. Example: say there's a literature-focused WikiProject that holds that all characters in a notable book are notable themselves, no matter how minor. If someone brings that up in a deletion discussion of (to choose a book that happens to be on my desk at the moment) Miss Merle from A Gathering of Old Men, our global policy of verifiability and our global guideline of notability override the local agreement that Miss Merle is notable because the book she's in is notable. As an aside, the applicable shortcut would probably be WP:NOTINHERITED.

Additional question from Webclient101

21. Hello Writ Keeper. If the following usernames showed up at UAA, what would you do? Note that they have all been created in the last few days, and nobody has communicated with the users yet, except WikiReviewBot.

• User:Sexygirl398, who has only made constructive edits.
• User:hhhsjsddff, who has not made any edits.
• User:DownwithWebclient101, who has has not made any edits.
• User:Trollolol, who has 1 vandalistic contribution
• User:WikiReviewBot, who has not made any edits.
• User:APPBLOGSTORE, who has promoted his website on his user space.
• User:FuckPaul2, who has vandalized two articles.
• User:AdminsNeedAEffingLife, who has has not made any edits.

A:

• Not a serious violation; leave a comment as such on UAA, and politely suggest (not require) on their userpage that they change their name.
• Not a serious violation.
• Block as disruptive.
• Block as disruptive username, given the edits. Would've been flagged as "Wait until the user edits" had there been none.
• Wait until the user edits, hopefully to respond to the communication. If the editor makes several edits without acknowledging it, though, a block might have to follow, especially if they try to behave in a bot-like manner.
• Block as promotional username, assuming the website being promoted is called "AppBlogStore", or something else clearly linked to his username. If it isn't, then not a serious violation.
• Block as a vandalism-only account.
• Block as disruptive.

Additional question from Mediran

22. If this RfA is successful and if the mop is yours now, what will be your first edit or what will the first thing you will do as an admin? What would it be?

General comments

• Links for Writ Keeper: Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Writ Keeper can be found here.
• Stats on the talk page. Theopolisme 00:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't tend to comment in RfAs any more, but I must say it is mighty impressive that you've edited your CSD log more times than all of your non-deleted mainspace contribs. No doubt some people will find that a problem, but your CSD work sure is fine. "Pepper" @ 00:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support happy to be first! AutomaticStrikeout 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Support this user seems like they won't cause chaos and seems to make themself useful. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Support I've been waiting for this for a while. Ryan Vesey 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Yep! I've only seen good things from Writ -- as Thine says, "seems like they won't cause chaos". <sarcasm> And that's all that matters, isn't it? </sarcasm> Theopolisme 23:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Looks good! Michael (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
6. Support; sorry I couldn't beat the people trying to beat us noms, got hung up at work a bit longer than I thought. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
7. Support. - Looks good to me! We need all the fresh help we can get! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
8. Support (edit conflict) Writ is a good all round Wikipedian and an excellent admin candidate.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
9. Support - Actually, when I blocked SA, you handled it very well. You were likely frustrated by your last post, but you weren't rude in the least and focused on still trying to help him. If anything, that proves to me you can stay calm under pressure. You tried to help him multiple times, kept your cool, you explained it well, you said all the things I try to say, the way I try to say them, so I'm glad to support and looking forward to working with you at WP:SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
10. Support: The co-nomination by The Blade of The Northern Lights is an immediate indication of trust. Knowing BNL as a Bureaucrat, if an editor that long standing and that well read & respected is convinced he will make a good admin, I have an immediate inclination to trust this editor. I agree with the nominators point, more competent technically focused Admins would be a great assistance to editors like myself working to clear all manner of procedural backlogs. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 02:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
11. Per noms. Btw, I don't know complete answers to many of the questions you've been asked so far, and I've been here a while. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

    Dank, I've noticed that trend too. Some of these questions are a bit much. I'm not sure I would pass, but maybe that's the point? Drmies (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

12. Support — I don't think I've ever interacted with Writ Keeper directly, but I've definitely seen him around, and I have been given no reason to doubt that he'll do good work with the sysop bit. Kurtis (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
13. Support--thought you already were! Go Phightins! 03:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

    Actually, so did I.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

14. Support. CSD work looks good. AfD work looks good. Didn't find any copyright violations or even close paraphrasing in your content contributions. A random survey of your talk page comments shows a calm, composed editor. No reason not to support. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
15. Support A great editor; will be a great admin. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 04:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
16. Since when hasn't s/he been an admin? Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 05:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
17. Support The few interactions I've had were positive and I appreciate Writ's work at the teahouse. Should make a fine admin. GaramondLethe 05:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. I've seen Writ Keeper around, and have been impressed with his/her CSD work, policy knowledge, and temperament. No problems here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
19. Support Given the answers to the questions and their history, the candidate shows that they have a good grasp of policy knowledge and how to apply policy to actual work around the project. While the candidate's edit count is reasonably low I feel that they will make a good admin in the long run. Good luck, and I hope you get a new mop in around 7 days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
20. Looks good, its nice to have fresh blood. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
21. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
22. Support. Good contributions. Answers to questions suggest to me that while they are not the most experienced candidate we've had here, they will refer to guidance and ask questions before using tools in areas in which they are not familiar. More mainspace contributions would be good, but I see no reason to oppose here. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Working here for over 1 year is totally fine for adminship. Good luck--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
24. Support No reason not to. I've seen them around and they seem mature and reasonable, and the nominations are good. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
25. Support No concerns. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
26. Support per nomination. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
27. Support Rcsprinter (converse) @ 10:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Thought he'd been around much longer than that. Don't think I've had any direct interaction, but that can be a good sign, considering my areas of operation... Seen him around a lot in many places - never seen a problem. Peridon (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
29. Good work at the Teahouse, and has done some DR work - huge plus in my books. I'm sure you'll do fine. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
30. Support - Friendly, helpful, and has a level head. He'll do fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
31. Support - "I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things." This candidate sees his role as "trying to refine the dispute back to the essentials, try to broker an agreement on those essentials based on policy and common sense as much as possible, and then suggest overall solutions that match the core agreements. Really, it's just common sense....". A nutshell answer to what is an admin. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
32. Support Will benefit the project. Legoktm (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
33. Support Writ has a good head on his shoulders, makes good decisions and has been nothing short of helpful in projects I have been involved in and in helping me out on my talk page (and I'm an admin!). I think he'd respect the mop for sure! SarahStierch (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
34. Support - Acknowledging support of Dennis Brown, Steven Zhang, Sarah Stierch, etc. above. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
35. Support - He'll be great in deletion work and quite helpful and kind to the newbies. Great choice. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
36. Support - no concerns and a good pedigree of supporters. GiantSnowman 16:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
37. Support nice CSD log in various areas, would be a net benefit imo. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
38. Support. Hell yes. Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
39. Support. Not only does he have clue, but I've seen him do great work at the Teahouse, interacting with new editors. That's an excellent skill to have as an admin; with that, I'm happy to support. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
40. Support User has clue, Have seen their CSD work and don't recall any serious issues there, good answers to the questions, including the civility block one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
41. I am pleased to support this nomination. I am particularly pleased with the answers provided to all of the questions, while being impressed by the answer to my own question; very impressed! 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
42. Oh, yeah, I guess I support this editor too. WK, please have the courtesy to not do something drastic again when I'm out camping! Drmies (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
43. Support I like the candidate's maturity and readiness to discuss perceived shortcomings; their Teahouse work is a plus. Should do a good job with the tools. Miniapolis (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
44. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

    I didn't know I was trying to persuade you Brad. But my concerns seem to have been fully supported by the RFA in my opinion. An editor with just over a single year is simply being welcomed into a groupthink of editors that seem to care very little about how the community treats each other and seem to think this is thunderdome. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

    And I think you already had your conclusions drawn before WK answered your question, and you read it the way you wanted to. "Groupthink"--nice buzzword, though I think the list of supporters shows good and variegated company. I don't get your thunderdome reference; I'm probably too old for that. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

    Two men enter, one man leave! Not sure how that applies to RFA, but there's your pop-culture reference. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

    Support Amadscientist raises legitimate concerns, but I think WritKeeper's acknowledgement of the cesspool that is ANI is a good start in a positive direction for admins. I thin Writ will be fine as an admin. Eau(W)oo (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC) User moved to oppose [1].--v/r - TP 17:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

45. Support, as I see no reason not to. The opposes and neutrals are quite unconvincing to me at the moment; the only one of them that gives me any pause whatsoever is Amadscientist's, and even then barely any cause I probably would have had the same general reaction to the question in question. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
46. Support, good user, long enough experience, good CSD log. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
47. Support Well-rounded editor. Spencer^T♦C 03:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
48. Support No concerns at all. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
49. Support I think that this is the proper section. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
50. Support; looks a good candidate. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
51. Support - I see no particularly serious problems, and oppose #1 is completely laughable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

    As an aside, AdminsNeedAEffingLife (talk · contribs) should be hardblocked without talkpage or email access (extremely obvious troll); and if more than one is created, then checkuser is needed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

52. Sure Unlikely to break the wiki, and neither oppose is convincing. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
53. Support Really thoughtful answers to the questions above, including my own (unrelatedly, a humorous edit summary based on statement in #18: *gasp* a singular "they" OPPOSE OPPOSE ABANDON SHIP) I have also watched Writ's participation at The Teahouse, and know that even as an admin, he will continue to be inviting and respectful towards new users who are unfamiliar with policies and guidelines. As a side note, I think the amount of time concerns here are way off-base. Sheer "amount of time" is far less important than how that time is spent, and Writ has had a very industrious first year. That Writ is responsible is apparent, and I trust that the mop will be a good fit with this editor. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
54. Support No major concerns, if he was to help good luck to him. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
55. Support. Lacking in content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
56. Support Wow, excellent answers to the questions. I don't have any concerns here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
57. Support. I do believe they should work towards greater content creation; with that said, appears to be a good candidate. Kierzek (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

    I couldn't agree more. :) (with the "more content creation" bit, that is) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

58. Stephen 01:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)$

    Could you specify why you are supporting? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

59. Sufficient experience. i usually am less than happy about candidates with little experience in article writing, but his excellent work in advising users shows his understanding of the process. And his patience here with some over-persistent questioning is very commendable. When pressed for full explanations of what I saw as perfectly clear from his first responses, he gave excellent well-thought out further discussions of the problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
60. Good luck on your admin career. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
61. Support - Highly competent and respectful candidate. I can find no reason to oppose. Jschnur (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
62. Support: What Jschnur said above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
63. Distinctly unimpressed with a candidate who eschews my nomination. Writ will make an excellent admin, I knew that then and I know that now. Worm^TT(talk) 07:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
64. Support is joseki. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. Users can help in many different ways. We should be easygoing about handing out access, and equally easygoing about revoking it. This user seems to have a pleasant disposition and be clueful. It doesn't take more than a year to demonstrate those characteristics. Jehochman ^Talk 11:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
66. Support. Polite, helpful editor, evidently understands policy, helps new users (with correct advice, from what I've seen); basically, candidate is made of CLUE. Give him a mop and let him get on with it. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
67. Writ is a great example of everything right with Wikipedia: helpful, coherent and heck, even smart(!) His work at the Teahouse, both technical and question wise, has been fantastic. No concerns. Strong support -- Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
68. No issues; I agree with the concerns expressed by SkepticalRaptor, but not sufficient for me to not support. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
69. Support. Lots of clue, great noms, no big deal etc etc.... I don't normally !vote on RfAs which are obviously going either to succeed or fail. But there are one or two tendentious statements among the opposes and I wanted to weigh in to express my pleasure at the candidate's coolness in the face of these. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
70. Support As per Drmies and Yunshui the user has been around since Sept 2011 and see no concerns.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
71. Support - Oppose rationales are entirely unconvincing. "S/He spends too much time helping new users", "S/He focus too much on the back end of the project" (where we expect admins to be active). No significant issues brought up. Achowat (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
72. Support As with the support !vote directly above, I can't see how a dedication to helping newbies at Teahouse can be considered a negative, even if it does subtract from article space work. And I continue to believe that not all admins need be outstanding content creators themselves in order to wield the mop effectively. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
73. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
74. Opposes are patently unconvincing. T. Canens (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
75. No issues. --Rschen7754 19:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
76. Support - I almost voted weak oppose, because of some legitimate concerns raised by Amadscientist, but I respect the judgement of the nominators and I think it's OK to have admins who operate behind the scenes, keeping the machinery well-oiled. Writ Keeper seems to be very thoughtful in his approach and would undoubtedly exercise good judgment as an admin. - MrX 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

    I have to say that the amount of support from editors that I have such great respect for makes me feel that regardless of my concerns, writ will probably be a good admin. I still have some concerns but these are doubtless being considered by the nom. He even said as much. I may not support the editor myself, but understand fully why many feel his work justifies his nomination and support. Much of what others have asked and stated will also, likely be considered as they work in the future.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

77. The first opposer has this on his userpage: "Things I Hate 2. Judgementality on users" Then he goes and opposes someone not based on their contributions, but what he perceives as a lack of time on Wikipedia. lol. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
78. I've been thinking of this for a couple days and I think this user would be a net benefit as an adminPumpkinSky talk 00:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
79. Support That Drmies puts this forth catches my attention, so I did have a look. I like what I see, and trust this editor to use commonsense in their efforts here. — Ched :  ?  00:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
80. Support per Drmies. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
81. Support here's a candidate who really has a good reason for getting the bit, has demonstrated knowledge of the areas for its intended use, and nothing to justify strong opposition. -- Scray (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
82. Support Writ Keeper has good experience and would be a competent and helpful admin. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 15:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
83. Oppose per Q21. Writ Keeper failed to recognize that 398 is a birthdate (March 9, 2008) which would make this user 4. His answer flies in the face of our Wikipedia:Child_protection policy. Besides, a 4 year old is not a "Sexy girl" despite the mom's on Toddlers & Tiaras.--v/r - TP 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

    Ugh, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit at the mention of that show... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

    Yeah, I noticed the article mentions nothing about any of the controversies. I've fixed it.--v/r - TP 16:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

84. Support as Mostly Harmless; which is a compliment meaning you won't break anything, so why not? QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 19:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
85. Support of course. Rzuwig^► 21:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
86. Support Trusted user, no reason to think this user would abuse the bit. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
87. Support No problems here.—cyberpower _Online^{Trick or Treat} 22:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
88. Support – Moving from neutral: After further reviewing, I believe that despite Writ Keeper's short Wikipedia career, the user will be able to manage the tools efficiently. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
89. Support no reason to oppose.--В и к и T 00:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
90. Support Wifione ^Message 07:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
91. Support Seems like he'll be a good janitor. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
92. Support I see no reasons to oppose. I do like that the candidate helps out the Teahouse with new users and I am impressed by the CSD log. SassyLilNugget (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
93. Support. At first, I was going to support based only on the strength of the nominators, but some appear to object to that quasi-lazy rationale. Then, I resisted supporting based on the number of contributions/length of time thing, but some don't like counting rationales. Finally, today, I read a comment Writ Keeper (gee, and I thought it was a legal reference) made at DRV, and that tipped the scales for me. Anyone who has the guts or stupidity to wade into the ArbCom debacle during his RfA deserves to become an admin. Also, for the most part I like his answers to questions (note about unblock request - a blocking admin can accept a request).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
94. Support. Someone we can trust with the mop. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
95. Support I see no red flags that Writ Keeper would misuse the tools in any way. They are helpful, clueful, and will make a good addition to the clean-up crew.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
96. Support per Bzweebl's rationale for opposing. Admins will encounter lots of new users, so someone who helps a lot at the Teahouse will better be able to help them, and someone who uses talk pages extensively is likely to be more collaborative. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
97. Strong Support Writ's Teahouse work is extraordinary, showing not only politeness with new users, but in addition a great understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. In addition, the amount of Teahouse requests that he answers quickly show that he can swiftly respond to things. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 21:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
98. Support. I regret that I haven't crossed paths with the candidate before now. I've read all of the opposing and neutral comments here, and I poked around in the candidate's early edits and discussions, looking for the proverbial skeleton in the closet, and I didn't find one. I think the Teahouse work is a positive, not a negative. I'm not worried about length of time here, or quantity of content writing, because I can see that the candidate can take part in discussions with editors who disagree, and remain courteous and clueful. I'm satisfied that the candidate will not overreach, and I trust them with the tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
99. Support. I rarely weigh in on these but this nomination is frankly overdue. - Dravecky (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
100. Support. Haven't had the pleasure of conversation with this editor, but based on my review of his answers above and the support of many in whom I have great trust, I believe that Writ will do quite well in this role. Always nice to have a level headed editor join the ranks of admin. I'm not the least bit worried about tenure or edit count. I believe that one can become proficient without having to pass some arbitrary length of time or activity. (Besides, as Beebs mentions below, 10k edits in a year is hardly inexperienced). Best of luck to you Writ! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
101. Support I don't see any problems with this candiate. --Webclient101 (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
102. Support Seems competent and unlikely to abuse the tools. Opposes mostly bring up lack of experience, not lack of clue, so I can live with that. wctaiwan (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
103. Support as I believe that this editor will do a fine job with the mop in hand. I look forward to having him in the admin corps and would remind him of these instructions which are tantamount to his success...well okay, not really...just a shameless plug for recruiting him towards more active participation in patrolling at SPI.
      — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
104. Support - Excellent answer to Q6; you should always decide consensus based on overwhelming policy vs one small group of editors who happen to be more active in one area, article or mindset. You're trusted with your tools by the whole community, to enforce the whole editorial community's (and Wikimedia Foundation's) standards. Therefore, I'm countering Townlake's oppose. I also see a swath of support from fellow editors/admins whose judgement I trust, so I see no risk in giving you the tools. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

     I don't mind that you disagree with me, but "overwhelming policy" doesn't ordinarily trump consensus. The right answer would have involved some acknowledgement that in a consensus discussion, consensus is a significant factor; candidate's answer did no such thing. I'm surprised that you, being an admin, also find policy more important than consensus. Townlake (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

     Well, the questions was "How do you determine consensus?", so I can't exactly say "I would use consensus to determine consensus". And yeah, policy does play a major part, as it is consensus on a community-wide scale. so arguments from policy are consensus-based. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

     Policy does play a major part, but when you have two competing policies to evaluate, you don't get to choose the one you like better. That's all I'm saying. (There are plenty of obvious cases where there's a policy argument vs. a "I wanna do what I want" argument; those aren't actually consensus arguments since the outcome is so clear.) You're a good egg and I hope you succeed as an administrator. Townlake (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

     Fair enough, I think we're in agreement on comflicting policies. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

     @Townlake: Policy is consensus, and it's an overwhelming consensus. If you're drafting policy then consensus is based on a majority of logically reasoned arguments from the editorial community. However if you're resolving one specific discussion or request then you base the consensus off of the majority of arguments reasoned by policy. See the difference? — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

     Your post is a needlessly pedantic and a bit circular; thanks for your feedback, I think we're done. Townlake (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

     Wow, that was unnecessarily rude. There's a distinct difference between being pedantic vs being descriptive. And there's nothing circular about my point, as my last two statements presented the reasoning behind the first (a logical syllogism). Though I must say you quite beautifully used onus probandi, ignoratio elenchi, red herring, and thought termination to prevent from actually displaying how I "find policy more important than consensus" (a completely fallaciously reasoned and contradictory statement). — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

105. Support —stay (sic)! 06:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
106. Support. I'm a little concerned about the answer to Q.14 and I thought offering the opportunity to demonstrate more knowledge of CSD, PROD, and AfD would have cleared this up (I was give an hard time over this very issue on my own RfA). Anyway, I see no reason not to trust Writ Keeper with the tools, and when he has been given them I hope he'll come to me or another admin for some help over some exceptions that we practice. I also hope that he will take an interest in ANI, because too many cases get archived after 24 hours without being resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC
107. Support - no problems with this - Mop Please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
108. Support. I like WK's approach, no concerns at all. — sparklism ^hey! 12:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
109. Support: Will make a great Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
110. Would be good and stuff, sensible, clueful, and helpful such that the zombie in me thinks he has a brain well worth eating. -— Isarra ༆ 04:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
111. Support - Seems like he would do a good job as an admin. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
112. Support I see what looks to me like useful anti-vandalism work. The concerns raised do not lead me to suspect that the candidate's use of admin tools would disbenefit the project, and the answers are genuine and indicate a trustworthy user. -- Trevj (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
113. Support - The Teahouse and CSD work is reason to support not oppose. If admin bit is the mop, then let's support people who work administratively and gnome-ish work. KTC (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
114. Support - Meets my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Likely Oppose He's much of a newbie (1 year, 21 days) and not-so-low edit count (9,858 to date). I know it's risky to oppose, but we have to examine the flaws. Might change my mind because of this, but it's now on paper. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 05:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   So what exactly is the basis of your oppose? AutomaticStrikeout 18:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I tend to agree. Of course we should examine flaws, but since you haven't actually identified any it is hard to comprehend why you are opposing. I don't think I have ever seen a user with over a year of experience and nearly ten thousand edits referred to as a newbie before. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Not to badger or anything, but you've only been around since March 2011 and have only about 1500 edits, so I am not sure why you're criticizing someone who's been around for about the same time with almost 10,000 edits a newbie...do you consider yourself a newbie? Go Phightins!

   No flaw in Writ Keeper's editing was identified. TruPepito, if you cannot bring up anything specific, I respectfully suggest you withdraw this oppose since you don't have an actual reason to oppose. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   The reviewing bureaucrat will throw out votes that have invalid rationales before tallying, so it won't get counted anyway. No need to worry about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not worried about this RfA but about esthetics. It's sad to see hollow opposes mar the beauty of the result. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Doesn't make you think that an editor a year old here in Wikipedia makes you wonder what he's doing. Like I've said, he's a year and 22 days old. He has about 8000 (no, he isn't over it) live edits and the rest are deleted. Less than half are automated. Plus, he's a deletionist (1/50/3/1 over keep, delete, speedy delete, and redirect votes respectively). He closed an AfD with Speedy Delete. Flaws are flaws, period. Plus, I may go berserk and run for admin if he gets this go signal. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 03:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   And for Drmies, my name is not TruPepito, it's Pits. Yet, I'd like to see him answer Q#16 & Q#17. Plus, I'm into doubt on his answer for Q#12 and less for Q#12a for failing to give either a simple yes or no. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 03:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   WP:POINT please. Go Phightins! 03:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   Fine, fine. Peace out. I'll talk out of this, like WP:DNB for me.TruPepitoMTalk To Me 03:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   But well, as the consensus goes for >90%, I'm going to plan to also have a RfA sometime in the future but not too soon. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 10:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   I hope people are more supportive at yours than you have been at this one. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

   Even if we're not starting a vote revolution, we're just pointing out the facts for him to see. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 05:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose at this time. First answer to question I posed was "Off putting" and many might be offended by the term "weird" in the sentence when referring to a direct question to them. Social skills are important for admin and while the editor is not horrible at it, they still lack some tact in responding to direct questions. The entire first question asked by this editor was completely blown off and answered in a manner that gives me pause to support, as the nom has point blanck stated they still require help with major issues and I am not satisfied with the "Conduct patrol" comment. I may change my opinion when my follow up questions are answered but the first reply was enough to understand the nomination appears to be a "status quo" candidate.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Not arguing against your oppose which I respect but I had a different read. What I did like is that he wanted more than one opinion on "Civility blocks" and he understands they are less than optimal and should be a community decision, not a unilateral one. I prefer hesitation on civility blocks since there is no consensus on them, so we don't accidentally inject WP:BIAS and block due to a misinterpretation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I am neither for, nor against civility blocks. I am for admin realising they are still a part of this community and editors turn to them for help because Arbcom has decided the community must handle it themselves, yet admin are not the "Civilyt patrol/police"...uhm....of course not. They are THE ONLY ONES who have the ability to block in our community. Even if an RFC/U decided that a block was an appropriate action, it still requires the action of an admin. ANI is supposed to be where editors turn for non-vandalsim action. What we get is "You are on your on" many of the times and then on the flip to that we get over zealous admin who block at the drop of a hat.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose The candidate has 2 errors which prevent me from supporting. First the candidate seems to not understand the notability guidelines, mainly for schools. All schools are notable. I fear the candidate may go happily delete some schools nominated at AFD. Secondly the candidate has temperament issues as highlighted by Amadscientist. Candidate shows attitude from Q9-11. Also shows attitude in answer to Q16. The candidate says "I'm not going to pretend that that's a binding promise, since apparently it can't be one. But that's what I'd do"-when he says "I'm not going to pretend" this indicates he will not be open to recall or make some highly difficult process to be desysopped. Furthermore, "But that's what I'd do" indicates the temperament/attitude I am having trouble with. I also fear with these answers, the candidate will be rude when newbies come to his page asking "why did you delete my page?" etc. Please read the notability guidelines before responding to Kudpungs' followup below Q14. Regards. Capria (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   — Capria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Legoktm (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   !Vote of sock account, now blocked. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, The nom does not have a temperment issue. Using the term "weird" in the first reply was a little disrespectful. I have a thick enough skin to deal with that, but that along with not getting a direct answer to the same question was a little off putting. To me that is simply not the best way to start off. But I am still sure when officially made an admin, Writ will do fine. While my oppose !vote stands, it is simply for reasons not listed or mentioned in the RFA.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   Purely in a spirit of musing: this is kinda my point. I never would've considered the word "weird" in this context to be disrespectful in any way. I'm sorry I used it, now that I know you think so, but that's not at all what I meant. But this is why I can't give a straight answer to general civility questions; some people think that "weird" is disrespectful, and I never would've guessed that. So, if someone and come to me as an admin and said, "This other guy said a comment of mine was weird, they're disrespecting me", my immediate thought would be "No they're not", because I never would've interpreted it that way. But your standard of disrespect is different than mine. So I can't talk about the general case of incivility that should be dealt with, because that general case is insufficiently defined. That's what I was trying to say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   Alright, since you wish to continue this, I can accommodate. Who exactly do you think you are? Surely not the civility police as you made that clear. So lets tear off the entire civilitiy issue and go bare knuckles. You insulted me on purpose to down grade my opinion. Frankly you do not deserve to be an admin simply because people like you. You have little, to no experiance and your first reply to me showed exactly that. Your strength comes from your associations and not from your experiance. Weird? Perhaps....but only in your small minded little world. You could have left well enough alone, but no, you had to pretend to be the better editor....and perhaps you are in some ways....but in other ways you lack many of the needed requirements. As I have said sir.....you are a status quo nomination who simply agrees with the current group. It has not worked to improve this encyclopedia and I truly believe your nomination is a rubber stamp.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Way to teach us all a lesson about civility. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   I am not the "civility professor". If you are looking for lessons in such an RFA is not the place to look. Oddly enough I was defending Writ and said outright he does not have a temperment issue, he was just disrespectful, not a stretch by any means. Some of the above was an overreaction by both of us and these nominations do get heated, but he need not go on about his use of the term "Weird" in describing a legitimate question. He made it clear he will not answer it. The situation with his wording is not a part of the question. I would hardly go to an admin over someone even calling me weird and was not a suggestion or question in regards to his nomination. So why would I accept an apology in the manner presented above. It was hardly unambiguous and simply continued to belittle the opinion of the editor. Civility is a two way street. Don't give it...then don't expect it in return. I can strike out the stupid remark I made above. It was uncalled for even if it is exactly how I felt. I simply feel that administrators have to do more then band together to support each other. They need to support the community. If an admin can so quickly become uncivil in the first round of questions along with blowing off the question then what did you expect? Writ didn't deserve the "small minded" comment. I would see that as a personal attack and I apologise for it. But I still believe my question was blown off and an excuse made for not answering it. Look, writ is going to be an admin. My objection isn't going to stop it, but what the heck was the reasoning to belittle me further when I was attempting to defend them and explain my reasoning for being disapointed in the lack of an answer. If he thinks calling a question "weird" is not disrespectful, then I do feel justified with not supporting the nomination, even against all odds.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

3. This fellow spends most of his time in the Teahouse, where he professes to advise to help people to write articles, but he doesn't seem to have experience writing any article himself. Diesel-50 (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose I've looked through Adab al-Tabib and it seems too weak. For example, some works state that the author may have been Jewish - see A History of Medicine - but this is not mentioned. As the religion of the author seems to be controversial and the article currently gives weight to a writer who pushes the Moslem faith of the author, this seems too sloppy or tendentious. As this is supposed to be the candidate's best work, it seems insufficient to grant the candidate power to adjudicate in disputes between other editors. Warden (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   I did not know that admins had the power to "adjudicate in disputes" more then a regular editor. Could you please clarify to what you are referring? meshach (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   First of all, administrators have extra tools at their disposal, which gives them an advantage over ordinary users. Second, administrators are entrusted with the tools because they are considered trusted users, consequently others will look up to them, trusting them so set an example how to act properly. That's why I would like to see proof of article writing in an administrator candidate. Can the candidate exercise editorial judgement when confronted with a pile of sources that disagree, can he act neutrally and broker compromises in contentious areas? We have no proof that this one can. Diesel-50 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   I disagree with the premise that one must have a near-perfect article in order to be able to fairly assess consensus in other content areas. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   There's some further discussion of this at User_talk:Colonel_Warden#About_your_oppose. Warden (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose- Too many edits in places like Teahouse and talk page, not enough contributions to articles. However, I am impressed by your CSD log. Keep it up! Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Weak candidate. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Could you provide diffs or a particular reason you feel this way? This would probably help Writ Keeper better understand a shortcoming if you think one exists. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I suppose people focus on things like deleting articles and such, but if an admin is supposed to spend some amount of time getting involved with disputes, and that admin has almost no experience in editing issues especially with controversial articles, it's hard for me to see how useful they'll be as real admins. I see that few seem to care about the need for broad background experienced admins, but I just want to make that point, as this is my first vote on admins. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   You probably should note that in Q1, Writ expressed that the places he would intend to perform admin work would not be in area closely related to content disputes (e.g. CSD, UAA, and AIV). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   I didn't get that from my questions. What I got is that they still require assistance in this area even though they feel they have experiance in DR.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Current admins also require second opinions and validation from others. I do not believe candidates are required to be strong in every situation where the tools can be used; that the candidate knows where his limits are and when to ask advice from another admin should be looked upon favorably, particularly given that there are other administrative duties for which the candidate is well-prepared. But again, even if he was working at 30, Writ's responses suggest his goals as an admin do not really seem focused on resolving content disputes. I think this is reasonable given his editing history. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Can you point to the Wikipedia Law that requires me to defend my vote so vociferously? Do you attack the supporters with such vehemence? I don't see you doing that. In fact, there seems to be AGF for every support, even the ones that say "seems like a swell fellow", but every oppose gets the "you don't know what you're talking about, so explain yourself, because obviously you're a dick to question this swell fellow." How fair is that? I mean, the vote is a wipe out, everyone pretty much thinks that WritKeeper, despite hardly doing anything to build an article, which is the whole point of Wikipedia, supports his becoming an Admin. I don't get it. I don't get why you all think he deserves it. I made my point, yet you require a dissertation on why I think that's my point of view. I made it as succinctly as possible, thinking that WP:TLDR is a good guideline. But I'm willing to read the golden rule as to why I, as an oppose, need to justify my vote in such detail when the supports aren't required to do so. Where is it? Is it somewhere handy? Shall I genuflect before my next vote? Seriously, I can't wait to see how that works out democratically. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   To answer your question: no, there is none. Without any consideration to yours or I, Jethrobot's POVs, I don't see that I, Jethrobot asked you a question. He merely stated that you may want to look at the candidates answers, then responded to what someone else said. You aren't required to defend your !vote in any way, however it is expected that opposition !votes will usually explain in more detail why they are opposing as opposed to support !votes which are simply taken to be "per nom" !votes. (This was recently discussed at WP:BN in depth). Legoktm (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

8. Oppose and rather strongly. He hasn't made more than 13 edits to any one article. He has done good work in speedy deletions but the goal of Wikipedia isn't just deleting the bad stuff, its about content creation as well. An administrator needs experience in content creation to really understand how things work here, and I can't support a candidate with so few contributions. Should this not pass, I'd urge the candidate to spend less time in the Teahouse and to turn off the CSD log in Twinkle that is inflating his edit count. AniMate 18:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Dear AniMate, if I added correctly you had made a total of 3966 edits up until the month before your RfA passed...I'll grant you that a large majority of them were to articles, but still! ;) Drmies (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Dear Drmies, generally I don't like replying to those badgering people they disagree with, but I didn't oppose on the basis of a total edit count. I've supported editors with far fewer edits that Writ Keeper who showed that they understood article building and content creation. I opposed because the largest numbers of edits he has made to a single article is 13. If he spent more time building and shepherding articles, I'd gladly support. AniMate 22:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   And I too dislike commenting on allegations of RfAs I don't plan to !vote in, or about badgering, or whatever else i'm about to do... but Drmies' point is actually quite insightful, and while I actually think I support AniMate's position here... in that there's quite too likemeaningful content edits... I also think this points out how insane RfA is... not just now, but always... many of the current admin core would never make it in if they ran RfA today. But you're both right, in certain aspects. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose Lack of experience. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose (Hopefully this will pass anyway.) Per the combination of short tenure and way too few article space edits. --regentspark (comment) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
11. OpposeWrit Keeper does not need the admin tools to do his techno magic, as he has already thoroughly proven. Promises to stay away from areas where he has no experience are better than no promises, but are neither enforceable nor, in the heat of the moment, realistic, no matter how honestly meant. And lastly, WK has limited experience in two significant aspects of admin work: content creation and dispute resolution. Keep on your current general track, write some more articles and get more visible experience in dispute resolution, then come back in 6 months or a year. Bielle (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose per RegentsPark and Bielle. --John (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
13. Symbolic/Maine driver's license theorem oppose. WK is headed for promotion. Q1 starts out fine (work at UAA and AIV; has 105 edits to UAA and 47 edits to AIV; later edit filters), but then gets a small bit unfocused (help where can). I like the reserved stance. Tenure is fine. Edit count has 1100 article space edits that stuck, and that raises a concern about editing experience. The article space edit distribution is skewed from what I expect -- 14 percent article + 4 percent talk. (CSD edits would be multiplied by 3: 1 for article tag, one for user talk, and one for CSD log; successful CSD tag would delete article edit.) I don't have hard limits for edit counts, but edit counts can suggest issues. Article space tags require reading and understanding the article, but good CSD tags would not give rise to much debate. That explains Q3 revealing no significant conflict. I want to see admins have significant conflict and be on both sides: stepping and stepped. I want to see balance and exposure. High article edits also imply exposure to consensus building in difficult situations. CSD tagging skills are fine. AfD main diagonal shows accuracy, but keep votes nearly absent (the confusion matrix has errors). Not only is the candidate weak on content creation, but also primary effort is deletion (many AfD noms). Candidate is missing some valuable perspective. At User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/1#Firearm Cartridges, WK minimizes newbie Fundamental Motivation's complaint about WK's 10K character revert as "you spent just above one hour on this, not many". See also User talk:Fundamental Motivation. WK reverted FM's first eight edits ever; FM rallied to fix problems over the next few days, but FM stopped editing within a month. There were problems with FM's edits, but I wonder if a content editor might be a little more sensitive. WK's answer to my Q14 was fine; GNG is the issue for elementary schools. WK will be a fine admin, but I want to see broader exposure/experience. Content work has significant benefits. Glrx (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

    For those of us who don't know, what is the "Maine driver's license theorem"? Legoktm (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

14. Answer to Q6 is wrong -- admins don't get to close consensus discussions based on which policy argument they like best. That's called "supervoting" and it's been a problem for some admins in the past. In addition, the mainspace edit activity is not exactly impressive. That said, this looks like it'll pass, and I congratulate you on being the first candidate in two months to pass RFA, but please be careful with the tools when you get started. Townlake (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose Lack of experience in main article space editing. Until we have specific sets of admin tools for specific jobs I can't support any candidate with the full range of admin tools / responsibilities GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
16. I've been giving this candidacy a lot of thought, because I'd like to support you; however, there are some issues which prevent me from doing so. Mainly it's your lack of experience dealing with content disputes that gives me pause — trust me, when you are an admin, disputes have a way of finding you —, but I also think some of your answers are off the mark. That said, it looks like this RfA is going to pass, so I'd like to echo what Townlake said: congratulations, but please be careful. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose Q10 response nudges my concerns that you spend a lot of time in social areas without having gained cue on dealing with tricky situations, something you should be comfortable with before becoming an admin. Maybe you won't be a bad admin, but I would like to see that your number to the tally would be a benefit. I don't see that, so I see no reason you should get this hat. -Eau(W)oo (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose I'm satisfied by the quality of his CSD log. However, I've noticed a remarkable total of 4 edits to RFPP. Slightly concerned about deletionist tendencies in the AfD !votes (91% delete, and 5.5 speedy delete). I understand that this is a result of most of his contributions to AfD being his own nominations, but I'd prefer to see some participation in discussions. Mild objections about the 46 reports to AIV, but concerns about sparse participation there (none in October, 4 in September, 1 in August, 4 in July, 2 in June). No concerns about experience at UAA. Stronger concerns about a lack of content creation, and what I see as limited contribution to content. I think it's important for admins to have some experience creating content and collaborating with other editors to know what the point of Wikipedia is. Basically, although I appreciate the candidate's experience and willingness to help, I'd feel more comfortable if he had more experience. He's ready for UAA, but I feel that article work and creation is a must for admins involved in CSD, even though he has good enough experience in CSD tagging. Not enough confidence for RfPP or AIV, and adminship is a package deal, so I oppose this nomination.--Slon02 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I don't want to oppose, but I can't support you in good faith. Not that I think you'd misuse the tools for any particular reason or anything, but a dichotomy of your contributions show me something: your total number of edits are, roughly, 9,900. Of those edits, the article namespace is the third most edited namespace behind the user and user talk namespaces. Non-essential areas of Wikipedia where you have the most edits are: User:Writ Keeper/CSD log (1,300 edits), Wikipedia: Teahouse/Questions (325), Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge (100), Wikipedia talk:Teahouse (100), your own talk page (250) and User talk:Drmies (100). I think my point is these are your most frequented pages, and I think if you cut them out, a fourth of your edits no longer being there is significant, to me at least. I think if you expand your horizons beyond these few pages, you'd make a fine administrator. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Seeing as his CSD log is auto-generated by Twinkle and is mainly used for the benefit of the log-keeper to assess their own CSD tagging and improve based on it, I don't see anything wrong with continuing to update it. (No opinion on the other pages though.) Legoktm (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I agree, it's something more editors should do with deletions they tag, but I think when it takes up a significant portion of their contributions (along with the other pages combined), is when it makes me reluctant. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I don't know if it makes a difference, but the namespace breakdown doesn't include the 1900 deleted contribs, which, due to CSD work, are mostly edits in article namespace. I guesstimated a few weeks ago that about 27% of my contribs are in the article namespace when taking that into account. Regardless, though, it's a fair criticism, and the one thing that really gave me pause when I was thinking about running. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 09:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Absolutely, and it's nothing against anything you've done, since I think you've done a good job from what I've seen. By the end, I may switch to support based on more !votes. Keep up the good job. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   If contributing to Wikipedia:Teahouse—a project specifically to help retain newbies better!—isn't considered a huge positive for a candidate, I'm not sure what can be. Seriously. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I don't think that's what Moe is saying, he's making a comparison to the amount of edits to those pages compared to the amount in the mainspace, saying that the candidate needs to balance xe's efforts/edits. (Please correct me if I'm wrong Moe) Legoktm (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   You're right, you could become an administrator by making lots of main namespace contributions and not editing the Teahouse project, not the other way around. I'm not saying it was a negative that he edits there, it isn't, but I stayed neutral since there was such a large fraction of his contributions to these few pages. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Strongly agree with Tom Morris...if helping new editors out and retaining them so this project won't fall apart in a few years when all of our current editors get fed up with the system isn't a top priority and thus is considered "insignificant", I would like an example of something you think is significant. Go Phightins! 14:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I can't quantify or guesstimate, but I think WK spends very little time on my talk page discussing the weather or the Cowboys. Go through and you'll see that he has helped out more than one person who came by my talk page to ask me something--those helpful comments are one of the reasons I think he'll make a good admin, and I'm always happy to see his responses to others' questions. Back in the good old days, Bbb used to help out a lot, but since he started running his own store he's become something of a stranger... Drmies (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I actually have no doubt that Writ will make a fine admin, I just don't agree with many of the first answer I recieved. That is not saying they are wrong, just that I see admin in a different manner than I think even admin see themselves.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Go Phightins!: I am talking about significance in relation to being an administrator, not in relation to any other activity on Wikipedia. Is Teahouse significant? Sure, I suppose it could be. However, editors who spend all their time there are not contributing in a way that an administrator needs tools. Significant pages are administrator noticeboards, non-admin closures of XFD's or RFC's on talk pages (or at least participation in these discussions), and other pages where administrators would have to spend their time when they get the tools. The Teahouse doesn't need administrator tools, sorry. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you there...when new users have questions, they could be in relation to deleted articles they've created, abuse from other editors, reports of vandalism they don't know what to do with, etc. Not saying that the Teahouse should require admin tools, but having someone who operates there who does might be a helpful thing. Go Phightins! 23:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   There's no doubt there could be use for administrator tools (almost any area of Wikipedia could benefit from someone with administrator tools being there). My neutral vote is based on my confidence in him needing administrator tools, outside of anything else. While he may be valuable in the area of CSD, he has significantly less experience in other areas where administrators need the tools. When he's thrown out to the wolves as an administrator to do tasks like protections, blocks and closing heated disputes, his work at Teahouse isn't much of relevance there. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   Well, I respect your opinion and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Go Phightins! 23:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   That's fine. It's not like I'm trying to poison the well or persuade !voters otherwise, it's just my personal set of standards at RFA that they are active in these areas. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is the only place dealing in the business of knowledge where one could get away with the quantity > quality argument. There isn't any logic being used in your arguments besides saying that he needs to work in every area of the site to necessitate the tools. This wouldn't make sense anywhere else in life... and it makes even less sense here. Why is it so hard to simply look at a candidate's actions where they actually have participated, and from there be able to judge their character and decision-making? Seriously folks... it's called manageable risk. Life is too short for this "he hasn't shown in 15,000 different ways over the last 10 years if he can be trusted" crap. Different people can help this project in different ways... not everyone needs to help it in the same 20 ways to get to doing what they actually enjoy. In other words they don't have to fit into your perfectly sized box to be able to assist this site. If we continue to fail to understand this concept, Wikipedia will slowly and surely lose any and all chances at keeping motivated editors/admins in the long run, and the entropy will reach its maximum levels with ease. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Alright, I'm about sick of people putting words into my mouth. I never said he needed more edits for quantities sake, I said he needed more edits outside of the six pages I linked to, which ¼ of his edit count is attributed to. I also said that he does good work in CSD and in the particular areas that he likes to works in, but those areas don't necessarily need administrative tools. I was just coming back here to change from neutral to support because of the outpouring of support other editors have shown in him enough for me to trust him. However, I will not be bullied into it when I !vote neutral of all things because he doesn't meet my typical standards. Furthermore, this discussion should have ended when Writ Keeper himself acknowledged this was something he thought might be brought up and it was something he was working on to improve, which I would have been satisfactorily changing my !vote right now. So at this time, I'll kindly ask you all to shut up and stop badgering me, because I'm not changing to support now. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, because that's definitely the most mature way to handle communicating with others. I don't care how you !vote, I'm simply tired of hearing these unreasonable and logically unreasoned arguments constantly being brought up at RFA. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Being active in dispute resolution, blocks and protections where the candidate may or may not have trouble (considering a lack of activity at relevant noticeboards) is not something logically unreasoned nor unreasonable. You can quit hounding those who are neutral and borderline supporting the candidate, if you want. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   You can gaslight and label my opinions however you see fit. But it does not change the basis of my argument. Which is that it's not necessary for an administrator to be familiar with each and every part of the site to be effective. Instead, one must only show the competence necessary to use the tools, and show the ability to comprehend and enforce whole community level policy. It's not so difficult that it requires you to be 100% knowledgeable on every aspect nor to have shown experience with every aspect. It only requires the capability of intelligence, comprehension and reasoning. - Your requirement to have an editor show that they are tested in each specific area is simply not possible (or reasonable) and therefore is illogically based. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   The basis of your argument is illogical, considering I never said he was required to be effective in every part of the site. Provide the diff of this, and if you can't, go back to my previous suggestion. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Guys, enough. I appreciate the efforts and best intentions on both sides, but I don't think we're going anywhere with this. Moe has a right to his opinion, and though I disagree with it, he has a right to !vote as he wishes based on it. We don't need to make a big production out of it, or at least, a bigger production than there already is. I probably should've stepped in sooner, but I wasn't even aware there still was conversation going on here; I've been trying to avoid participation in these threads after the last big one ended poorly. In my experience, once we get into who said what exactly and who is or isn't being logical, it's only downhill from there, so I think we should just leave this be. We have drama to spare right now, don't need even more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral (moved to support) – You seem like a good editor, but I can't support someone who has only been registered for a year. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   Pure curiosity, what time length do you think would be sufficient? Legoktm (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   For me, I'm maybe thinking of 3-5 years with a consistent edit count. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 05:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   I find that to be a bit unreasonable. I wrote a quick script with the API and found out that: Out of 1133 current admins (325 had errors due to re-naming, the old log, etc.) at the time of promotion, only 239 had been around for 3 years, and 68 for 5 years (updated below). While the standards for adminship have definitely gone up over time, I don't think they've gone up that much. Legoktm (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   That (the no. of admins that have been around for 3 years and 5 years) accounts for 37.99% of the population, not including the errors. And you didn't mention the admin that have been around for 4 years. I'd like to know also for the other years (0-2, 5+). TruPepitoMTalk To Me 10:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   Well, I tend to agree with Legoktm that your standard seems a bit excessive; I know this isn't statistically significant, but when I passed my RfA, I had been editing Wikipedia for less than a year and a half — and, by the way, less than a year later I was also made a functionary... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   I would like to see about 2.5–3 years of editing, though I would consider supporting someone who has a very consistent edit count over 18–24 months. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   Here's some more complete data: Out of 1133 current admins (-325 errors), 286 were +sysop in <1 year, 364 were <2, 111 were <3, 60 were <4, and 68 were 4+. An important disclaimer is that I took into account the time the admin was last +sysop'd, which means if they were removed for inactivity and then given the right back, it would count the time they got it back as when they were +sysop'd. If anyone else wants this data sorted in a different way I can do so. (probably). Legoktm (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

   3-5 years of high edit counts is an absurd standard in my eyes. Thank you for debunking it with real data. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   That may be so, but a 2.5–3 year standard is in no way "absurd". TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

2. On the one hand, it's absolutely absurd to see opposes for spending too much time helping new editors - probably the worst reason I've seen since my AfD was opposed because I walked away from a conflict rather than escalated it. On the other hand this CSD tagging was bad - tagging something as a hoax that was almost certainly true, this CSD tagging was bad - tagging as promotional a page that didn't promote anything (although it had a bit of a how-to to it), and every arguement they've ever made at AfD is delete, or some version thereof. I am concerned that this user would be way too fast to pull the trigger and delete articles that should be deleted (ironically enough, driving away new users and undoing all the good work at the teahouse.) WilyD 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   I can't give an opinion on your first link (goes to a search box), but I would have deleted the second as promotional. Promo isn't always "Get our special offer now!!! Buy two, pay for three!!!!!!" stuff. "Many brands are taking advantage of this social networking tool because it gives them the opportunity to visualize their product and to promote it to a fast-growing base of users." and "is a very good tool for companies to launch photo contests that encompasses their brand’s message and vision" are promotional, That's just two bits out of the deleted article. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   With regard to the second link, I would like to quote from the author's message to the deleting admin requesting a copy of the article "I understand you had a valid reason for doing so, but it was part of an assignment for a course". The copy was sent, and the author seems to have been happy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimfbleak&diff=next&oldid=513853994 Peridon (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   PS I think you've missed a 'not' in your post. I could be wrong. Peridon (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   Indeed, it was deleted as promotional, but the deletion was improper; I don't think the article was likely to be worth saving, but it's part of a concerning pattern of overzealousness that makes me reluctant to support the candidate (though I think not sufficiently problematic to oppose, either). WilyD 12:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral I asked myself "Would I have a problem if you got the bit now", and I think the answer is no. I think you are a reasonable person who will listen to feedback if you make mistakes. That said, I don't think I can support you right now because I think you blew it on some of the username questions. Downwithwebclient101 could be a classroom account that needs guidance on setting up proper acedemic accounts. Or it could just be a regular user with a strange name. The fact that we have a user named webclient101 doesn't necessarily mean that the new account is related. Now if user:webclient101 came to me and said, "I'm pretty sure this is about me", then by all means, block it. The User:WikiReviewBot account is more of a "softblock on sight" type of thing, with a note that we don't allow accounts with bot in the name and an invitation to create a new account. We don't need to look for bot-like editing patterns, the name that implies bot is a violation in itself. You seem to be able to read policy and generally get what the idea behind it was, but I'd prefer to see a little more experience in the real-world application of it before throwing full support. I think if you do get the bit now you will operate in a cautious enough fashion to not cause serious problems, so that is why I will not oppose. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
4. At present the opposes range from weak to ridiculous, but I'm wary of the low articlespace count (given that it's over a relatively short period of time) and especially the ratio of edits to the encyclopedia and its direct infrastructure compared to edits to the social stuff (WK has nearly half as many edits to user talk as I have, for instance, and three times as many edits to user talk as to articles). "I will avoid ANI" is also a bit of a shame: we need more clueful admins at ANI, which is supposed to be a quick way of getting admin action and not a clubhouse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   I think AN is where you can get a quick admin action, whereas ANI is...ANI. Legoktm (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

   That's not the intention, and we need more admins who believe that. We need less admins (or indeed non-admins) who think ANI is a dramedy and treat it accordingly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

5. Neutral I'm a bit concerned about the low activity in article creation that others have mentioned. Not enough to outright oppose, but it's still a concern.Intothatdarkness 19:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
6. The opposes above are fairly weak in isolation, but many share a common theme. Candidates do not have to abide by anything said in the nomination statements or answers to questions.

   I'm reasonably confident that Writ Keeper would gain non-admin experience of new areas before helping out with the tools. However, under the current RfA system there is virtually nothing that can be done if I'm wrong (in this case in relation to using the block button for content-related problems). I normally oppose candidates on this basis, but am neutral in this instance because of how well suited Writ Keeper is for the tasks listed in question one, and because of the Writ Keeper's clear statement that "I have no desire to go near ANI".

   Give candidates the option to say what they have no desire to ever do, and to be held to such statements, and non-supports on these grounds would largely disappear. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

While this may be true, even I, as the second opposer, would not support such a proposal. Nominators may eventually become comfortable in areas they may not be when intitially made an admin. We have to leave room for growth. I may not support Writ (even now) but he/she has to be given room to grow or change as they naturally would. W can't force them in a direction we, as editors, may want.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from my personal experience, when I became an admin I figured I'd mostly delete stuff and patrol UAA, maybe moonlight over at AIV and RfPP every so often. About a month in, I started getting into handling AE threads, and eventually I got to dealing with really contentious RfCs. A lot of admins end up doing what they thought they would, but everyone tries different things upon becoming an admin and some end up going completely different directions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:08, 26 October 2012 (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.